this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023
466 points (98.9% liked)

News

23259 readers
3396 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Kellogg’s is waging a war here over Tigre Toño and Sam el Tucán.

A 2019 policy requires companies that make unhealthy foods to include warning labels on the front of any boxes they sell in Mexico to educate consumers about things like excess sugar and fat. Any food with a warning label — like Kellogg’s Fruit Loops or its Frosted Flakes, which typically contain more than 37 grams of added sugar in a 100-gram serving — is also banned from including a mascot on its packaging.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.one 127 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Kelloggs has been on the wrong side of history from its conception when they tried to make people stop jerking it

[–] CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Thats why i jerk into the Kelloggs boxes in the store.

[–] lasagna@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago

Any flavour preferences?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] xkforce@lemmy.world 73 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Kellogg would be rotating in his grave. The dude was OBSESSED with the healthfulness of cereal (or at least his weird version of it) and his company namesake basically peddles candy in cereal form to children.

[–] stown@sedd.it 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Dude thought that meat and flavorful food caused sexual desire and lead to masturbation. He was an anti-masturbation crusader and invented his breakfast cereal to help decrease sexual desire.

[–] ElderWendigo@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago

I'm no fan of poisoning our youth and ourselves with sugar, but I do smile at such a puritanical legacy being so obscenely destroyed.

[–] fluxion@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd be a god today if all those thousands of bowls of cereal I pounded down in my youth were actually healthy.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Don't forget to finish your Orange Juice!

[–] Sanjuaro@lemmy.world 63 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Chile started using these some years back. I honestly like them. We also did the mascot ban as well, so no Tony the Tiger, and even Pringles cans have a censored face

[–] JoeClu@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The question I have, are sales of these products down? Do these implementations work to reduce unhealthy consumption? Are hospitals and medical offices seeing less revenue? If they don't actually work, what will?

[–] Sanjuaro@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

At least according to the studies, and reports from people I work with and friends, yes, they do seem to work. Here you can read a Google translated article talking about the effects since the law came into effect in Chile in 2016: https://www-ciperchile-cl.translate.goog/2021/05/24/ley-de-etiquetado-evaluando-sus-efectos-en-consumidores-y-empresas-de-alimentos/?_x_tr_sl=es&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

It's good to note that another consequence of this law, is that apart from the mascots being prohibited, it's also prohibited to play ads for unhealthy foods (not sure if they need to specifically target children, or not) aren't allowed until after a certain hour in the evening, like 9:00pm or something.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

We don't have that sort of data, at least not enough to determine a causal link. But the cereal manufacturers have tons of research on the best way to sell cereal. So consider the inverse. Would a cereal company need to place a cartoon mascot on the box to help sell unhealthy food to children? Would they fight so hard to keep them there if it wasn't effective?

Every medical scientist would agree that too much sugar is unhealthy. And looking at the nutritional info on the box, these foods have too much sugar. What good is a mascot in the face of cold, hard science? If it appeals to children, they will apply pressure to their parents who will purchase the food "as a treat." And as a treat, a little sugar isn't a big deal. But those kids could be equally excited about a pack of candy or some cookies, which are actual treats, not a part of your daily routine. Without Tony El Tigre, Frosted Flakes look like sugar coated khaki pocket lint. They might enjoy eating them, but they won't clamor for them in the grocery aisle.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MrFlamey@lemmy.world 52 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If nutrition labels bothers them so much, why not just make the cereal more nutritious and less full of shit? It's not hard to see that there is a solution that doesn't involve looking like a villain with an army of lawyers to fight a label.

[–] PickTheStick@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because changing your product, which specifically appeals to the target purchasers because of what you're changing, is going to make your product revenue take a nose dive? It should be obvious why they're fighting it with lawyers. Hopefully the laws are ironclad and upheld so Kellogg's gets their shit pushed in.

[–] CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

But their products are known for being high fiber content, so unfortunately, they'll push their shit right back out. 😆

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 51 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Dear god, more than a third of Froot Loops and Frosted Flakes is sugar?!

[–] lasagna@programming.dev 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And that's not the worst I have seen. Things like raisins are basically flavoured sugar.

[–] PerCarita@discuss.tchncs.de 20 points 1 year ago (9 children)

But they're dried grapes and mostly without added sugar. We shouldn't need to live in a world where raisins are sold "now with less sugar". Humans spent hundreds of years cultivating eating grapes to be as sweet as they are...

[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 30 points 1 year ago

Most raisin Bran cereal (including Kellogg's) coat the raisins in more sugar! https://www.seriouseats.com/cereal-eats-the-great-raisin-bran-off

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] baruchin@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This is one of the few things this mexican government has done right. I think this was copied from Chile, and should be copied in many countries including the U.S. F*ck those greedy obese factories.

[–] honey_im_meat_grinding@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

If I'm seeing this right and the Mexican labels are just either-or "excessive" labels then check out the way the UK does it – the green/orange/red colouring makes it easy to tell how horrible something is at a glance

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] MicroWave@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Now, U.S. regulators are considering a similar policy, because they say it will help consumers make healthier decisions. The details haven’t been ironed out yet — the Food and Drug Administration just announced it is studying the idea. The reforms seem likely to be more modest; the FDA already appears to have rejected the stark, stop-sign-like warnings on Mexican packages and hasn’t mentioned banning mascots. But advocates in both Mexico and the United States say that U.S. regulators should prepare for a years-long political fight.

[–] cybervseas@lemmy.world 48 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah because childhood obesity and diabetes is no biggie. Gotta make sure all that corn gets sold…

[–] cerement@slrpnk.net 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

considering they’re still not required to enter the “% daily value” for “total sugars” …

[–] Swiggles@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Isn't the daily amount like 0 you need? So Infinity % for any added amount?

This is actually an honest question, because you can easily cover your daily needs with other carbs and even those are technically not necessarily as it can be metabolized by fat in your body, but no point in bending the truth here. The body needs sugar one way or the other, but none of them are processed sugars and should probably come from rice, potatoes or bread instead.

[–] cerement@slrpnk.net 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

“% daily value” is supposedly something like “percent recommended daily value” and it’s a bizarre balance between minimum to avoid deficiencies and maximum to avoid overdose as determined by a board of corporate employees with no training in medicine, diet, or nutrition

so, while there’s no minimum for “total sugars”, most who are actually trained in diet and nutrition seem to agree you really shouldn’t be going over 25–30g total sugars …

FDA does provide a daily value for “added sugars” – 100% daily value is 50g (10-ish teaspoons) which sounds a little excessive to me …

[–] Swiggles@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

At least it sounds almost reasonable if the sugar comes from fruits. That's roughly the amount (25g sugar) you ingest when eating 2 apples.

Thank you for the interesting, but concerning answer.

[–] Treczoks@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

the Food and Drug Administration just announced it is studying the idea.

Translation: They are bombarded by the food industry to let this idea go, STAT! They probably don't have time for a (healthy) lunch because lobbyists are sitting on their laps from sunrise to sundown, dictating their version of the law.

[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I say ban all advertising targeting minors. Any products made for minors must not have intentionally appealing labels.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 20 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Any food with ... more than 37 grams of added sugar in a 100-gram serving is also banned from including a mascot on its packaging

Damn, that's really good. Sounds a little bit like the plain packaging laws many countries have on cigarettes, which have proven to be extremely effective in the decade since they were first rolled out. It's obviously a bit more limited, but it's still a great move.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Anonymoose@infosec.pub 20 points 1 year ago (12 children)

I saw this while in Mexico and really liked the idea. I was then immediately bummed out when realizing almost everything had that label on it and buying food without excess sugar and salt was a lot trickier.

[–] INeedMana@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Awareness is the first step. It will take time for people to incentivize production of clean food

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›