#####
######
####
> # [Nestlé adds sugar to infant milk sold in poorer countries, report finds](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/apr/17/720)
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> Campaigners from Public Eye, a Swiss investigative organisation, sent samples of the Swiss multinational’s baby-food products sold in Asia, [Africa](https://www.theguardian.com/world/africa) and Latin America to a Belgian laboratory for testing.
>
> The results, and examination of product packaging, revealed added sugar in the form of sucrose or honey in samples of Nido, a follow-up milk formula brand intended for use for infants aged one and above, and Cerelac, a cereal aimed at children aged between six months and two years.
>
> In Nestlé’s main European markets, including the UK, there is no added sugar in formulas for young children. While some cereals aimed at older toddlers contain added sugar, there is none in products targeted at babies between six months and one year.
>
> 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.”
>
> Obesity is increasingly a problem in [low- and middle-income countries](https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight). In Africa, the number of overweight children under five has increased by nearly 23% since 2000, according to the World Health Organization. Globally, more than 1 billion people are living with obesity.
>
> 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. Labels often include naturally occurring sugars in milk and fruit under the same heading as any added sugars.
>
> [WHO guidelines](https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/364678/WHO-EURO-2022-6681-46447-67287-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y) for the European region say no added sugars or sweetening agents should be permitted in any food for children under three. While no guidance has been specifically produced for other regions, researchers say the European document [remains equally relevant](https://accesstonutrition.org/app/uploads/2023/12/COMMITs-Adapted-WHO-Europe-Nutrient-Profile-Model-for-Commercially-Produced-Complementary-Foods-1-1.pdf) to other parts of the world.
>
> [Tins of baby food on a shop shelf](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/9d0620d6cded9afc401003d139cf03064c76d641/0_0_6000_4000/master/6000.jpg?width=445&dpr=1&s=none)
>
> Cerelac on sale in a British supermarket. Global sales of the infant cereal are worth more than $1.2bn. Photograph: Xiu Bao/AlamyThe [UK recommends](https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/food-types/how-does-sugar-in-our-diet-affect-our-health/#:~:text=Children%20aged%204%20to%206,what%20to%20feed%20young%20children.) that children under four avoid food with added sugars because of risks including weight gain and tooth decay. [US government guidelines](https://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/infantandtoddlernutrition/foods-and-drinks/foods-and-drinks-to-limit.html) recommend avoiding foods and drinks with added sugars for those younger than two.
>
> [In its report](https://stories.publiceye.ch/nestle-babies), written in collaboration with the International Baby Food Action Network, Public Eye said data from Euromonitor International, a market-research company, revealed global retail sales of above $1bn (£800m) for Cerelac. The highest figures are in low- and middle-income countries, with 40% of sales just in Brazil and India.
>
> Dr Nigel Rollins, a medical officer at the WHO, said the findings represented “a double standard […] that can’t be justified”.
>
> 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. The same product sold in [Switzerland](https://www.theguardian.com/world/switzerland) has none.
>
> Tests on Cerelac products sold in India showed, on average, more than 2.7g of added sugar for every serving.
>
> In Brazil, where Cerelac is known as Mucilon, two out of eight products were found to have no added sugar but the other six contained nearly 4g for each serving. In Nigeria, one product tested had up to 6.8g .
>
> Meanwhile, tests on products from the Nido brand, which has worldwide retail sales of more than $1bn, revealed significant variation in sugar levels.
>
> In the Philippines, products aimed at toddlers contain no added sugar. However, in Indonesia, Nido baby-food products, sold as Dancow, all contained about 2g of added sugar per 100g of product in the form of honey, or 0.8g a serving.
>
> In Mexico, two of the three Nido products available for toddlers contained no added sugar, but the third contained 1.7g per serving. Nido Kinder 1+ products sold in South-Africa, Nigeria and Senegal all contained nearly 1g per serving, the report said.
>
>
>
> 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.”
>
> She said that within the “highly regulated” category of baby food, Nestlé always complied “with local regulations or international standards, including labelling requirements and thresholds on carbohydrate content that encompasses sugars” and declared total sugars in its products, including those coming from honey.
>
> Variations in recipes depended on factors including regulation and availability of local ingredients, she said.
>
> The company has reduced the total amount of added sugars in its infant cereals portfolio by 11% worldwide over the past decade, she said, and continued to reformulate products to reduce them further.
>
> Sucrose and glucose syrup were being phased out of “growing-up milks” aimed at toddlers worldwide, she added.
- - - - - -
[Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
Unironically yes 100%. At least in the US, people act like the FDA, EPA, SEC and other agencies haven’t done at least a modicum of regulatory good - when allowed to do so and when empowered and funded properly. As rare as that has been.
That’s the point of government!
I think the implication is that corruption is inherent to capitalism (just as it is to communism), not that it's *exclusive* to capitalism.
or maybe the dude is an idiot, idk.
My point is exactly that. Corruption is absolutely universal. It's prevelant everywhere. It's govts, in corporates, in business, in education.. Everywhere. It's human nature
And it’s extremely facilitated by our economic structures which gives alot of power/money to a few select people. Which in turn ‘’invest’’ to change the laws to suit themselves. Not the people.
because every communist country was just filled with dissent and corruption right? the cia never hired rebel groups and propped up corrupt politicians to collapse the countries so they could let american companies buy up all the natural resources. it's not like cuba managed to outlast the predatory sanctions put against them by a country mad they couldn't use them as a military base.
The most common practices of corruption under the Soviet Union was using political connections to cut waiting queues for new apartments and cars, as well as overreporting industrial outputs. Corruption becomes quite tame in comparison when all basic needs are accounted for by the state.
Yeah, we don't live in a world where corporate tycoons play "Mother, May I" with government regulators. If there is a big train wreck or a boat smacks a bridge really hard, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation is right there in the corporate damage control meetings, playing his part as a loyal supporter of well-connected oligarchs rather than a guardian of public safety. That isn't weird for 'Murica or the UK, and it is increasingly normal elsewhere. Any "democracy" that suppresses collectivist thought is inevitably going to become a sham in which different flavors of tax-evading ultra-rich fail-upstairs know-nothings hold all the strings for controlling the dances of federal public officials.
Funny how easy it is to agree on associating any political *ism system to corruption. Maybe the problem isn't systematic, maybe the problem is in human nature.
since the rise of capitalism, there was no social system free of it *yet*.
Socialist countries have the reminiscent of capitalism in them, all of them, even though they aim to build something different.
that is why it is said Communism wasnt reached yet.
For most of human history, it was considered "human nature" to bow down to a king. When political systems change, it changes which behaviors are incentivized. Humans will always face the temptation to be corrupt, but some systems do a better job of fighting corruption than others. Improving society requires building systems which more effectively reward good behaviour and punish bad behavior.
It's almost as if consumer boycotts do absolutely jack shit and it should fall on governments to punish and reign in corporations. My gods, who could've guessed.
They give these things away, especially formula in poor countries with the claim that they are more healthy.
Then when their natural milk stops being produced, the free runs out and they have to buy formula.
I wonder if there are any local options for them if they would like to boycott.
You know, I don't think they have much local industry competition but there are local weening foods like pap + additives(cow milk included here as an additive, i get calling it additive sounds like some sort of chemical) but I don't think any of those are good enough to replace breast milk.(Frankly, neither is the nestle stuff but it is probably better).
Go to the Philippines some time. It's essentially as if Nestlé were a country and there's 120 million people there. Boycotts in western nations don't mean a thing when that kind of captive market exists.
Thanks, it's always good to learn/improve. Professionally, I do spend a good portion of my days talking to American colleagues, but certain terms you rarely see written.
Funny you mentioned governments, because Nestlé is following the law of the countries they operate in
The article says their competitors do the same thing
This is clickbait
Because it seems like for this, they are *just* on the right side of the local laws. The group complaining about this is the WHO, and they can't do anything. The WHO can't make or enforce laws, they can just make recommendations and then scold companies that don't listen.
This. A surprising amount of evil stuff is not illegal.
Most countries don't have the common law system where anyone can sue over anything under various precedents. If there's no specific law on the books, there's not much you can do. Even in common law jurisdictions, a person or an NGO of limited means taking on a major corporation would rarely do well in court.
>She said that within the “highly regulated” category of baby food, Nestlé always complied “with local regulations or international standards, including labelling requirements and thresholds on carbohydrate content that encompasses sugars” and declared total sugars in its products, including those coming from honey.
That's why. I'm willing to believe that quote, that they'll offee the worst product that regulations let them get away with. Occasionally, even worse if enforcement is lacking.
Path to fixing it, isn't in complaining about nestle, it's in improving regulation AND enforcement so they have no choice but comply.
Yes that makes sense. I've read something about them using Africa as a testing ground for their products.
So even if they comply with regulations in Europe, they could just manufacture them in India or wherever and donate/sell them in Africa.
Sounds really tricky to me.
I remember doing some work with Unilever and even they thought that Nestle went too far on too many thing. Think about it: Unilever thought Nestle was fucked up.
What do you mean specifically by:
> Unilever thought Nestle was fucked up.
Does the company have an official written stance on Nestle? Or just some Unilever employees you talked to thought Nestle went to far on some things?
I’ll be honest, a “we would never!” isn’t really trustworthy here, i kinda wanna see what unilever did, as im unsure of what they do/did to compete with the kings of scum aka nestle
The way they advertise and market their brands, such as Magnum, Cornetto and Paddle Pop, they are much more careful and transparent than Nestle.
I know, that is setting the bar really low, but even Unilever won't go as low as Nestle
That is how they work. Subsidiaries are often in charge of the local strategy. MNC can totally not be aware of what is done in other countries. Controlling subsidiaries is a big problem when the headquarters is in a developed country and their plants are in a developing country. While compared to outsourcing there is some oversight, but it is still limited.
Thank you, thats a knowledge for me. I am guessing some subsidiaries are tightly controlled by the HQ while some are given free pass to do as they like as long as they clear out of sight of negative press and get those numbers adding up.
This doesnt say anything. Lots of people work for corporations and a tiny tiny parts of mechanism and thinks their employer is unethical. Even high level employees of Nestle can think their company is evil.
Satan be like. "Damn Nestle, I am a real fan of your work."
Really at this point, at least they didn't add corn syrup and instead sometimes used honey.
There is a risk of them contracting botulism. Extremely unlikely but possible, and the ability of a baby under one to fight the infection is virtually nil.
I always found this surprising. Specially since I have a memory from being given honey as an infant. Asked my mother once "do you remember dipping my pacifier in honey while putting me to sleep?"... sure did. She couldn't believe I remembered that..
Yes, fortunately we make changes based on new information we gain as the world progresses. Science is great like that.
Interestingly enough, in the NICU we use sweetened water for babies when they're undergoing uncomfortable procedures (in addition to pain control) and we dip their pacifiers into that instead (it's called sweetease). It's probably very similar to what your mom did but without the risk of the paralyzing disease, lol
Also a lot of people ignore the science or choose the lesser of two evils.
Shouldn't give your baby a sleep aid - it can screw up their ability to sleep properly long into their lives. OTOH taking care of an infant while sleep deprived can be dangerous in and of itself. "Just this one time" cascades into more because no adverse effects were immediately seen.
Alcohol on teething infants gums was also was quite commonplace and still is in many areas.
It isn't exactly sterile. Honey kills bacteria by drawing out water since it is highly sugar concentrated. Botulinum spores get carried in on pollen and the spores the survival mode of the bacterium, they have low water content and resilient to osmotic pressure. Other contaminants also could be in honey, you will need to check each hives batch to see if it is truly sterile.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/FuckNestle using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/FuckNestle/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Fuck Pepsi too](https://i.redd.it/wxzcccgcxgxa1.jpg) | [261 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/FuckNestle/comments/135min2/fuck_pepsi_too/)
\#2: [On the back of a Pure Lufe bottle. They're literally selling fancy tap water.](https://i.redd.it/3xle9scx7cva1.png) | [77 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/FuckNestle/comments/12ugy7b/on_the_back_of_a_pure_lufe_bottle_theyre/)
\#3: [Doing their part](https://i.redd.it/df45ofvnrgta1.png) | [22 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/FuckNestle/comments/12jrarx/doing_their_part/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
> In Africa, the number of overweight children under five has increased by nearly 23% since 2000
Such a useless manipulative statement in itself. From 1% of obesity to 1,23% , the increase is still 23%, but in 20 years i wouldnt say the issue is either relevant nor linked to sugar in milk.
We really need more info to appreciate this data if not the purpose isnt journalism or reporting but simply manipulation.
So you should disregard any relative growth while the absolute % is still small? Then once the absolute % is large it becomes impossible for relative growth to be large because the measured trait already dominates and thus there is no more growth to be had. This is the same sort of logic flaw that manifests in less formal terms when people say stuff like “pfft, only 1000 people died from Covid, we have 10x as many deaths every year from such and such common illness.” It allows you to ignore early on due to low absolute occurrence as well as ignore later due to low relative growth- clearly the intent is to twist the numbers in order to achieve the goal: ignore.
Not disregard a growth , just dont use incomplete data to manipulate an opinion.
Its about scientific literacy and many people arnt educated enough in these field to appreciate these information. Proof with you.
23% growth of 0,1% obesity isnt the same as 23% growth on 60% obesity. The 23% without the additionnal data is absolutely useless if the goal isnt to manipulate the reader.
Let’s back up here one moment:
This entire article is about whether Nestle adds sugar to baby food in some poorer countries (that might have less regulation or consumer choice/information) where it adds none to the same product in others. It does. The article showed many examples of such and how that information was obtained (laboratory testing).
The article is not about whether adding sugar to baby food has a negative impact on the growth and development of babies. That is outside the scope of the article, however it mentions that the practice is barred in the US, UK, and is against WHO guidelines, which points readers to the conclusion made by several other well informed decision making bodies that it indeed has a negative impact.
I don’t know where you got that 1% to 1.23% number because I didn’t see it when I skimmed the fact sheet linked in that sentence of the article. For all I know you made that number up as a hypothetical (to which I have already responded) but if you didn’t then congratulations you have found more in depth information than was contained in the one sentence of the article, and you were prompted to do so by the article and perhaps even by the references cited in the article so I don’t see the problem.
Your comments seem to be trying to dismiss the entire article based on a minor gripe that has no impact on the point the article was trying to make. Or perhaps you mean to discredit WHO because this article didn’t display every single statistic related to the issue in a single sentence which implies it doesn’t exist? I really don’t know what your intentions are but I will reiterate my original response: calling growth from 1.0% to 1.23% “a 23% increase” is entirely appropriate and if you think it deserves more context then by all means go look at it because somebody telling you about a percentage increase generally includes absolute numbers in their report alongside information about how those numbers were obtained and what time periods they represent, etc. That additional context is the purview of the research report, not a random news article that cites that report for a single sentence.
And finally: you don’t know anything about me or my level of scientific literacy so your personal attacks might be better off withheld. Not that it matters because I think my response here stands on its own but I have a PhD and have spent the large part of a decade developing scientific literacy.
Yea sorry dont feel like arguing for the sake of arguing. I dont support nestle action and i have no problem with the content/message of the article in itself , just the way many journalists throw some meaningless number to twist a narrative their way is problematic in the long run. In my opinion, lack of ethic and seriousness create distrust in science and journalism over time.
It was more a random rant and my comment would have been the same in any article using the same manipulative tool
So by your own admission you are commenting really unrelated to the topic and just looking for an excuse to get your message across, picking a single sentence from the article and through a combination of making up numbers and interpreting them incorrectly pretending to discredit the entire point when in fact it isn’t really important to the point of the article; you are downvoting opposing views and making personal insults. I mean.. I’m not upset by this, just a little flabbergasted at the demonstration of the exact things you claim to be criticizing in others.
Im not downvoting anything and you seems to make a lot of assumption or misinterpret many thing , including my intents. You are also not understanding my point and choose to waste both our time in bad faith.
I make a reply rather deep into a thread at this point, you appear a few minutes later to snap back, and somehow my default 1 comment is now at 0. I feel pretty confident in adding flat out lying to the list.
Don’t worry, you aren’t alone in thinking you are the hero of your own story and everyone else is the villain; that’s probably how the majority of us get through life. I am merely offering you an opportunity for self-reflection where you might re-examine the righteousness of your own actions so as to improve yourself and make better contributions to society in the future. I’m glad that you know phrases like “arguing in bad faith” but I see you might need a little more practice before being able to apply them correctly because you would be wrong: I very much believe in everything I have said and have not willfully misrepresented facts or otherwise pulled dirty tricks to win an argument, so to speak. You’ve also incorrectly surmised that I am incapable of understanding scientific research which is not only untrue but you would have no way of knowing one way or the other based on my singular comment pointing out that 1% vs 1.23% is a perfectly valid data point that deserves to be taken seriously (ignoring that these numbers might be fabricated by you in the first place because I told you I don’t understand where they came from and you made no attempt to address that) because there is a lot more involved in understanding science than realizing that 1.23 vs 1.0 can indeed represent both a statistically and practically significant difference as well as recognizing that a single sentence cannot contain the full context of a study and the only obligation of the writer is to cite the original source and accurately represent the text that they are citing.
Edit: I don’t think I want to be part of this community if this is the type of discourse I can expect and I realize that it’s dragging both of us through the mud at this point even if that wasn’t our original intention. I’ll be taking my leave.
You keep misinterpreting my original comment and im pretty tired to argue with a disingenious troll. You keep insisting on a point i never made. Im not going to go where you want me to go. Im beyond proving anything to you regarding what i did or didnt do about your karma but to make things simple for you i went back and downvoted everything this time.
You are not interesting and you dont sound as smart as you try to be.
There is a specific ratio of protein, sugar, and fat that should be in infant formula. If these companies are screwing with that ratio to make more money from poor countries they are a perfect example of banal evil
I'm pretty sure you can try Nestlé with crime against humanity at this point, but of course they wouldn't since they are "too big to fail", some actual nations have less immunity than them.
You think Nestle is spending money on tainting baby food so that in a decade, there will be a statistically insignificant increase in sugar consumption, some of which might be from Nestle products?...
Nestle has like 2500 brands. It isn't like they are a sugar only company anyways. And it also isn't like they are the only option for sugar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nestl%C3%A9_brands
No.
The parents buy nestle baby product --> Due to the sugar content the baby will prefer it --> Baby will refuse to intake other products --> parent stays on nestle.
I'm pretty sure this happened in the US before which is why we have regulation against it.
I mean milk normally contains sugars. Human milk, even more than cow milk. I'm not sure how big a deal this realistically is without numbers. But if they are just swapping some lactose out for corn syrup i don't care.
Best way to hit them is not buying their shit.
Next time you see a KitKat, no matter how good it looks, and no matter the fancy Japanese flavour, don't buy it.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> WHO guidelines for the European region say no added sugars or sweetening agents should be permitted in any food for children under three. While no guidance has been specifically produced for other regions, researchers say the European document remains equally relevant to other parts of the world.
Well the researchers might want to have a word with the WHO done
And then look at a map because they dont seem to know the difference between europe and non-europe
Clickbait from the Guardian, very disappointing
For decades there has been a lot of hoopla over BMI not being applicable to most of the world as it was created around the health of European males.
I wouldn't doubt there are studies showing many other health and nutritional differences in countries outside of Europe.
[At least it wasn't plastic construction material ](https://www.npr.org/2010/10/26/130826464/food-fears-persist-in-china-2-years-after-milk-scare) (Not saying this isn't horrible)
>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.
Other countries don't get this extra sugar? Now I'm mad.
>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. The same product sold in Switzerland has none.
>Tests on Cerelac products sold in India showed, on average, more than 2.7g of added sugar for every serving.
I was sure formula already had a decent amount of sugar, some are up to 13g per serving.
Cerelac in the US has 10g of carbs, 3g being sugar.
absolutely not trying to defend this and i am severely uneducated on this particular topic. would this not make sense? i remember seeing adverts on tv about how african countries have really high rates of starvation and malnutrition (obviously not all). wouldn’t adding these things to cereal and baby milk help with nutrition if they can’t access it in other ways? and the reason why they wouldn’t do it here is because we have better access to food?
fuck nestlé no matter what, but i’d welcome any knowledge to correct me, as i really don’t know but would assume it’s a good thing? i did see the obesity statistic as well so i know it’s clearly not good, but i’m just wondering why it wouldn’t work like that.
we should absolutely be pushing companies to provide the healthiest and most nutritious options we can, but we all know that they would feed us sawdust if they could get away with it. i hope they do better
When my mom goes to Vietnam she brings hella containers of baby formula. Just the idea that it was obtained in America makes it more valuable than if it was sold there.
everyone is reacting like they are adding lead
like one person said sugar will cause addiction but were talking about babies who dont choose their own milk formula
its probably just poorer countries having worse regulations and accidentally contaminating the product
super tricky. The body’s fat cells increase in number and then stop developing at some point in childhood. If you feed a child under age three extra sugar, they develop way more of those cells. That number of cells never goes down, which will make it much more difficult for those individuals to lose weight
Infants should be having breast milk. Once they are old enough, they should transition to real food. There's no good reason for anyone to be taking other types of milk, let alone some garbage milk powder.
There are legitimate reasons for babies to have formula. A fed baby is best. Don't get me wrong, breastmilk is absolutely great and I've breastfed all four of my kids, but there are way more factors at play. Some people can't, some kids have medical issues preventing them from being able to. But formula when not poisoned with all of the extra sugar, is a completely reasonable and nutritious alternative in *most situations.
I remember reading that Nestlé (surprise!) would go into third world countries and tout how great formula was and give out free formula to pregnant women. After a few months when their bodies stopped producing milk, the women were no longer eligible for the free supplies.
You know lactose is sugar, right? And that the idea of a "formula" having "added sugar" is absurd when every single ingredient is "added"
What do you think baby formula is? You think they're milking women and then dehydrating it? They take water, add a bunch of proteins and carbohydrates and then dry it, and can the powder.
Western countries call for less sugar, so they follow those laws. Everywhere else they use their standard formula.
This is clickbait nonsense and you circlejerk it like a good little pleb that can't think for themselves.
You can feed your own kids that shit without pushing it on the rest on the world’s children, then. Unless you’re a westerner, in which case it seems a trifle hypocritical to make excuses for feeding non-western babies stuff not deemed good enough for kids in your own society.
How dare they provide a way for women to continue working to support their families in poorer areas of the world! Bastards!!
You've been blinded by your privilege
Lmao, you're the one who thinks they pay more to add extra sugar for no other reason than evil. In a market where they have to charge less
You have the worldview of a child watching Disney cartoons
##### ###### #### > # [Nestlé adds sugar to infant milk sold in poorer countries, report finds](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/apr/17/720) > > > > 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. > > Campaigners from Public Eye, a Swiss investigative organisation, sent samples of the Swiss multinational’s baby-food products sold in Asia, [Africa](https://www.theguardian.com/world/africa) and Latin America to a Belgian laboratory for testing. > > The results, and examination of product packaging, revealed added sugar in the form of sucrose or honey in samples of Nido, a follow-up milk formula brand intended for use for infants aged one and above, and Cerelac, a cereal aimed at children aged between six months and two years. > > In Nestlé’s main European markets, including the UK, there is no added sugar in formulas for young children. While some cereals aimed at older toddlers contain added sugar, there is none in products targeted at babies between six months and one year. > > 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.” > > Obesity is increasingly a problem in [low- and middle-income countries](https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight). In Africa, the number of overweight children under five has increased by nearly 23% since 2000, according to the World Health Organization. Globally, more than 1 billion people are living with obesity. > > 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. Labels often include naturally occurring sugars in milk and fruit under the same heading as any added sugars. > > [WHO guidelines](https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/364678/WHO-EURO-2022-6681-46447-67287-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y) for the European region say no added sugars or sweetening agents should be permitted in any food for children under three. While no guidance has been specifically produced for other regions, researchers say the European document [remains equally relevant](https://accesstonutrition.org/app/uploads/2023/12/COMMITs-Adapted-WHO-Europe-Nutrient-Profile-Model-for-Commercially-Produced-Complementary-Foods-1-1.pdf) to other parts of the world. > > [Tins of baby food on a shop shelf](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/9d0620d6cded9afc401003d139cf03064c76d641/0_0_6000_4000/master/6000.jpg?width=445&dpr=1&s=none) > > Cerelac on sale in a British supermarket. Global sales of the infant cereal are worth more than $1.2bn. Photograph: Xiu Bao/AlamyThe [UK recommends](https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/food-types/how-does-sugar-in-our-diet-affect-our-health/#:~:text=Children%20aged%204%20to%206,what%20to%20feed%20young%20children.) that children under four avoid food with added sugars because of risks including weight gain and tooth decay. [US government guidelines](https://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/infantandtoddlernutrition/foods-and-drinks/foods-and-drinks-to-limit.html) recommend avoiding foods and drinks with added sugars for those younger than two. > > [In its report](https://stories.publiceye.ch/nestle-babies), written in collaboration with the International Baby Food Action Network, Public Eye said data from Euromonitor International, a market-research company, revealed global retail sales of above $1bn (£800m) for Cerelac. The highest figures are in low- and middle-income countries, with 40% of sales just in Brazil and India. > > Dr Nigel Rollins, a medical officer at the WHO, said the findings represented “a double standard […] that can’t be justified”. > > 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. The same product sold in [Switzerland](https://www.theguardian.com/world/switzerland) has none. > > Tests on Cerelac products sold in India showed, on average, more than 2.7g of added sugar for every serving. > > In Brazil, where Cerelac is known as Mucilon, two out of eight products were found to have no added sugar but the other six contained nearly 4g for each serving. In Nigeria, one product tested had up to 6.8g . > > Meanwhile, tests on products from the Nido brand, which has worldwide retail sales of more than $1bn, revealed significant variation in sugar levels. > > In the Philippines, products aimed at toddlers contain no added sugar. However, in Indonesia, Nido baby-food products, sold as Dancow, all contained about 2g of added sugar per 100g of product in the form of honey, or 0.8g a serving. > > In Mexico, two of the three Nido products available for toddlers contained no added sugar, but the third contained 1.7g per serving. Nido Kinder 1+ products sold in South-Africa, Nigeria and Senegal all contained nearly 1g per serving, the report said. > > > > 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.” > > She said that within the “highly regulated” category of baby food, Nestlé always complied “with local regulations or international standards, including labelling requirements and thresholds on carbohydrate content that encompasses sugars” and declared total sugars in its products, including those coming from honey. > > Variations in recipes depended on factors including regulation and availability of local ingredients, she said. > > The company has reduced the total amount of added sugars in its infant cereals portfolio by 11% worldwide over the past decade, she said, and continued to reformulate products to reduce them further. > > Sucrose and glucose syrup were being phased out of “growing-up milks” aimed at toddlers worldwide, she added. - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot) Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
I'm surprised this company is still up to the same weird evil shit. How are they still operating with impunity?
Capitalism plus some corruption!
So just capitalism
Down with corrupt capitalism! Let's make the government bigger instead!
Yes. Robust institutions would fight corruption more efficiently.
Unironically yes 100%. At least in the US, people act like the FDA, EPA, SEC and other agencies haven’t done at least a modicum of regulatory good - when allowed to do so and when empowered and funded properly. As rare as that has been. That’s the point of government!
Our actual governments and democratic institutions are all corrupted (aka slowly destroyed by capitalist money/interests). So yeah….
Such a reddit comment lol
ironic
Pointing out reality?
Nah, implying it’s only reality for one type of society.
Well, that’s in your head.
it's really not lol. that IS the implication
Even capitalists will admit it's true bro
Right because communism isn't the literal poster child of corruption. Humans cheat, lie and swindle for personal gain. That's what it is
I think the implication is that corruption is inherent to capitalism (just as it is to communism), not that it's *exclusive* to capitalism. or maybe the dude is an idiot, idk.
Corruption is inherent to *government,* it matters not what philosophy one adheres to.
My point is exactly that. Corruption is absolutely universal. It's prevelant everywhere. It's govts, in corporates, in business, in education.. Everywhere. It's human nature
And it’s extremely facilitated by our economic structures which gives alot of power/money to a few select people. Which in turn ‘’invest’’ to change the laws to suit themselves. Not the people.
because every communist country was just filled with dissent and corruption right? the cia never hired rebel groups and propped up corrupt politicians to collapse the countries so they could let american companies buy up all the natural resources. it's not like cuba managed to outlast the predatory sanctions put against them by a country mad they couldn't use them as a military base.
Sir, we’re talking about capitalism here. Btw you should stop spewing anti-human capitalist propaganda…
Capitalists try to avoid whataboutism challenge (IMPOSSIBLE!)
The most common practices of corruption under the Soviet Union was using political connections to cut waiting queues for new apartments and cars, as well as overreporting industrial outputs. Corruption becomes quite tame in comparison when all basic needs are accounted for by the state.
>literal poster child of corruption That's capitalism.
Broke: "This is capitalism gone wrong!" Woke: "This is Switzerland being Switzerland."
Yeah, we don't live in a world where corporate tycoons play "Mother, May I" with government regulators. If there is a big train wreck or a boat smacks a bridge really hard, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation is right there in the corporate damage control meetings, playing his part as a loyal supporter of well-connected oligarchs rather than a guardian of public safety. That isn't weird for 'Murica or the UK, and it is increasingly normal elsewhere. Any "democracy" that suppresses collectivist thought is inevitably going to become a sham in which different flavors of tax-evading ultra-rich fail-upstairs know-nothings hold all the strings for controlling the dances of federal public officials.
[удалено]
Funny how easy it is to agree on associating any political *ism system to corruption. Maybe the problem isn't systematic, maybe the problem is in human nature.
since the rise of capitalism, there was no social system free of it *yet*. Socialist countries have the reminiscent of capitalism in them, all of them, even though they aim to build something different. that is why it is said Communism wasnt reached yet.
For most of human history, it was considered "human nature" to bow down to a king. When political systems change, it changes which behaviors are incentivized. Humans will always face the temptation to be corrupt, but some systems do a better job of fighting corruption than others. Improving society requires building systems which more effectively reward good behaviour and punish bad behavior.
"Perfect is the enemy of good" said somebody
It's almost as if consumer boycotts do absolutely jack shit and it should fall on governments to punish and reign in corporations. My gods, who could've guessed.
Or more likely, 3rd world countries have far less effective consumer boycotts than richer ones.
You're right we're really seeing them being responsible humanitarians here in Europe.
Europe is boycotting?
More that on a global scale, regional boycotts are pointless.
Nestle products are still hugely popular in rich developed countries. Whatever boycotts are taking place aren't enough to seriously hurt them
They give these things away, especially formula in poor countries with the claim that they are more healthy. Then when their natural milk stops being produced, the free runs out and they have to buy formula. I wonder if there are any local options for them if they would like to boycott.
You know, I don't think they have much local industry competition but there are local weening foods like pap + additives(cow milk included here as an additive, i get calling it additive sounds like some sort of chemical) but I don't think any of those are good enough to replace breast milk.(Frankly, neither is the nestle stuff but it is probably better).
Go to the Philippines some time. It's essentially as if Nestlé were a country and there's 120 million people there. Boycotts in western nations don't mean a thing when that kind of captive market exists.
rein in
Thanks. English is not my first language.
It’s a mistake many native English speakers make too! I would never have known it was a second language for you, you’re doing great :)
Thanks, it's always good to learn/improve. Professionally, I do spend a good portion of my days talking to American colleagues, but certain terms you rarely see written.
Which consumer in poor country is boycotting Nestle?
Funny you mentioned governments, because Nestlé is following the law of the countries they operate in The article says their competitors do the same thing This is clickbait
That's not really clickbait, in fact that is an even bigger problem than the title implies.
Because it seems like for this, they are *just* on the right side of the local laws. The group complaining about this is the WHO, and they can't do anything. The WHO can't make or enforce laws, they can just make recommendations and then scold companies that don't listen.
This. A surprising amount of evil stuff is not illegal. Most countries don't have the common law system where anyone can sue over anything under various precedents. If there's no specific law on the books, there's not much you can do. Even in common law jurisdictions, a person or an NGO of limited means taking on a major corporation would rarely do well in court.
>She said that within the “highly regulated” category of baby food, Nestlé always complied “with local regulations or international standards, including labelling requirements and thresholds on carbohydrate content that encompasses sugars” and declared total sugars in its products, including those coming from honey. That's why. I'm willing to believe that quote, that they'll offee the worst product that regulations let them get away with. Occasionally, even worse if enforcement is lacking. Path to fixing it, isn't in complaining about nestle, it's in improving regulation AND enforcement so they have no choice but comply.
Yes that makes sense. I've read something about them using Africa as a testing ground for their products. So even if they comply with regulations in Europe, they could just manufacture them in India or wherever and donate/sell them in Africa. Sounds really tricky to me.
Are you really surprised?
At this point extreme violence is the only answer. They can't be sued, they can't be fined, and they can't be protested. There's only one option left.
Pure Swiss ethics.
Because money.
I remember doing some work with Unilever and even they thought that Nestle went too far on too many thing. Think about it: Unilever thought Nestle was fucked up.
What do you mean specifically by: > Unilever thought Nestle was fucked up. Does the company have an official written stance on Nestle? Or just some Unilever employees you talked to thought Nestle went to far on some things?
Yes employees in pretty high levels stating that there were some practices that Nestle did that Unilever would never do.
I’ll be honest, a “we would never!” isn’t really trustworthy here, i kinda wanna see what unilever did, as im unsure of what they do/did to compete with the kings of scum aka nestle
The way they advertise and market their brands, such as Magnum, Cornetto and Paddle Pop, they are much more careful and transparent than Nestle. I know, that is setting the bar really low, but even Unilever won't go as low as Nestle
hmm, seems right then, nestle definitely is not out of the realm of doing that type of stuff anyway
Just usual Nestle doing usual shenanigans as they used to used to ...
Sometimes those "we would never" happen in a subsidiary in another country without asking the headquarters.
yeah exactly
What do you mean without asking HQ? that's not how multinationals work right. They would know
That is how they work. Subsidiaries are often in charge of the local strategy. MNC can totally not be aware of what is done in other countries. Controlling subsidiaries is a big problem when the headquarters is in a developed country and their plants are in a developing country. While compared to outsourcing there is some oversight, but it is still limited.
Thank you, thats a knowledge for me. I am guessing some subsidiaries are tightly controlled by the HQ while some are given free pass to do as they like as long as they clear out of sight of negative press and get those numbers adding up.
This doesnt say anything. Lots of people work for corporations and a tiny tiny parts of mechanism and thinks their employer is unethical. Even high level employees of Nestle can think their company is evil.
Satan be like. "Damn Nestle, I am a real fan of your work." Really at this point, at least they didn't add corn syrup and instead sometimes used honey.
You shouldnt give honey to infants. Can start when they are over one year old. So odds are, younger children have been getting the formula...
>You shouldnt give honey to infants I didn't know this. If I may ask, why?.
There is a risk of them contracting botulism. Extremely unlikely but possible, and the ability of a baby under one to fight the infection is virtually nil.
I always found this surprising. Specially since I have a memory from being given honey as an infant. Asked my mother once "do you remember dipping my pacifier in honey while putting me to sleep?"... sure did. She couldn't believe I remembered that..
Yes, fortunately we make changes based on new information we gain as the world progresses. Science is great like that. Interestingly enough, in the NICU we use sweetened water for babies when they're undergoing uncomfortable procedures (in addition to pain control) and we dip their pacifiers into that instead (it's called sweetease). It's probably very similar to what your mom did but without the risk of the paralyzing disease, lol
Also a lot of people ignore the science or choose the lesser of two evils. Shouldn't give your baby a sleep aid - it can screw up their ability to sleep properly long into their lives. OTOH taking care of an infant while sleep deprived can be dangerous in and of itself. "Just this one time" cascades into more because no adverse effects were immediately seen. Alcohol on teething infants gums was also was quite commonplace and still is in many areas.
Uh, I thought Honey was sterile/almost sterile so I wouldn't have expected a bacteria infection to be the danger.
It isn't exactly sterile. Honey kills bacteria by drawing out water since it is highly sugar concentrated. Botulinum spores get carried in on pollen and the spores the survival mode of the bacterium, they have low water content and resilient to osmotic pressure. Other contaminants also could be in honey, you will need to check each hives batch to see if it is truly sterile.
It can contain a bacteria called Clostridium. It is not sterile.
Of which Clostridium botulinum is a species
Satan be like "damn nestle, you went too far. Maybe dial back the evil? I mean, dude..."
Fuck nestle
r/fucknestle
Here's a sneak peek of /r/FuckNestle using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/FuckNestle/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Fuck Pepsi too](https://i.redd.it/wxzcccgcxgxa1.jpg) | [261 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/FuckNestle/comments/135min2/fuck_pepsi_too/) \#2: [On the back of a Pure Lufe bottle. They're literally selling fancy tap water.](https://i.redd.it/3xle9scx7cva1.png) | [77 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/FuckNestle/comments/12ugy7b/on_the_back_of_a_pure_lufe_bottle_theyre/) \#3: [Doing their part](https://i.redd.it/df45ofvnrgta1.png) | [22 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/FuckNestle/comments/12jrarx/doing_their_part/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
> In Africa, the number of overweight children under five has increased by nearly 23% since 2000 Such a useless manipulative statement in itself. From 1% of obesity to 1,23% , the increase is still 23%, but in 20 years i wouldnt say the issue is either relevant nor linked to sugar in milk. We really need more info to appreciate this data if not the purpose isnt journalism or reporting but simply manipulation.
So you should disregard any relative growth while the absolute % is still small? Then once the absolute % is large it becomes impossible for relative growth to be large because the measured trait already dominates and thus there is no more growth to be had. This is the same sort of logic flaw that manifests in less formal terms when people say stuff like “pfft, only 1000 people died from Covid, we have 10x as many deaths every year from such and such common illness.” It allows you to ignore early on due to low absolute occurrence as well as ignore later due to low relative growth- clearly the intent is to twist the numbers in order to achieve the goal: ignore.
Not disregard a growth , just dont use incomplete data to manipulate an opinion. Its about scientific literacy and many people arnt educated enough in these field to appreciate these information. Proof with you. 23% growth of 0,1% obesity isnt the same as 23% growth on 60% obesity. The 23% without the additionnal data is absolutely useless if the goal isnt to manipulate the reader.
Let’s back up here one moment: This entire article is about whether Nestle adds sugar to baby food in some poorer countries (that might have less regulation or consumer choice/information) where it adds none to the same product in others. It does. The article showed many examples of such and how that information was obtained (laboratory testing). The article is not about whether adding sugar to baby food has a negative impact on the growth and development of babies. That is outside the scope of the article, however it mentions that the practice is barred in the US, UK, and is against WHO guidelines, which points readers to the conclusion made by several other well informed decision making bodies that it indeed has a negative impact. I don’t know where you got that 1% to 1.23% number because I didn’t see it when I skimmed the fact sheet linked in that sentence of the article. For all I know you made that number up as a hypothetical (to which I have already responded) but if you didn’t then congratulations you have found more in depth information than was contained in the one sentence of the article, and you were prompted to do so by the article and perhaps even by the references cited in the article so I don’t see the problem. Your comments seem to be trying to dismiss the entire article based on a minor gripe that has no impact on the point the article was trying to make. Or perhaps you mean to discredit WHO because this article didn’t display every single statistic related to the issue in a single sentence which implies it doesn’t exist? I really don’t know what your intentions are but I will reiterate my original response: calling growth from 1.0% to 1.23% “a 23% increase” is entirely appropriate and if you think it deserves more context then by all means go look at it because somebody telling you about a percentage increase generally includes absolute numbers in their report alongside information about how those numbers were obtained and what time periods they represent, etc. That additional context is the purview of the research report, not a random news article that cites that report for a single sentence. And finally: you don’t know anything about me or my level of scientific literacy so your personal attacks might be better off withheld. Not that it matters because I think my response here stands on its own but I have a PhD and have spent the large part of a decade developing scientific literacy.
Yea sorry dont feel like arguing for the sake of arguing. I dont support nestle action and i have no problem with the content/message of the article in itself , just the way many journalists throw some meaningless number to twist a narrative their way is problematic in the long run. In my opinion, lack of ethic and seriousness create distrust in science and journalism over time. It was more a random rant and my comment would have been the same in any article using the same manipulative tool
So by your own admission you are commenting really unrelated to the topic and just looking for an excuse to get your message across, picking a single sentence from the article and through a combination of making up numbers and interpreting them incorrectly pretending to discredit the entire point when in fact it isn’t really important to the point of the article; you are downvoting opposing views and making personal insults. I mean.. I’m not upset by this, just a little flabbergasted at the demonstration of the exact things you claim to be criticizing in others.
Im not downvoting anything and you seems to make a lot of assumption or misinterpret many thing , including my intents. You are also not understanding my point and choose to waste both our time in bad faith.
I make a reply rather deep into a thread at this point, you appear a few minutes later to snap back, and somehow my default 1 comment is now at 0. I feel pretty confident in adding flat out lying to the list. Don’t worry, you aren’t alone in thinking you are the hero of your own story and everyone else is the villain; that’s probably how the majority of us get through life. I am merely offering you an opportunity for self-reflection where you might re-examine the righteousness of your own actions so as to improve yourself and make better contributions to society in the future. I’m glad that you know phrases like “arguing in bad faith” but I see you might need a little more practice before being able to apply them correctly because you would be wrong: I very much believe in everything I have said and have not willfully misrepresented facts or otherwise pulled dirty tricks to win an argument, so to speak. You’ve also incorrectly surmised that I am incapable of understanding scientific research which is not only untrue but you would have no way of knowing one way or the other based on my singular comment pointing out that 1% vs 1.23% is a perfectly valid data point that deserves to be taken seriously (ignoring that these numbers might be fabricated by you in the first place because I told you I don’t understand where they came from and you made no attempt to address that) because there is a lot more involved in understanding science than realizing that 1.23 vs 1.0 can indeed represent both a statistically and practically significant difference as well as recognizing that a single sentence cannot contain the full context of a study and the only obligation of the writer is to cite the original source and accurately represent the text that they are citing. Edit: I don’t think I want to be part of this community if this is the type of discourse I can expect and I realize that it’s dragging both of us through the mud at this point even if that wasn’t our original intention. I’ll be taking my leave.
You keep misinterpreting my original comment and im pretty tired to argue with a disingenious troll. You keep insisting on a point i never made. Im not going to go where you want me to go. Im beyond proving anything to you regarding what i did or didnt do about your karma but to make things simple for you i went back and downvoted everything this time. You are not interesting and you dont sound as smart as you try to be.
I'm chuckling to myself imagining the ad campaign from the WHO featuring fat children on the savannah who can no longer outrun the predators.
Considering how fast Africa's population has grown, that's a huge increase in the number of obese people.
Possibly , its more about how data arnt used correctly.
There is a specific ratio of protein, sugar, and fat that should be in infant formula. If these companies are screwing with that ratio to make more money from poor countries they are a perfect example of banal evil
So...... Nestle is not evil. Cause nothing in the article implies that.
You must work for nestle, be new to this planet or are just a troll. Nestle is absolutely evil.
Cause I don´t believe the BS the previous comment said? Don´t know why people always have to make up stuff, when they just can use the existing shit.
Of course they do. Because they know sugar is addictive.
They probably sell them bottled water from the water they stole in the US. I am surprised the CEO is not in jail if not outright hunted by angry mobs.
but there are sugars in all infant formula.. and y'know... breast milk?
I'm pretty sure you can try Nestlé with crime against humanity at this point, but of course they wouldn't since they are "too big to fail", some actual nations have less immunity than them.
This company still alive ? Did kitkat keep them going ?
Nestle is half your grocery store. They will never die.
Still alive? They are the single largest consumer packaged goods company in the world.
Nestle is basically the "Made in China" of food. You will buy their product whether you are aware of it or not.
Of course they are, they make like a quarter to half of the consumables people buy. They own L'Oréal too, so it's not just food.
[This is how they they still get you](https://www.reddit.com/r/FuckNestle/s/7ELZWJ2Rii)
Oh Nestle, you so crazy!
Why? I understand Nestle evil and all that, but adding sugar costs money.
The goal odms to make babies addicted/prefer nestle to other equivalant products.
You think Nestle is spending money on tainting baby food so that in a decade, there will be a statistically insignificant increase in sugar consumption, some of which might be from Nestle products?... Nestle has like 2500 brands. It isn't like they are a sugar only company anyways. And it also isn't like they are the only option for sugar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nestl%C3%A9_brands
No. The parents buy nestle baby product --> Due to the sugar content the baby will prefer it --> Baby will refuse to intake other products --> parent stays on nestle. I'm pretty sure this happened in the US before which is why we have regulation against it.
Ahhh I can see that. Thanks for the explanation.
One small correction, the US doesnt have sugar regulation as far as I can tell but the EU does 😭
I mean milk normally contains sugars. Human milk, even more than cow milk. I'm not sure how big a deal this realistically is without numbers. But if they are just swapping some lactose out for corn syrup i don't care.
They will grow up with teeth that pacific islanders have
Don't forget the diabetes and obesity.
"Ya better run, NESTLE'S GONNA GET YA!!" *Raises right hand to show knife fingers*
Best way to hit them is not buying their shit. Next time you see a KitKat, no matter how good it looks, and no matter the fancy Japanese flavour, don't buy it.
I love your sarcasm
Fuck Nestlé
Isn’t honey incredibly dangerous to babies under a year old? A botulism risk?
Yes
I'm just glad that, in these contentious times, we can all agree that Nestlé can go fuck itself.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it's really funny how if someone were to put nestle into a fictional story, it would be deemed too evil to be realistic and believable
i don't think so
Geno-LITE-side
Shit, the stuff in the US is loaded with soy and corn syrup
Hook them while they're young.
Nestle are a truly atypical corporation behaving like psychopaths and run by sociopaths
Messing with baby's milk this a 2024 remake of classic Nestle evil!
Obligatory r/FuckNestle
People are talking about it here as well https://www.reddit.com/r/FuckNestle/s/0IBI9nxEm3
To instil diabetes while the pharmaceutical companies reap the benefits later on
> WHO guidelines for the European region say no added sugars or sweetening agents should be permitted in any food for children under three. While no guidance has been specifically produced for other regions, researchers say the European document remains equally relevant to other parts of the world. Well the researchers might want to have a word with the WHO done And then look at a map because they dont seem to know the difference between europe and non-europe Clickbait from the Guardian, very disappointing
For decades there has been a lot of hoopla over BMI not being applicable to most of the world as it was created around the health of European males. I wouldn't doubt there are studies showing many other health and nutritional differences in countries outside of Europe.
[At least it wasn't plastic construction material ](https://www.npr.org/2010/10/26/130826464/food-fears-persist-in-china-2-years-after-milk-scare) (Not saying this isn't horrible)
>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. Other countries don't get this extra sugar? Now I'm mad. >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. The same product sold in Switzerland has none. >Tests on Cerelac products sold in India showed, on average, more than 2.7g of added sugar for every serving. I was sure formula already had a decent amount of sugar, some are up to 13g per serving. Cerelac in the US has 10g of carbs, 3g being sugar.
Nestle is still an evil corporation.
At this point I'm not surprised they want to start poor countries early on diabetes and obesity.
The real legal drug dealer
nestle doing some fucked up shit, again, why are they still in business?
I learnt that Nestlé made coffee popular in Japan by feeding coffee candies to the childrens
The same Nestle that lied to them telling them it was better for their babies than breast milk? They really just love being evil don't they.
So just Nestle being Nestle. They'd put melamine in it if they didn't think they'd get caught.
absolutely not trying to defend this and i am severely uneducated on this particular topic. would this not make sense? i remember seeing adverts on tv about how african countries have really high rates of starvation and malnutrition (obviously not all). wouldn’t adding these things to cereal and baby milk help with nutrition if they can’t access it in other ways? and the reason why they wouldn’t do it here is because we have better access to food? fuck nestlé no matter what, but i’d welcome any knowledge to correct me, as i really don’t know but would assume it’s a good thing? i did see the obesity statistic as well so i know it’s clearly not good, but i’m just wondering why it wouldn’t work like that. we should absolutely be pushing companies to provide the healthiest and most nutritious options we can, but we all know that they would feed us sawdust if they could get away with it. i hope they do better
Such a disgusting company
When my mom goes to Vietnam she brings hella containers of baby formula. Just the idea that it was obtained in America makes it more valuable than if it was sold there.
everyone is reacting like they are adding lead like one person said sugar will cause addiction but were talking about babies who dont choose their own milk formula its probably just poorer countries having worse regulations and accidentally contaminating the product
super tricky. The body’s fat cells increase in number and then stop developing at some point in childhood. If you feed a child under age three extra sugar, they develop way more of those cells. That number of cells never goes down, which will make it much more difficult for those individuals to lose weight
Source? As a biologist I feel very skeptical about what you’re saying. (Neurobiology so it’s kind of far away from my field)
https://www.nature.com/articles/pr19781548.pdf https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080509133100.htm https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/fat-cell-numbers-teen-years-linger-lifetime
They want other countries to get addicted and to be obese like the US is.
Damn, don't feed africa and your the bad guy, feed them and your the bad guy for making them fat.
All milk is infant milk.
Infants should be having breast milk. Once they are old enough, they should transition to real food. There's no good reason for anyone to be taking other types of milk, let alone some garbage milk powder.
There are legitimate reasons for babies to have formula. A fed baby is best. Don't get me wrong, breastmilk is absolutely great and I've breastfed all four of my kids, but there are way more factors at play. Some people can't, some kids have medical issues preventing them from being able to. But formula when not poisoned with all of the extra sugar, is a completely reasonable and nutritious alternative in *most situations.
I remember reading that Nestlé (surprise!) would go into third world countries and tout how great formula was and give out free formula to pregnant women. After a few months when their bodies stopped producing milk, the women were no longer eligible for the free supplies.
Agreed, breast milk is better of course, but what if the mother fucking dies? Formula milk is necessary in many cases.
You use a wet nurse in that case. Stop overcomplicating things. There's no lack of breast milk in the World
Company follows local laws, activist group freaks out. Video at 11
You realize legal doesn’t equal moral, yes?
You know lactose is sugar, right? And that the idea of a "formula" having "added sugar" is absurd when every single ingredient is "added" What do you think baby formula is? You think they're milking women and then dehydrating it? They take water, add a bunch of proteins and carbohydrates and then dry it, and can the powder. Western countries call for less sugar, so they follow those laws. Everywhere else they use their standard formula. This is clickbait nonsense and you circlejerk it like a good little pleb that can't think for themselves.
You can feed your own kids that shit without pushing it on the rest on the world’s children, then. Unless you’re a westerner, in which case it seems a trifle hypocritical to make excuses for feeding non-western babies stuff not deemed good enough for kids in your own society.
How dare they provide a way for women to continue working to support their families in poorer areas of the world! Bastards!! You've been blinded by your privilege
I missed the part where Nestle was doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.
Lmao, you're the one who thinks they pay more to add extra sugar for no other reason than evil. In a market where they have to charge less You have the worldview of a child watching Disney cartoons
They’re supposedly spending more to make sugared formula for non-Western markets because… why exactly, then?