Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules

statnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 207 posts

Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules

#91

Post by seanhunter »

sneak wrote: post #36
gillytech wrote: post #9

Junk food manufacturers depend on the addictive nature of the sugar and fat they cram into their products. I don't see how this is any different than cigarette warning labels.

It's still compelled speech. It's possible that you think commercial communications are a special case, but I and many others do not, and find it just as reprehensible as any other form of compelled speech. What other sorts of solutions are possible other than forcing people to put things on their packaging that they don't want there?

How does the first amendment of the US constitution apply to Mexio's ability to regulate commerce in its own country?

Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules

#92

Post by tzs »

mymac wrote: post #46
sneak wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still compelled speech. It's possible that you think commercial communications are a special case, but I and many others do not, and find it just as reprehensible as any other form of compelled speech. What other sorts of solutions are possible other than forcing people to put things on their packaging that they don't want there?

(1) it's not speech. (2) it's not political. (3) it is essential information for consumers that manufacturers have routinely lied about in the past. (4) it is already a compromise between what manufacturers would like and what 'the people' (you know, those pesky voters and their representatives) actually need. And finally (5) corporations already have outsized power, to carry their water to the point that you believe…

> (1) it's not speech

A ton of court decisions say it is in the US. Here is an article that cites a plethora of them [1]. Note: I have no idea who gfi.org is or whose agenda they are pushing or what side they are on. They just happened to have an article with a nice list of relevant cases.

[1] https://gfi.org/resource/the-first-amendment-right-to-use-cl...

Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules

#93

Post by pyrale »

yieldcrv wrote: post #2

or just copy tobacco companies and not care they have medical patients on their boxes down there, the trade is a big as ever

> the trade is a big as ever

In terms of % of population smoking, the trade has been shrinking significantly: https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/31/2/129

Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules

#94

Post by tzs »

seanhunter wrote: post #91
sneak wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still compelled speech. It's possible that you think commercial communications are a special case, but I and many others do not, and find it just as reprehensible as any other form of compelled speech. What other sorts of solutions are possible other than forcing people to put things on their packaging that they don't want there?

How does the first amendment of the US constitution apply to Mexio's ability to regulate commerce in its own country?

A significant amount of the article is about efforts to bring similar regulations to the US, and the likely challenges that will face, including a specific mention of the US approach to speech.

Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules

#95

Post by kllvql »

refurb wrote: post #76
shoo wrote: post #51

Go Mexico! Unregulated markets often don't produce great outcomes for society. Regulate them for the public good. I live in Australia, this reminds me of our tobacco plain packaging legislation [1]. A post implementation review was conducted a few years afterward [2]. Some interesting bits from the PIR conclusion: > Applying the government’s RBM framework, the regulatory burden was estimated as $73.87 million across…

Isn’t tobacco use trending down anyways? How could you possibly tease out the drop in tobacco use from one change to packaging? This reminds me of the analysis I’ve seen for marketing campaigns.

One way people try to tease out those differences is through methods like "Difference in Differences"[1] which try to estimate causal relationships from observational data. These methods are used in marketing analysis as well.

In my experience, it is easy to break one of the many assumptions inherent in methods like Diff-in-diff. Because of this I have little trust in these techniques in general.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_in_differences

Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules

#96

Post by em-bee »

XorNot wrote: post #49
Dylan16807 wrote: post #40

> They included a provision in the policy that required companies to also warn when products contained artificial sweeteners. Well there goes half the incentive to remove the excess sugar.

I'm unconvinced. Artificial sweeteners still have the problem that you prime yourself to expect sugar-flavors in everything.

i read somewhere that artificial sweeteners cause the body to make you eat more because sweet taste signals sugar incoming and then there is no sugar so the body craves more to make up for that. not sure if thats true.

my main concern is that many artificial sweeteners are suspected to cause cancer

Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules

#97

Post by rmm »

refurb wrote: post #76
shoo wrote: post #51

Go Mexico! Unregulated markets often don't produce great outcomes for society. Regulate them for the public good. I live in Australia, this reminds me of our tobacco plain packaging legislation [1]. A post implementation review was conducted a few years afterward [2]. Some interesting bits from the PIR conclusion: > Applying the government’s RBM framework, the regulatory burden was estimated as $73.87 million across…

Isn’t tobacco use trending down anyways? How could you possibly tease out the drop in tobacco use from one change to packaging? This reminds me of the analysis I’ve seen for marketing campaigns.

This. Smoking was going downhill anyway

Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules

#98

Post by ivanhoe »

jasonkester wrote: post #88

The company replaced sugar with the sweetener allulose. This is so infuriating. Either put less sugar in, or let people eat less of it. Replacing sugar with some random chemical just ruins your thing. Heinz Beans did this in England. They have a "Reduced Sugar" version right next to the normal ones on the shelf. "No Artificial Sweetener" written in the same big font on the label. Cool. Those beans sure are crazy swee…

> I don't want your synthetic poison in my kids food.

Allulose is not a poison by any measure, but if you're so paranoid about what your children eat why feeding them with instant foods like FruitLoops in a first place? Breakfast cereals are highly processed food, even without any added sugar - parent as concerned about the food quality as you certainly can come up with a healthier breakfasts for their kids?

Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules

#99

Post by Tade0 »

berkes wrote: post #67
erfgh wrote: post #53

I don't believe such measures have a significant impact on obesity because they don't target the main causes of obesity which are the easy availability of food and the reliance on private cars for transportation. Furthermore, they push the misleading idea that you can still drive to the supermarket, buy processed foods, load them in your car, drive home, eat them in front of the TV and be fine, as long as you don't b…

I fully agree. But I'm often flabbergasted at how unfathomable large something like "throw out the TV altogether" or "start walking/cycling to places" is for many. I guess it's part herd behaviour and part natural resistance to change, but what has made "us", the human species so entrenched, that we think we need cars, TVs, premade meals? Humans "never¹" had them, yet now, within one or two generations somehow believ…

I have an answer to that: because it's more comfortable that way and people naturally seek comfort.

Whenever I stop at a fueling station I see the same picture: a young, somewhat overweight man wearing tracksuit pants picking up junk food. He chose comfort. Can you honestly blame him for that?

Of course as a species we thrive in discomfort, but the benefits come with a delay - there's usually no incentive to start.

Re: Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules

#100

Post by throwawaylinux »

refurb wrote: post #76
shoo wrote: post #51

Go Mexico! Unregulated markets often don't produce great outcomes for society. Regulate them for the public good. I live in Australia, this reminds me of our tobacco plain packaging legislation [1]. A post implementation review was conducted a few years afterward [2]. Some interesting bits from the PIR conclusion: > Applying the government’s RBM framework, the regulatory burden was estimated as $73.87 million across…

Isn’t tobacco use trending down anyways? How could you possibly tease out the drop in tobacco use from one change to packaging? This reminds me of the analysis I’ve seen for marketing campaigns.

> Isn’t tobacco use trending down anyways? How could you possibly tease out the drop in tobacco use from one change to packaging?

Anything in the real world has many many factors affecting its consumption. What would it matter if it was trending down specifically? Or are you asking what models and statistical tools they use to make analyses like this when there are a complex set of factors at play?

Post reply on HN