473
Nestlé adds sugar to infant milk sold in poorer countries, report finds
(www.theguardian.com)
Fuck Nestle.
It is not always easy for consumers in any country to tell whether a product contains added sugar, and how much is present, based on nutritional information printed on packaging alone.
That seems like the problem that actually needs solving.
Victim blaming when Nestle could simply do... What's better for the human body?
Yes, true. But have you considered the shareholders?
Relying on for profit corporations to do what is best for the human body is a fool’s errand.
Strong consumer labelling laws and regulation is the primary way to combat it. Encouraging consumers to actually read the packaging is also required.
Agreed but our governments have nearly completely checked out of monitoring food less the more immediate consequence type situations. Good luck getting real olive oil for example.
Not sure which countries you are talking about but Australia's nutritional information seems pretty robust, every food product must list its ingredients, and in order of highest amount to lowest (sometimes with % for things like fruit in syrup, juices, etc).
Also they have a nutrition table where it shows each main factor (vitamins/minerals, sugars, salts, fats, carbohydrates, calories, etc.) And the amount per 'serving' (serving size noted) and per 100g of the product. So you can compare the exact same figures product to product and know which is better for you.
There are often other bits of information on the packs, (some of which are optional i believe) such as %of ingredients grown in australia, if its packed in australia, country of origin, 'health start rating' (0-5 star scale which shows a quick comparison of how healthy a TYPE of food is. Keep in mind a 4.5 star bottle of soft drink isnt healthy, it is simply more healthy than other soft drinks in its category, ie: a better choice)
That is great to hear. I assume Extra Virgin Olive oil there is actually pure olive oil and not mixed with unhealthy seed oils?
The back of my Australian olive oil. All our food and drink has this, except alcohol which they regulate differently.
load more comments
(1 replies)
We're actually quite lucky in Australia and New Zealand with this.
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.
"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.
load more comments
(9 replies)
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I smoke the dankest chronic daily. You should try it.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Fuck Nestle!
Does anyone know why Bangladesh had zero added sugar?
Could it be that Bangladesh has stricter regulations?
Edit: it seems I was wrong. I thought when I read this yesterday it said Bangladesh had no sugar, but looking it up today, that's no longer the case.
load more comments
(2 replies)
DEATH TO NESTLÉ
Obesity is increasingly a problem in low- and middle-income countries.
Isn't that always going to be the case, regardless of ingredient adjustment? It feels like people who have had very little food will tend towards over-compensating during times of glut - perhaps not so much the generation directly affected, but the care they give to next generations.
As an example vaguely related but less extreme; I was born in 1970 in England to a lower middle-class family. My parents were wartime and post-war babies who had experienced rationing and as a result, I have very strong recollections of being made to "clear your plate" before I could leave the table. (Ironically given this topic, the "there are starving children in Africa who would like that" line was given quite often)
Wasting food was the absolute highest sin I could commit and that's stayed with me to this day.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Nestlé, the world’s largest consumer goods company, adds sugar and honey to infant milk and cereal products sold in many poorer countries, contrary to international guidelines aimed at preventing obesity and chronic diseases, a report has found.
Laurent Gaberell, Public Eye’s agriculture and nutrition expert, said: “Nestlé must put an end to these dangerous double standards and stop adding sugar in all products for children under three years old, in every part of the world.”
It is not always easy for consumers in any country to tell whether a product contains added sugar, and how much is present, based on nutritional information printed on packaging alone.
The UK recommends that children under four avoid food with added sugars because of risks including weight gain and tooth decay.
Biscuit-flavoured cereals for babies aged six months and older contained 6g of added sugar for every serving in Senegal and South Africa, researchers found.
A Nestlé spokesperson said: “We believe in the nutritional quality of our products for early childhood and prioritise using high-quality ingredients adapted to the growth and development of children.”
The original article contains 774 words, the summary contains 180 words. Saved 77%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Corporation ignores guidelines in pursuit of profit. News at 11.
Corporations will not ever self-regulate. If the "global south" can't even govern their food suppliers at the inadequate and shitty level the US does, then what else can be said? This is a problem that is directly within those governments ability to solve, but they still won't even do that.
Unsolvable problems with the Nestle Corporation - They Exist and their executives weren't guillotined in the 50's.
Solvable problem with the Nestle Corporation - They are legally allowed to sell products within the sovereign countries of the global south while complying with all local laws and regulations.
If only something could be done....
No, don't try to pass the buck. Wealthy nations are the ones responsible for what their own citizens get up to. Corporations are made up of people and should be regulated by their host nations.
-
Low Income Countries usually lack the resources to test imported products properly. This for eg is why all the poison cough syrup deaths globally.
-
They also lack the resources to finance enforcement of their laws.
-
They are also bullied by the World Trade Organization or threatened with lack of trade in necessities if they try to go against large international corporations with lobbying power.
Don't noble savage this shit. Most of those countries have functional governments that manage to regulate a lot of stuff, the article isn't about lack of enforcement. It's about lack of regulation period. While the WTO does help enforce the neo-liberal order, they aren't the ones that are doing this. Nestle-LLC incorporated in South Africa is using "too much" sugar in their formula. This is a problem that is wholly within South Africa's ability to solve.
The article isn't the be all and end all of the problem though. I'm talking about the wider picture.
I find it bizarre that you think pointing out resource disparity is the racist "noble savage" stereotype.
The behaviour of Western corporations are also wholly within the power of Western countries to solve.
Edit: I don't get why you want to focus so hard on what the end-users and LICs are doing and not on what the sources and wealthy nations are doing. Its like owning very vicious killer dogs, letting them loose and blaming your neighbour for not having a fence.
Do you want America to enforce regulations upon sovereign nations because they can't do it themselves? What are you asking for here?
load more comments
(3 replies)
If a corporation willingly abuses every loophole in laws or lack of laws even though it is able to know what would be more beneficial for their customers or humanity or at least to know what the law originally intended, then it's just plain evil shit. It's still people who work at companies and make immoral decisions. They have the power to decide.
load more comments
(1 replies)
People always try to exploit the disadvantaged. That's just how humans are programmed. For me, its not shocking at all.
Nestle is still evil; more news at 11.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
473 points (100.0% liked)
World News
32296 readers
359 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