Mars advises limit on products

Options
2»

Replies

  • EddieP50
    EddieP50 Posts: 192 Member
    Options
    Here in the U.S. a lot of manufacturers are placing nutrition data on the front of the package like the images below. They don't give any kind of overall rating so it is up to the consumer to make the decision.

    v3numiaiy70m.jpg
    u3mqpl46kmc1.jpg
  • Madwife2009
    Madwife2009 Posts: 1,369 Member
    Options
    What annoys me so much about the nutritional labels on food is that they are based around an "average" adult's requirements. I have yet to see labels referring to children's nutritional requirements, even on food aimed at children, eg, "children's" cereals. So portion control for children goes right out out of the window as the average parents cannot be bothered to work out how much a portion size is for their kids.

    Prime example: Kelloggs "Coco Pops". Aimed at children. Nutritional info states that a 30g serving is 117 cals, or 6% of "your daily energy allowance". So, the manufacturer takes 1950 cals as the total daily energy allowance. Far too high for a toddler, who (according to several sources) should have about 1000 cal/day. And how many parents actually measure out cereal anyway? No wonder the UK has overweight children. Parents should be better educated about child nutrition - anything beyond the "5 a day message" is not widely known. I used to work as a health visitor (visiting families with children under the age of 5) and the eating habits of some families are crazy (coke in bottles for example) but they really don't know (or don't want to know) any better. Parent education is seriously lacking.

    Ok, am getting off my soapbox now. As you were, please feel free to continue the conversation before I interrupted :)
  • abadvat
    abadvat Posts: 1,241 Member
    Options
    elphie754 wrote: »
    Francl27 wrote: »
    They're probably afraid of lawsuits or something... lol. I'm just shaking my head.

    I'm not even sure how someone could even fathom suing for this. What would the person say? "Well your honor, the packaging never said I shouldn't eat X amount of candy bars everyday for years, so it's their fault I'm obese". That would be just as dumb as "well your honor, the directions never said I shouldn't make toast in the bathtubs so it's their fault I got electrocuted".

    Some things just really shouldn't have to stated, but sadly common sense is so rare nowadays that it may as well be considered a superpower.

    Well - what does the smoker tells the judge in a multi million $$ law suite because he got cancer after smocking 2 packs a day? What did the granny told the judge when she microwaved her pet in an effort to dry it after the monthly bath? What about the woman that burned her punani with a warm cup of McD coffee because it was not mentioned that it contains hot liquids and she put the cup between her legs whist driving?

    Can make millions out of dumb things in america
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,867 Member
    Options
    Getting ahead of the curve...
  • rldeclercq4
    rldeclercq4 Posts: 269 Member
    Options
    [/quote]
    @elphie754 - McDonald's got sued over hot coffee. And I'm sure there are other silly things I'm not aware of.[/quote]

    McDonald's deserved to get sued over there hot coffee too. The victim in that case suffered 3rd degree burns because around her... Lady parts... And spent a week in the hospital getting skin grafts because they served their coffee 50 degrees hotter than they should have been. Their coffee was served so hot it could cause third degree burns. Further, they'd already had hundreds of claims of severe burns from spilled coffee that they'd settled. They were negligent and I would have awarded the lady the damages too if I were on that jury. I know that case sounds ridiculous but the actual facts are pretty interesting and in my opinion, and the courts, McDonalds was guilty and should have been punished.
  • OyGeeBiv
    OyGeeBiv Posts: 733 Member
    Options
    It's lawsuits that have resulted in "Warning, Contains Nuts" on a jar of nuts.

    Which lead to my very favorite food packaging of all time. "Contains NO NUTS" on a can of Chock-Full-of-Nuts coffee. B);)
  • rankinsect
    rankinsect Posts: 2,238 Member
    Options
    Healthy4me4ever wrote: »
    I understand what they are trying to achieve but I think you'll get people who think they can have product a once a week, product b once a week, product c once a week etc.

    I once dated someone who took painkillers like that, as she wouldn't go in and get actual migraine medication.

    Scary thing was she was a chemistry major and quite intelligent. She of anyone should have known that taking the maximum daily dosages of four or five different brand names of the same drug wasn't a good idea.
  • MommyL2015
    MommyL2015 Posts: 1,411 Member
    Options
    rldeclercq4 wrote: »
    @elphie754 - McDonald's got sued over hot coffee. And I'm sure there are other silly things I'm not aware of.[/quote]

    McDonald's deserved to get sued over there hot coffee too.
    [/quote]

    Yeah, I wanted to clarify that, as well. The hot coffee suit was not frivolous. That poor woman suffered horribly.
  • ktekc
    ktekc Posts: 879 Member
    Options
    MommyL2015 wrote: »
    rldeclercq4 wrote: »
    @elphie754 - McDonald's got sued over hot coffee. And I'm sure there are other silly things I'm not aware of.

    McDonald's deserved to get sued over there hot coffee too.
    [/quote]

    Yeah, I wanted to clarify that, as well. The hot coffee suit was not frivolous. That poor woman suffered horribly.[/quote]

    Also she wasn't driving. They were parked and she was in the passenger seat.
  • Serah87
    Serah87 Posts: 5,481 Member
    Options
    elphie754 wrote: »
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    Not sure I've ever heard of a company doing this.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36051333

    The company behind Dolmio and Uncle Ben's sauces says some products should only be consumed once a week due to high salt, sugar or fat content.

    Mars Food said it would distinguish between "everyday" and "occasional" items on packs and website.

    The company said some foods were higher in salt, sugar or fat to maintain the "authentic" taste of products.

    The National Obesity Forum described the move as "hugely unusual" but "very imaginative".

    In other words, they think their customer base is too ill informed or dumb to be able to read a nutrition label to decide how much of their product to eat.

    Yep, that's why they have to put warning labels on most every thing.

Categories