473
Nestlé adds sugar to infant milk sold in poorer countries, report finds
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
473 points (100.0% liked)
World News
32311 readers
650 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
But why? It is bad for babies OK, but what is the upside for Nestlé? Is it addiction?
One of Nestle's main evil plans in the Low Income Countries is to aggressively tell mothers that formula is better than breastfeeding, have doctors suggest it, or even give free formula until the mothers' breastmilk dries up.
Humans evolved to crave sugar which is scarce in nature.
Babies will naturally prefer milk with higher sweetness i.e Nestle Cerelac. This will help convince the mothers to breastfeed less, buy more formula, and/or let their milk dry up.
Edit: here's UNICEF on these evil marketing practices in Bangladesh.
Add to that.
Nestle has a huge bonus long term from sugar. It is hugely addictive. Haveing children grow up with an early addiction can only benifit them long term. Given how much sugar is a part of other non bany products they sell.
Why do they do this in specifically lower-income countries, where there is less money to be made for them? That's the part that confuses me.
They do it wherever they can get away with it. They used to do it in the West.
These days though in the West new mothers are likely to receive education about breastfeeding from advocacy organizations, which formed to combat this problem. Such organizations also put pressure on govts to regulate formula and the health system.
Back in the 1950s when La Leche League was formed, only 20% of mothers in the US were breastfeeding.
There's less regulation in a developing country. So... if you get them hooked on it then, at least, you've got easy (albeit low) income. During the developing country maturity they will then be hooked on sugar and less likely to ban it or curb it.
It's just as any addiction.
Ah, regulations, that's what I was missing. That sucks.
It’s also not an exclusive situation: that is, selling to the Global South doesn’t in any way impede or prevent their sales in developed nations. It’s just an extra source of income. Sure, they’re making less money per unit sold, but less extra money is better than no extra money. Aggressively marketing to these countries also helps prevent local companies from creating their own competitive products, which protects Nestle’s global dominance interests.
Suffice to say that the list of reasons they would want to do this is long while the list against is very short.
Sugar is roughly as addictive as cocaine.
https://www.healthline.com/health/food-nutrition/experts-is-sugar-addictive-drug
So yeah, addiction is probably the end game.
Jesus Christ what misleading bullshit. Should we classify sugar as a schedule 3 drug then? Treat it like cocaine? No thats fucking stupid because it's not. It can be addictive, like literally anything else. A baby is not going to get chemically dependant on sugar.
Another example of having the right information but the wrong conclusion.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23719144/#:~:text=Overall%2C%20this%20research%20has%20revealed,be%20more%20rewarding%20and%20attractive.
"Eating too much sugar can lead to weight gain, which then increases the risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke and some cancers. But sugar also alters our mood and provides feelings of being rewarded and euphoria; hence the comparison to illegal drugs." https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.ramsayhealth.co.uk/blog/lifestyle/is-sugar-more-addictive-than-cocaine&ved=2ahUKEwj-8KOjt8uFAxUT4skDHUPYBWAQFnoECEkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2ys5-XMhDhbu8-D39e9u4j
Yeah it should be regulated as a highly addictive substance. It shouldn't be in baby formula.
I don't know what you mean by "addictive as anything else". We are talking about the relationship to how your brain reacts to these substances, using science. Based on that there's only a handful of highly addictive substances out of millions of potentials.
This isn't psychological addiction, we are talking about physical addiction. And sugar is comparable to the 2nd most addictive substance in the world, cocaine.
And you think that's a good idea to give to infants?
You think that it shouldn't face regulation?
Your argument is subjective and lacks substance. The facts are very clear here.
This is why anyone outside the left laughs at us. You have people sincerely equating sugar to cocaine because a corporation decided to try and make tasteless gruel edible.
Watch out, if you put sugar in your oatmeal you're a drug addict. You're taking truly the dumbest position possible because to admit there's a middle ground doesn't let you dig into the big bad Corp.
Should it be regulated due to its overabundance? Yes. Should it be regulated like cocaine? Fuck no. What's wrong with your brain? Too much sugar or cocaine?
I think you are missing the entire point. Nestle puts sugar in the baby formula because it's a physically addictive substance. A mother who buys the formula but later tries to switch to different formula will end up with a baby going through sugar withdrawals. I think it's safe to assume the baby may not even feed until it's given the Nestle formula.
This isn't the first time Nestle has done something like this, they have a dark history. Some might even call them evil.
Plus all the long term health issues associated with giving children sugar. "Added sugar intake at an early age may have adverse life-long health consequences, including overweight, obesity, cardiovascular diseases, asthma, and dental caries, as well as worse dietary habits" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8624134/
And yes I think it should be regulated for children, based on the science it is a serious health issue.
Also you keep mentioning the "left" like this is some political discussion. This has nothing to do with politics. **I think most people would agree that using a legal addictive substance to hook babies to your product is a real dick move and something should be done to prevent it from happening. **
Lol the only reason you're against this move is because sugar is vaguely tied to addiction and you want to demonize a corporation. Honey has sugar, are the bees trying to get us addicted too? These are the ramblings of the insane.
Yes, Nestlé fucking sucks. Evil, even. But them farting in the wind is not them engaging in chemical warfare. Treating it like it is, is part of what I can't fucking stand. This is an isolated event. Just because someone has a shit reputation doesn't mean every single minor move is a nefarious conspiracy.
You people are bored and hypocritical. The same people that would consider weed harmless but unironically compare sugar to cocaine. Sugar spurs on habitual addiction, not chemical dependancy. Not knowing the difference, pretending you understand addiction because you read the headline of a study and the parroted news articles, that's how bullshit gets spread around.
Are you feeding honey to infants? Because you really should stop if so, it’s extremely dangerous.
Because of the sugar or?
Botulism.
Right. So sugar isn't the issue in feeding honey to babies. Baby food has sugar in it too. Just real interesting is all.
Ultra-processed foods could be as addictive as smoking, study says, Highly processed foods can be considered addictive like tobacco products.
Yeah is not cocaine but this discussion about Food been heavily addictive is nothing new, if you disagree go argue with the science community, but please prepare your research before.
Fucking anything that derives pleasure can be habitually addictive, this shit means nothing. Literally nothing. Chemical dependancies are not the same fucking thing. Stop pretending they are so you can look smart. This circlejerk of dipshits is truly beyond my patience.
Drugs aren't illegal because they are addictive. They are illegal because they make humans behave unpredictably and that scares other humans into banning the substances.
The 'its addictive' thing is just to frighten people away from trying it.
Weed is addictive and many people fall into a feedback loop of depending on it yet every dipshit on the left wants that unbanned and unregulated. The hypocracy is what annoys the shit out of me.
If I had to hazard I guess, the person you're replying to would probably legalize a lot more than weed if they had the power to do so.
As would nearly everyone on the left. But sugar? Oh no. It's just cocaine lite.
I also don't think they'd look to ban sugar, just slap a sin tax on it like other harmful addictive substances that people enjoy.
I smoke the dankest chronic daily. You should try it.
Weed is not addictive. I only smoke when I hang out with my friends, which isn't often, and I never have cravings for it.
Yes, it is. Habitual addiction is addiction. While you might not suffer from it, just like some people can become alcoholics but not all, some people can become severely dependant on the way weed makes them feel.
If it can make you feel good, it can become addictive. Knowing the difference between habitual and chemical addiction is extremely important.
Honestly, you're probably right now that I think about it.