[titanomachy]

I don’t know that the lack of information should lead you to assume that the Mexico lawsuits are justified. From what I’ve read, they’re contesting (among other things) the mandated black octagon on the front of packaging that says “exceso calorías” or “exceso azucáres” (excessive calories and sugar) and also bans on advertising to children. The cases that have already been decided have overwhelmingly been in favor of the government.

I realize “just” is very subjective, but I think that mandatory “excessive sugar” markers is a proportional response to the obesity and diabetes epidemic. Ultimately society has to bear the externalities of this stuff. And I think advertising any products to kids is a bit of a moral hazard.

[MichaelDickens]

> I don’t know that the lack of information should lead you to assume that the Mexico lawsuits are justified.

Gricean implicature.[1] The article wants to make the food companies look like the bad guys. If the lawsuits were clearly unjustified, the article could've made the food companies look worse by explaining the details. Since it didn't explain them, that means the lawsuits were probably justified.

[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicature/

[arthurjj]

Thanks for explaining what the lawsuits were about. I'm not sure how I feel about the actual case or even how effective I think black octagons will be. Apparently they were first done in Chile and had little to no long term effect [1]

My assumption that the suits were just was because the article obviously wants you to come away with a very specific conclusion, for example there is a sibling comment that seems to think these cases are about US companies. When reading clearly biased but polished, sources my default is to assume any facts they prominently leave out they did so on purpose.

[1] https://archive.is/UPdWg#selection-1493.0-1498.0

[scythe]

>nother popular argument is that it’s difficult, if not impossible, to know how effective Chile’s reforms were because there was no good comparison group. There’s no comparable data from a neighboring country, such as Argentina, and it may be that Chile’s children would have gained weight faster if the reforms hadn’t passed.

>It’s a valid concern, but the data show that Chile’s obesity rates weren’t rising in the years before the reform.

This last sentence is a real 'wat' moment. Practically every country has rising obesity rates. So I went looking for some data and found that over the whole population, obesity rates in Chile were rising rapidly prior to 2016. And also after 2016. If there has been any effect it's pretty small.

https://statbase.org/data/chl-prevalence-of-obesity-among-ad...

If you add in Argentina you see a bigger effect from the Argentine economic crisis at the turn of the century than you do from anything else.

[Taronar]

I have nothing of substance to add, but that term moral hazard is not being used as intended. it's a term used to describe when you spend someone else's money it actually doesnt have to do with morals.

[59percentmore]

It's used correctly here. Advertising to children is a moral hazard because the money used to buy the advertised product comes from the parents, not the children (mostly). The point of advertising is to inform and influence a consumer, but in this case, you're manipulating someone who likely doesn't understand the costs involved, who in turn is meant to influence the actual consumer/purchaser, who are themselves cut out of the loop and potentially buying something they don't understand.

[dec0dedab0de]

That is only within the context of economics. Outside of that it is fine to use the common literal meaning. Professions don't get to dictate that their jargon is used by the rest of us, even if they coin the phrase.

[tptacek]

I don't think that's the case; "moral hazard" doesn't have a conventional colloquial meaning. If you use the term outside it's technical meaning you're just going to confuse people.

[arjie]

This particular phrase has long gone the way of “begs the question” as far as online conversations are concerned.

[etdznots]

It does the same way that “green house” has a conventional colloquial meaning, i.e. a house that’s green. If underwater basket weavers start calling their thimbles “green houses” i will continue to put those two words and quite frankly any words i want in any order that conveys meaning to others without concern for what niches might stamp their feet about it

[titanomachy]

Thanks, I’ll make sure to use the phrase correctly in the future.

[throwawayffffas]

If they didn't sue they wouldn't be doing their jobs. Coca Cola for example has had 39grams of sugar per 12ounces since the 50s. Now almost 80 years later it's suddenly excessive?

[kelvinjps10]

They used to be advertising for cigarettes, cocaine used to be sold as medicine for headaches, etc. things change and there are things that are not healthy for a society that the society itself decided

[throwway120385]

In the 50's you'd buy it in an 8-oz can. The sizes we're getting out of vending machines are pretty absurdly large for something that basically started out as a dessert you'd buy to top off your small sandwich and cup of water for lunch.

[throwawayffffas]

8-oz was glass bottles I think. 12-oz cans were a thing in the 50s, we still have 12-oz cans, there are 8-oz cans out there and the vending machines typically carry 12-oz cans or at most 16-oz bottles where I live.

Everything bigger is clearly meant to be consumed over multiple sittings or by multiple people.

I will grant you that fast food restaurants especially and restaurants in general do offer ludicrous amounts of soda for a very low price.

But the retail packaging has not really gotten larger, in a very long time.

[swiftcoder]

> Everything bigger is clearly meant to be consumed over multiple sittings or by multiple people.

The same thing happened with crisps (potato chips). The small bags that were standard when I was a kid in the 90s can now only be found in the big multipacks, while the standard size is now the old "grab bag", which is 2+ servings. Of course, since you can't buy the old size as separates anymore, everyone eats the whole grab bag these days.

I don't think the whole "multiple sittings or multiple people" thing holds up in reality.