This law is way way way overdue. American Corporations are killing Mexico's youth with junk food. I know kids who exclusively drink soda. Healthy, beautiful kids who deserve to go out and play and live their best lives.
I know it's in vogue to blame everything on America, but Mexico has a thriving domestic junk food industry too. And frankly, many of their snacks are much better than anything America makes (Takis in particular, I think I'm addicted to them...)
Anyway I support this law. Banning junk food/drinks for kids is long overdue. It's little different from banning the sale of cigarettes to kids.
Yes, Bimbo is a fully Mexican company and makes products like gansitos, negritos (now just "nitos"), barritas, Duvalin etc. that Mexicans love. That's not even getting into other sweets that Mexicans love like pan dulce, paletas, bolis and so on.
Frankly to blame America is to take agency away from Mexican people and reeks of paternalism and ethnocentricity.
I don't think most people blame USA, it's just "progress". Yesterday at the supermarket I noticed the disproportionate ratio between healthy food (and I count there red meat) and junk food (snacks, sweets,...)
Low- or zero-prep junk food is also incredibly cheap. When I see comparisons done it's usually ingredient costs of healthy food to full-price junk food costs, but that's not how poor people shop for junk food. They go to Taco Bell when the tacos are like 60¢ each or less, through promotions or coupons. They buy Totino's frozen pizzas eight at a time, on sale at half-off. They buy giant bags of store brand sugary cereal and pairs of 3L bottles of store-brand soda, again, on sale. Costco pizzas (they are so cheap on a calories-per-dollar basis, for zero-prep hot food) and bakery items for the enterprising slightly-less-poor who can scrape together the annual fee. Whichever chips or snack crackers are on sale. Off-brand pop tarts—holy crap those are calorie bombs and very cheap and you wouldn't believe how many kids have a couple of those for breakfast most every day. And so on.
Even relatively-healthy-but-not-really-healthy frozen meals can't compete with the outright crap. It's so very cheap.
I think it's pretty easy to tie that "progress" back to American interference in local economies - I can't really speak to how much that is attributed, but blaming America certainly isn't a stretch.
Fuego con limon , spicy chips with a hint of lemon are by far my favorite chip I discovered in Mexico. It took me a few months to find them when I came back state side. I wasn't able to find the standard chip, only oven baked when I got back to the USA. Although I'm sure the oven baked are healthier, it definitely came at the expense of flavor and enjoyment
You can't blame this on Americans. Walk into any tiendita in rural Mexico and you will find isles of candy and sugary beverages, much of which Americans wouldn't recognize. Mexico loves sweets.
I'm glad they're recognizing that dietary health is a serious issue and trying to make changes. But I wonder what effect this will have on paleterias? They're one of the many things I miss from Mexico.
We certainly can. There's a huge amount of influence america has on global eating habits. Coca-Cola, Frito-Lay, and McDonald's are some of the major corporate villains, in case you forgot, and they deserve their reputations.
Mexico has Jarritos, Sabritos, Barcel, and lots of other local brands that are much more prevalent than their American counterparts. If Coca-Cola, Frito-Lay, and McDonalds all vanished suddenly, it would not significantly change the diet of most Mexicanos. You might be able to formulate a coherent hippie rant about "corporate food" but it isn't a specifically American phenomenon.
"Open up the market"?? Maybe you're thinking of Cortez?
You obviously aren't that familiar with the subject since Jarritos is the only soft drink in that list (the others are snack brands). I feel there's an undercurrent of paternalistic racism in this thread - "those noble naive Mexicans would be so healthy if they only hadn't been enslaved to imperialist American fast food corporations!"
Mexico is a whole country full of educated, modern, free-thinking individuals with their own strong, vibrant culture. They're incredibly proud of it. They have their own tastes and their own products serving those tastes and yes, they struggle with dietary health just like everyone else in the world. Walk up to a native Mexican sometime and tell them that they only like pan dulce because Americans have brainwashed them, see how well that goes over.
I'm not totally sure - if you go out to rural, poorer Mexico, away from the corporate chains and packaged snackfoods, the traditional Mexican diet isn't especially healthy. Lots of lard, simple carbs, etc.
Aspartame is pretty terrible for you, so sugar-free alternatives that use artificial sweeteners (instead of just naturally savory flavorful options) aren't great either.
When I was a kid my parents only let me watch PBS. No saturday morning cartoons -> no sugary cereal commercials -> no desire/nagging for sugary cereal.
Install adblockers on any computer your kids use. Cancel your cable television subscription. Deny these corporations the opportunity to pump their propaganda into your kids.
I still remember the hate I felt when I watched my sister turn from a really calm child to a screaming brat because of Hannah Montana. I don't watch the TV, now around 12 years.
Parenting issue or not we protect children with laws all the time. Think no further than alcohol and tobacco products whose sale to minors is banned. Sure we could say "where are the parents" but that's not how reality works and good solutions are the one that work in reality not on paper.
Without legal push to make everyone work in unison there will always be an entity (a corporation) willing to invest enough to push the right buttons and coax people into the most unhealthy habits. After all the profits will belong to that company while the expense is paid by society. The overwhelming majority of individuals are completely unqualified to see through the onslaught of marketing (especially the covert kind), the social pressure, or even to understand the risks they're taking.
You're ignoring the point. The issue is one of culture (and parenting when it comes to children), in Mexico and in all other countries.
Corporations are an easy scapegoat that also fits a political ideology on the left.
It's also a complete fallacy to claim that people cannot see through things. People are not stupid they know that it is their diet that makes them fat. People deserve at least this credit and respect.
Alcohol and cigarettes sales to children are obviously completely different and a very poor analogy.
So... Following the logic, either we accept that people are free to make their own decisions, that parents are responsible for their children, or we take children away from parents because the state knows best.
Personally I think we should do the maximum we can to teach good diets at schools, and perhaps provide classes for adults, and to label products then people can do whatever they want but live with the consequences.
But I think the likely outcome (as we start to see in some countries), which must be politically acceptable and cheap, will be similar to the path taken for cigarettes: PR campaigns and tax. This is a way to let people do what they want while nudging them, and to let them pay for the consequences (healthcare where it is financed through tax).
When it comes to children parents won't be blamed (although they should be) because this is not good to win votes. It will be easier to continue blaming ads and corporations, and to ban things.
> Corporations are an easy scapegoat that also fits a political ideology on the left.
Calling things 'left', 'ideology', 'fallacy' and randomly saying things are 'completely different' aren't great arguments if you keep it at statements instead of an argument.
Marketing is _very_ effective. Further, people are paid for to ensure it is effective. Having rules to restrict that behaviour does go against some peoples idea of what a government should do. IMO that's exactly what the government should do, protect the people (among other things!).
> When it comes to children parents won't be blamed (although they should be) because this is not good to win votes.
You're making this a parent thing, and an either/or thing. It's much easier to do multiple things at the same time. Ensure parents are educated, ensure children cannot be marketed.
When they lobby (pay) to get more influence than you have as a voter then I'd say they they are nnot just "scapegoats" but actually guilty together with the politicians they bri... I mean lobbied with. And corporations get to profit from this while the society as a whole pays the price for the fallout.
> political ideology on the left
Why do some people always need to turn everything into a political ideology thing? Contrary to your belief it adds nothing to your argument, if anything it subtracts most of the little weight it had to begin with. Off the bat after a single line your comment holds about as much weight as a wet paper bag.
> are obviously completely different and a very poor analogy.
Is it? It's the state banning something considered unhealthy in one way or another. Why is drinking 100% sugary drinks totally acceptable but a glass of wine or beer, or a piece of pornographic material are illegal?
> So... Following the logic
Then by all means, follow the logic don't just replace it with your skewed one and pretend that it was somehow a natural progression of what I said.
> then people can do whatever they want but live with the consequences.
So... Following your logic governments shouldn't be allowed to ban anything. But people can still do anything they want. They will just have to live with the consequences exactly as you said. In this case the consequence is that if you sell this stuff to kids you get a fine.
Ban them, tax them, disincentivize people to buy them, claw back from the corporations the costs of having a society hooked on, disabled, or slowly killed by those very products. It just has to be a clear sign that the state and the society at large shouldn't bear the costs of supporting a person who has severely undermined their health from the age their brain and body are still developing. And it's also society protecting itself by protecting kids from parents' mistakes.
Anyway I support this law. Banning junk food/drinks for kids is long overdue. It's little different from banning the sale of cigarettes to kids.