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
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?
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: …translate.goog/…/ley-de-etiquetado-evaluando-sus…
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.
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.
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.
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.
“% 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 …
Keep in mind that modern fruits have almost nothing to do with natural fruit, they have been selected for a higher sugar content and other things. Fruits themselves aren’t healthy, they are more like candy, just not quite as bad.
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.
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.
Sorry, but aren’t potatoes even worse than white bread and sugar regarding the glycemic index? According to google they have scores between 80 and 90 on average while sugar (sucrose) has a score of 68.
I guess starch is really bad. I wasn’t aware it has such a high impact.
Don’t get me wrong they are not terrible in a balanced diet, but I don’t believe they have any real benefits either. Besides they are tasty which is honestly a good reason to like foods.
Exactly right. The four foods that endocrinologists tells diabetics not to eat commonly or much of are potatoes, corn, sweet potatoes, and beets. That’s on top of all the obvious items, like sugary confections, cakes, pies, etc.
I think the difference is the kind of potatoes, because they were recommended to a friend by her doctor to treat her prediabetes, but now I’ve just googled them and found what you found. Boiled waxy potatoes with the skin on are the most common home preparation here in Germany, which brings the glycemic index down to 59, according to tufts
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.
There is still a profit incentive to have something on the market, the disincentive is only if the value difference between the small market and bigger market is greater than the value of having something on the market vs nothing. And with the smaller market items they tend to be higher profit because they may be the only option available for that small market.
Plus there is uncertainty on whether the bigger market drug will make it through trials.
This is a potential distortion that will happen sometimes, or heck there’s a distortion where maybe negotiated prices might make the returns for some drugs not good enough to attempt.
But the alternative is higher prices on all the negotiated drugs, with impacts like people dying of diseases we have treatments for because they can’t afford it, and medical bankruptcies. We have elected leaders to decide between trade offs like these, and I think they decided rightly in favor of lower costs for everyone with the potential impact of some new small market drugs being delayed.
Conservatism is the reason pharma companies are able to legally exploit suffering and death. If you have a loved one who could have had a better outcome, thank a conservative.
Conservatism is a plague of misery and death. It always has been.
Yeah, I think I’ll pass and just try to avoid ticks in the first place. One day I was following a trail through some tall grass, and by the time I got home, I found I had 3 ticks latched into my skin in various places.
After I got them all off, I was sick as a dog and running a gnarly fever for the next week. 🤒
They’re disgusting creatures. Takes a lot for me to hate anything more than mosquitos but at least they have the decency to fuck off once they get you.
statnews.com
Hot