635
submitted 6 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

Experts say there can be long-term health consequences for babies and infants who consume too much sugar at a young age.

In Switzerland, the label of Nestlé’s Cerelac baby cereal says it contains “no added sugar.” But in Senegal and South Africa, the same product has 6 grams of added sugar per serving, according to a recent Public Eye investigation. And in the Philippines, one serving of a version of the Cerelac cereal for babies 1 to 6 months old contains a whopping 7.3 grams of added sugar, the equivalent of almost two teaspoons. 

This “double standard” for how Nestlé creates and markets its popular baby food brands around the world was alleged in a report from Public Eye, an independent nonpartisan Swiss-based investigative organization, and International Baby Food Action Network. 

The groups allege that Nestlé adds sugars and honey to some of its baby cereal and formula in lower-income countries, while products sold in Europe and other countries are advertised with “no added sugars.” The disparities uncovered in the report, which was published in the BMJ in April, has raised alarms among global health experts.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] videogamesandbeer@lemmy.world 127 points 6 months ago
[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 53 points 6 months ago

Everyone says that. Have been for decades now.

But as long as our major politicians are Republicans and neoliberals, nothing is going to change.

Because their whole economical philosophy is corporations over money and that wealth "trickles down".

You want to do something about Nestle?

Vote progressives, especially ones that eschew corporate donors.

I'm just tired of the vast majority of people being against something,, but (at least for Americans) voting for people who like it.

https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?id=D000042332

We need to get rid of the shit show that is American lobbying, and only progressives push for that

[-] RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world 25 points 6 months ago

But as long as our major politicians are Republicans and neoliberals, nothing is going to change.

Those poorer countries have governments too. They should be the first line of defense for their citizens. Fuck Nestle and all their products, but the reality is that there's absolutely nothing a foreign power can do to protect the people living in those countries

[-] Tryptaminev@lemm.ee 18 points 6 months ago

There was a great John Oliver episode about how Cigarettes are sold in African and South Asian countries. Any effort to regulate the market, like introducing warning labels, limiting tobacco ads, or even just disallowing the sale of individual cigarettes in front of schools, was immediately met with huge backlashes by big tobacco.

If your countries GDP is 5 Billion US-D and Phil Morris has a turnover of 80 Billions US-D plus the lobbying power to have the US or EU threaten sanctions against that country, it is pretty darn difficult to provide the same level of consumer protection laws.

Don't blame the countries that are on the short end of neocolonialism, when your government is complicit in it.

[-] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 3 points 6 months ago

Incorrect.

You blame everyone involved in the bad things they are doing and do your best to hold them responsible.

[-] Tryptaminev@lemm.ee 7 points 6 months ago

You can only hold people responsible for things they actually have the power to decide on. But if they tried and they are pressured not to change something then the blame lies solely with the people that pressure them.

[-] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 1 points 6 months ago

Everyone has the choice not to do something, even if their only other choice is death.

You wouldn’t accept that reasoning for other causes, you would say they shouldn’t support it at all.

This is no different than the Israelis trying to blame everything they are doing on hummus.

You pulled the trigger, you are responsible.

Hell, you spray the graffiti protesting against something, you are still responsible.

You can’t just pretend someone else is making you do something.

It takes all the integrity out of what you are doing.

It’s like these kids who are catching a record and getting charged.

Should they be charged? I don’t think so. Maybe the ones who were supposedly holding a janitor against their will, I haven’t seen anything proving that yet though so…

The impressiveness of protest is people standing together and saying this is wrong and we are willing to do this to affect change.

If there’s no consequence, it’s no where near as impressive.

If you are trying to show people how important your cause is, German shepherds and water cannons, show dedication.

Immediately begging to get your record cleared, shows you don’t, to me at least anyway.

If you aren’t willing to deal with the consequences, which is perfectly reasonable, don’t let it get to that part, it shows weakness.

Just walk away at that part so they don’t get the pr win.

[-] ABCDE@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Everyone has the choice not to do something, even if their only other choice is death.

This is as far as I got.

[-] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 1 points 6 months ago

TLDR: Everyone is responsible for their own actions

[-] Tryptaminev@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago

These are completely different and not even remotely comparable situations.

But to see the only similarity to Israels genocide: The worst criminals are sitting on their desks and organize in the background. They must be held accountable too. And in the context of trade agreements and consumer protection in African countries those criminals are the western institutions and lobby groups.

[-] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 1 points 6 months ago

If I pressure you to kill your child or yourself and you choose to kill your child, do you bear no responsibility?

[-] manucode@infosec.pub 17 points 6 months ago

You could pass legislation that requires corporations not to do harmful activities in other countries if these activities are illegal in your country. If a corporation does such an activity abroad it would still be prosecuted as a crime in your country. If a corporation doesn't want to subject itself to such accountability, it would have to stop doing business in your country.

[-] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 6 points 6 months ago

We usually have those, our overlords don’t enforce or selectively them.

So , the only halfway effective method we have is to not give them our money.

Is it super effective? Nah

But has it saved them getting probably 10’s of thousands of my dollars over the years.

I miss crunch bars, Kit Kats, stouffers pizzas, and especially tollhouse cookies, but they are baby killers, and one of the worst possible ways to die in to boot.

Fuck em, and do your part even if no one else is

[-] RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago
  1. adding sugar to baby food is not necessarily illegal

  2. there is already legislation which prevents companies from engaging in illegal activities overseas but it's really not efficient since it is so easy to offload any illegal activity to a locally owned company. This is more about human rights abuse and illegal lobbying than product quality control though.

  3. there is nothing forcing multinational corporations to act as a unique global entity when it comes to quality control and any attempt to enforce such legislation would just be quickly sidestepped with local subsidiaries.

Really, the only defense for the locals is the local government. As it should be.

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 months ago

Those poorer countries can’t

I wish I could find it but there was a palm oil company that was banned from an island and they just ignored it

[-] RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Nestle most probably just buys local factories which already produce this crap and rebrands it. Even if Nestle would be forbidden from doing business in those countries, the locals would not be any better off. They really need their authorities to step in. There's no other way.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Sanctions.

If America told Nestle and other corporations that if you're committing human rights abuses anywhere, you're not welcome in our markets.

It's not some impossible thing.

It's just something that isn't possible till we have politicians who represent voters more than corporations.

We need progressive majorities for that. But shit can be better

[-] RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

this article is not about acts of human rights abuse, is it?

[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 months ago

Corporations do depend on money, so every bit of money you don't give to Nestlé reduces their power just a tiny bit. Nestlé is a difficult company to boycott though, because they own so many brands.

[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 months ago

Most of their brands are crap products though. I'm sure I'm not 100% successful,but I mostly cook my own fresh foods, and if you eliminate most of the processed "food" from your diet, its a great big step. I still eat cheetos and pork rinds and potato chips though.

[-] bolexforsoup 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)
[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago

JIF is delicious! And I gave it up because of all the palm oil. Now it's Teddie for me!

[-] norbert@kbin.social 2 points 6 months ago

No you don't understand, America = bad. If someone is doing something wrong it must be Americas fault or I must find some way to shoehorn politics into every conversation.

[-] Tryptaminev@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago

America and the EU are imposing the economic and political order that gives those companies leverage over small countries and blocks them from consumer protection or worker protection legislation. Heck, the US invaded foreign countries more than once to make sure their companies get to maximize profits, while making the people suffer.

[-] RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

America and the EU are imposing the economic and political order that gives those companies leverage over small countries and blocks them from consumer protection or worker protection legislation.

What on earth are you on about? The EU lobbies world wide for consumer and worker protection. Where are you getting your info from?

[-] Tryptaminev@lemm.ee 3 points 6 months ago
[-] RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

have you actually read those links? First is a political statement from 2014 which starts with :

Germany and Europe contribute large sums of tax money toward various development programmes in Africa, Nooke explained, but the economic agreement with African states cancels out these efforts.

and it should be easy to see now that the guy was just playing his voters.

the second one is about britain post brexit

the 3rd is about the influence of other markets on the quality of products in the EU.

Which one of those actually proves your point?

[-] Tryptaminev@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

Free trade agreements come through pressure from the west -> free trade agreements provide shadow courts for protecting the interests of companies and their profits against national regulation -> free trade agreements destroy labor markets and consumer protection in the weaker side of the "agreement"

[-] RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

that's a ridiculously superficial take on free trade agreements. And since 10 years have passed since then, you should be able to show some evidence of that happening, but you can't.

[-] Salix@sh.itjust.works 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I am confused why you're talking about USA. The article doesn't mention USA, and Nestle is a Swiss company.

I mean, better regulations in the US would be great though

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Because America is where they do a lot of shady shit....

If America threatened to cut Nestle off from the American market they would break their backs bending over for whatever we asked.

Other countries have more people, but don't spend as much money. Other countries have more money, but don't buy garbage food.

America is Nestle's ideal market, and they have large monopolies.

[-] Salix@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago

I guess looking at their official 2023 report, it does look like they make a lot in the North American Zone (Canada, US, Mexico) compared to other zones.

this post was submitted on 05 May 2024
635 points (100.0% liked)

World News

38969 readers
2055 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS