Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules. A similar fight is coming to the U.S.
Kellogg’s is going to war over Mexico’s nutrition label rules. A similar fight is coming to the U.S.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'd be a god today if all those thousands of bowls of cereal I pounded down in my youth were actually healthy.
Don't forget to finish your Orange Juice!
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?
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.
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.
We need pics. We've never seen that in North America
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.
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.
But their products are known for being high fiber content, so unfortunately, they'll push their shit right back out. 😆
Selling sugared cardboard is a pretty profitable market apparently
Dear god, more than a third of Froot Loops and Frosted Flakes is sugar?!
And that's not the worst I have seen. Things like raisins are basically flavoured sugar.
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.
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
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.
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.
they suffered in the Chilean market when the labels were introduced about 5 years ago... so it's no surprise they are going to war. in stead of ... you know, making healthier food
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.
Awareness is the first step. It will take time for people to incentivize production of clean food
I love the idea, but unfortunately branding isn't a solution to perverted market forces.
Buy food that isnt processed.
Meat, fish, vegetables.
Aboid sugar and seed oils.
Fuck everything else. Live a healthy life.
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.
I was about to ask... Do people actually not know these things are unhealthy?
Wait, wait - does that mean we're going to lose the Coca-Cola polar bear?!
[Actually, they'll probably just release the Christmas version in a collectable polar-bear-shaped bottle to get around this... ]
Coca Cola has "just" 9% of added sugar and therefor probably counts as "healthy food" in the US.
So in those places "unhealthy" starts at a whooping 37% added sugar? By these standards, Coca Cola with a mere 9% added sugar probably counts as a healthy drink...
No, it does not start at 37%. That's just the amount in fruit loops. The article even includes Coca-Cola.
Theres more sugar in orange juice, than cola. (Not much more)
Hint: fruit juice is liquid sugar too.
Orange juice was created to increase sales and use up unsellable oranges.
While true, the difference is natural sugar from the fruit vs refined sugar poured into a syrup and then mixed with carbonated water.