Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules. A similar fight is coming to the U.S. - eviltoast
Kellogg’s is desperate to save Tony the Tiger and Toucan Sam from Mexico’s healthy food rules — rules the U.S. may soon copy.

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.

  • MicroWave@lemmy.worldOP
    381·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • cerement@slrpnk.netEnglish
        14·
        1 year ago

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

        • Swiggles@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          111·
          1 year ago

          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.netEnglish
            12·
            1 year ago

            “% 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.zoneEnglish
              7·
              1 year ago

              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.

                • Swiggles@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
                  4·
                  1 year ago

                  Maybe, kinda. You have to eat them in moderation like anything. They at least provide other useful nutrients.

                  In my opinion fruits are slightly more beneficial than bread, pasta or potatoes which do not contain as much sugar, but more of other carbs which are in my opinion not much better.

                  So I see your point, but I don’t think they are as bad.

                  • idiomaddict@feddit.deEnglish
                    41·
                    1 year ago

                    Potatoes are very low glycemic index* and have potassium, fiber, B6, and an alright amount of protein. I will fight for potatoes.

                    Edit: preparation matters, just mashed potatoes are super high glycemic index, but boiled waxy potatoes with the skins on alongside a protein is at the top edge of low or medium glycemic index. I will still fight for potatoes, but they probably need to be a side dish if you are looking out for your blood sugar.

    • Treczoks@kbin.social
      9·
      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.