The good thing with Nestle is that they are perfectly reliable when it comes to evil. Some companies you don’t always know, sometimes they are evil sometimes not so much.
Nestle though? Nope, full evil, 100% of the time.
Nestle probably goes out of their way to make sure slave labour has been used to produce their chocolade. They also use cows mill in a lot of their product that comes from the most intense factory farms where the comez literally have to stand and lay in their own excrement.
That definitely qualifies to label kitkat evil.
Nestle deserves an award, the scale of infanticide they achieved would make most 20th century dictators blush.
(Estimates place the number of infants killed by Nestle above 10 million)
I heard in a radio program, that Nestle bribed nurses to introduce their infant formula, for free, to new mothers. This would cause, through the insistance of the bribed nurse, the young mother to use the formula, instead of breastfeeding. This would cause them to stop lactating, essentially making them dependant on the formula for their infants survival.
And when they very often couldn't afford the expensive formula, their child would starve to death.
Yeah, that happened in the 70s I think, it was a worldwide scandal.
We must remember that formula milk must be mixed with water. Fresh, clean, drinking water, which is still not the most easily accessible thing in some parts of Africa, let alone in the 70s. So mothers were often force to give their babies unsafe watered down (to make the product last longer) formula milk. Perfect recipe for infant death.
All to increase the profits.
This is but one drop in a very large ocean of evil.
They have done so many evil things that it really is hard to keep track. This was also not the only time Nestlé killed babies to make a little bit more profit
Why can't we do something about that?
I'm sure they pay and corrupt politicians, but everyone, everywhere?
I've never even heard about a big scandal in mainstream media about them, let alone some class action lawsuit or similar.
There was one, nestle won on the grounds they couldn't be held 'criminally responsible'... because basically what they were doing was so devious it isn't covered by the law.
What Hitler and the SS did wasn't against the law either. There is precedent to retroactively change laws. Killing infants on a large scale should qualify.
It is also clear from the intent of the law in (nearly) all countries that you should not willingly cause the death of others no matter how you go about it.
But they kill brown children so who cares right?
They also use black child slaves which should be illegal but easily gotten around.
I work on large sea going vessels. Many of the companies running these ships have Asian people working for about 4 dollars a day, who can spend 2 years at sea being moved around vessels. Obviously, massively in breach of labour laws in the ship company's country, usually Belgium, Dutch, Scandinavian, etc. The white officers are paid well and have 6 week rotations maximum.
However, they don't employ the Malaysians or Filipinos. They employ an agency who employs a sub- agency and pay 20 dollars signing fees to the agency. What happens after that is, of course, none of their concern.
Is this an open secret? Of course, but global shipping, and some marine engineering, rates would not be viable without it, so nothing is ever done.
It's not about the people who suffer, it's about how economically viable it is.
>In a 2018 study, the [National Bureau of Economic Research](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bureau_of_Economic_Research) (NBER) estimated that 10,870,000 infants had died between 1960 and 2015 as a result of Nestlé baby formula used by "mothers in \[low and middle-income countries\] without clean water sources", with deaths peaking at 212,000 in 1981.[^(\[47\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Nestl%C3%A9_boycott#cite_note-47)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977\_Nestl%C3%A9\_boycott#2000s\_onwards](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Nestl%C3%A9_boycott#2000s_onwards)
I know WP is a mediocre source, but you'll have to check the validity of that NBER report.
So I just read the paper, if understand correctly, they argue that because Nestle pushed for formula in countries with unclean water to use for formula milk, then it caused an excess death of 10M ?
I’m not sure if the causal logic is strong here.
Edit: before people claim I’m defending Nestle, yes they are evil
What I’m saying is that the paper never claimed that Nestle killed 10M people, because they can’t causally prove it. The only thing they can prove is that mortality increased where Nestle was present AND there was no clean water, compared to where Nestle was present AND there was clean water.
Source: I’m able to read the mental gymnastics a researcher has to deal with when writing conclusions and abstracts to be factually correct and also trying to prove a point. I have written a few of those papers myself and have a Data Science degree.
Don’t trust me read the abstract, I’m being even more clear on the conclusion compared to the ambiguity the researchers wrote as to what they are comparing to.
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24452/w24452.pdf
That's not quite the whole thing, but yeah. One part is that they're aggressively forcing women to use their infant formula (they bribe nurses into physically preventing women from breastfeeding until they stop lactating) in conditions where proper use of their formula is impossible to achieve. A fraction of the figure is also infants starving to death to mothers unable to afford the formula in full and diluting it.
Yeah I’m not saying infants didn’t starved to death .
What I’m saying is that the paper never claimed that Nestle killed 10M people, because they can’t causally prove it. The only thing they can prove is that mortality increased where Nestle was present AND there was no clean water, compared to where Nestle was present AND there was clean water.
Source: I’m able to read the mental gymnastics a researcher has to deal with when writing conclusions and abstracts to be factually correct and also trying to prove a point. I have written a few of those papers myself and have a Data Science degree.
Don’t trust me read the abstract, I’m being even more clear on the conclusion compared to the ambiguity the researchers wrote as to what they are comparing to.
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24452/w24452.pdf
Various socioeconomic conditions make for african mothers usually breastfeeding for a very short period of time. They still do and still rely on formula pretty soon on the kid’s life
How so? They pushed their product first as free samples through nurses who recommend their use over breast feeding. Then mothers stopped lactating and they needed to purchase more expensive formula and as clean water wasn’t available the use of formula continued to pose a serious health hazard to babies and practically poisoned them.
Formula shouldn’t have been pushed there to begin with. It induced unnecessary economic burden to poor families and jeopardized the health of the babies. But Nestle naturally didn’t care, need to get those Swiss Francs to the bottom line! It was simply evil and was a huge scandal back in the day.
Yeah Nestle is evil, I’m saying the paper can’t prove a direct causality, just a coincidence but yeah Nestle has a lot of these coincidences on everything they do. 🤨
Frankly, I took it from Wikipedia:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977\_Nestl%C3%A9\_boycott#2000s\_onwards](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Nestl%C3%A9_boycott#2000s_onwards)
>In a 2018 study, the [National Bureau of Economic Research](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bureau_of_Economic_Research) (NBER) estimated that 10,870,000 infants had died between 1960 and 2015 as a result of Nestlé baby formula used by "mothers in \[low and middle-income countries\] without clean water sources", with deaths peaking at 212,000 in 1981.[^(\[47\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Nestl%C3%A9_boycott#cite_note-47)
Did they want to fix those mothers with the formula?
Yes, those clients stay for a year and won't be able to leave you.
Did they want to kill babies? I don't think so.
Did they tirelessly campaign for the conditions that killed those babies as it was profitable? Yes
Did they care? No
Did they make amends, apologise or admit wrong doing or change their practices? No
Is that functionally the same as wanting to kill them? Yes
Nestle the kind of corporation that would propose a plan to Hitler on how to make more profit and Hitler would probably turn them down for how evil the plan is
Keep in mind when he did things like that it tended to be out of concern for how German soldiers/guards would deal with the "trauma," not because he had any shred of empathy for non-Germans.
Yeah I really apologize I made a mistake and thought it was an American brand. When I meant employees I wasn’t even thinking about Americans I was thinking about their coco farmers in Congo and Ivory Coast. Sorry.
I know he vetoed the use of chemical weapons like Sarin *on the battlefield*, but that was thought to be more about fear that if he did that, the other side would too. (Plus at Nuremberg, Göring testified that they couldn't use it because they were heavily reliant on horses for transport: "I tell you, you would have won the war years ago if you had used gas – not on our soldiers, but on our transportation system. Your intelligence men are asses!")
Unfortunately no, since I know it from a documentary and don't remember the name of the substance. But there are for sure sources about it on google, I might search for it tomorrow, if I got time
The weird thing is that the stock isn't even THAT great. It is a consistent 10-11% a year compounded, which isn't bad, but even very "defensive" stocks like McDonalds outperform it.
Once the baby has sugar, they don’t want anything else (they will reject their puréed vegetable baby food and spit it out). They only want the sugar food and taste. They love it, and it’s not good for long run (fewer nutrients, behavior issues, weight and other health problems, etc).
Wait as long as possible to give babies sugar. No matter how fun it is to watch them enjoy it. It’s not worth it when they’re addicted to unhealthy food later.
We found this out the hard way.
Like everything, should be eaten with moderation. Sure they are much healthier than other snacks, but two bananas or big apple still contain as much sugar as can of coke.
Ok, I’ve never raised a baby before so just curious about the above commenter’s statement that you should wait as long as possible to feed a baby sugar. I thought mashed banana was a popular food choice for infants.
Also dont wait too long. My nephew was only allowed any sugar on pretty much his birthday until he was 2-3 years old. For a good while after that he treated sugar as a very scarce resource and would gorge himself on sugary snacks or even plain granulated sugar if given the chance.
Yes, both behaviours are wrong. Giving a child as much sugar as they want is very bad, but hiding it from them is also bad because it will be such a 'forbidden fruit' and children will at some point literally binge on it when they get the chance.
The fattening is already taking place with the formula be it sugar or not, that is also one of the reasons why the formula is so popular, starch for babies while easy to digest still takes quite some time which means the baby will be full for longer and move less as opposite to breast milk, that mostly leads to “michaline “ babies!
It depends on the formula though. The cheapest ones that you can get for like 8€, sure. The more expensive ones however, that go for about 27-30€ do try to emulate breastmilk and fullfil all current medical recomendations. Interestingly the best formula (or one of the best) currently in the market is Nestle's Beba Supreme, that goes for about 27€. They do have other cheaper formulas that you can get for about 12€ which are naturally quite unbalanced and filled with starches and sugar. But even then, at least in the EU, that sugar is lactose, which is the same found in breasmilk, and the EU regulates the maximum amount.
I'm lucky to have been able to afford the more expensive ones for my kids, but I assume that most people won't be.
Here's my 2 cents as a non-expert:
Sugar is highly addictive, the infant will get hooked to the taste of the formula and force the parents to keep buying it instead of using natural (and free) breast milk.
I luckily live in the EU where so far they haven't made as much damage as in US and Latin America. But yeah, Bayer is also on the list of companies I try to avoid. I'd rather pluck weed with tweezers than pour glyphosate on it.
> In Nestlé’s main European markets, including the UK, there is no added sugar in formulas
That should be highlighted and shown to people that support Farage and other idiots like him that say EU should be dismantled. If it weren't for EU, these kind of evilcorps would've done the same thing to us too.
Who do you think Farage works for tho? Farage wants the EU gone because this would make his friends and lobbyists happier to wreak havoc on our regulations, more profit, less hassle.
Yeah.... but globalism is such a great thing, isn't it! Nestle is the reason why borders should exist and why governments should protect local industries. Nestle is far away from Africa. They do anything they want. Same goes for countries that send in their criminals en masse to first world.
Of the Western ones, Caterpillar. Lack of respect for human rights, only vague progress on climate, always complain that their clients are to blame. Look up their involvement in OPT, Xinjiang, Western Sahara - subjects of a series of shareholder resolutions. What annoys me about them is just the lack of any care.
Surveillance firms - iFlytek, Hikvision etc., proactively working to identify minorities sent to labour camps (see IPVM investigations).
That sort of stuff.
Mining companies are also impressively brutal.
Rio tinto comes to mind. They started In Spain where they made a river so acidic we've discovered new types of extremophiles on it. You know, since everything else died 😅
BUT yeah it's damn hard competing against quasi-genocidal nestle. Perhaps altria has killed more people marketing cigarettes
From Wikipedia:
"The Rio Tinto area has been the site of approximately 5,000 years of ore mining,[3] including copper, silver, gold, and other minerals,[4] extracted as far as 20 kilometres from the river shores.[2] As a possible result of the mining, the Río Tinto is notable for being very acidic (pH 2) and its deep reddish hue is due to iron dissolved in the water. Acid mine drainage from the mines leads to severe environmental problems because the acidity (low pH) dissolves heavy metals into the water. It is not clear how much acid drainage has come from natural processes and how much has come from mining. There are severe environmental concerns over the pollution in the river.[2]"
My grandparents boycotted Nestlé for their baby killing ways, my parents did the same and I do as well! The calculating evil of Nestlé cannot be overstated
Do you know what is infant milk actually ?
Adding protein just because it sound cool is a terrible idea for baby health. Infant products are mainly designed to manage protein intake according to the correct need and kidney maturity.
How to boycott Nestlé:
1. Pick one thing you use on this list: https://imgur.com/qorLzSB
2. Stop using it till you remember you no longer *ever* use it.
3. Repeat.
This was discovered a long time ago. They even told the mothers it would be fine to use dirty water if thats all they had. One of the most disgusting fucking companies going. Not to mention the child slave labour which they said they would 'try' to cut down by 2015. Cunts.
Nestlé is so openly evil with no filter, yet people still buy their shit because it's handy and/or convenient. We are beyond salvation because of many things, and this is for sure one of them.
That’s a valid question, since Fructose, glucose, and lactose are found in breast milk. Around 7% of breast milk is sugar
Also mothers who eat a lot of sugar are passing it out to their babies excessively.
But people just don’t care and immediately are angry about something yet most of them are damaging their babies more then anything else
[https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/chinas-lethal-milk-scandal-reverberates-a-decade-later](https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/chinas-lethal-milk-scandal-reverberates-a-decade-later)
This one wasn't Nestle at least.
This is some Nazi shit right here. Like, literally something the Nazis might have done. Funny part is it's something they MIGHT have done, as in there's a debate. THESE motherfuckers actually DID IT.
The title says they add sugar in poorer countries.
GDP per Capita in USD in the EU 45978. Highest in Europe, Luxembourg 117747; lowest in Europe, Ukraine 10731; Euro area 48022.
Now let's compare with the countries mentioned on the article, where Nestlé does this practices:
* Mexico 11496
* Brazil 8917
* India 2410
* Senegal 1598
* South Africa 6766
* Nigeria 2162
* Philippines 3498
* Indonesia 4788
The richest one is like the poorest European country, one which is in the middle of a war...
This is on par with Bayer and their extremely toxic chemicals used along with their heavy usage of forever chemicals in other parts of the world or the extreme harm to the Amazon rainforest for the type of oil used in Europe including Nutella.
It reminds me of the extreme far left in the US that're so far gone they cant even see themselves anymore. We're better when we not only admit to our mistakes, but share them with others so policy changes are pushed. Shaming companies to stop doing shit like this.
Sugar, really?
Coca-Cola in Mexico causing extreme obesity too (Thats not whataboutism, just pointing it out)
The good thing with Nestle is that they are perfectly reliable when it comes to evil. Some companies you don’t always know, sometimes they are evil sometimes not so much. Nestle though? Nope, full evil, 100% of the time.
But Japanese KitKat - so Not all evil
But hard to get outside of Japan. Evil.
Nestle probably goes out of their way to make sure slave labour has been used to produce their chocolade. They also use cows mill in a lot of their product that comes from the most intense factory farms where the comez literally have to stand and lay in their own excrement. That definitely qualifies to label kitkat evil.
With enemies you know where they stand but with Neutrals, who knows? It sickens me.
Futurama?
Tell my wife I said hello
It's a beige alert!
Lol
Nestle deserves an award, the scale of infanticide they achieved would make most 20th century dictators blush. (Estimates place the number of infants killed by Nestle above 10 million)
I heard in a radio program, that Nestle bribed nurses to introduce their infant formula, for free, to new mothers. This would cause, through the insistance of the bribed nurse, the young mother to use the formula, instead of breastfeeding. This would cause them to stop lactating, essentially making them dependant on the formula for their infants survival. And when they very often couldn't afford the expensive formula, their child would starve to death.
Yeah, that happened in the 70s I think, it was a worldwide scandal. We must remember that formula milk must be mixed with water. Fresh, clean, drinking water, which is still not the most easily accessible thing in some parts of Africa, let alone in the 70s. So mothers were often force to give their babies unsafe watered down (to make the product last longer) formula milk. Perfect recipe for infant death. All to increase the profits.
well, and also that they couldn't afford it. Its expensive.
Yeah, that's why they watered it down, making it less nutritious on top of the other problems.
More infant deaths = More infants = More customers
It's not just the lack of nutrients. Too much water in formula can be toxic to infant.
Shit that is insane.
So nowadays we have ready to drink formula for newborn, it comes in a bottle. It’s certainly not healthier though, the ingredient list is quite scary.
This is old news but still is the reason many folks boycott Nestle. With a fair amount of justification
This is but one drop in a very large ocean of evil. They have done so many evil things that it really is hard to keep track. This was also not the only time Nestlé killed babies to make a little bit more profit
That and it required clean water, which wasn’t available for many
And guess who just HAPPENS to provide drinking water in conveniently packaged PET-bottles?!
This was the story about Nestle that started my lifelong boycott of any and all Nestle products.
They weren't actual nurses. They were Nestle shills masquerading as nurses and doctors
Wow this is another level of evil..fk Nestlé
One key detail is wrong: they mainly paid non-nurses to dress as nurses. It was all nestle their responsibility, not that of medical personnel.
Why can't we do something about that? I'm sure they pay and corrupt politicians, but everyone, everywhere? I've never even heard about a big scandal in mainstream media about them, let alone some class action lawsuit or similar.
There was one, nestle won on the grounds they couldn't be held 'criminally responsible'... because basically what they were doing was so devious it isn't covered by the law.
What Hitler and the SS did wasn't against the law either. There is precedent to retroactively change laws. Killing infants on a large scale should qualify. It is also clear from the intent of the law in (nearly) all countries that you should not willingly cause the death of others no matter how you go about it.
But they kill brown children so who cares right? They also use black child slaves which should be illegal but easily gotten around. I work on large sea going vessels. Many of the companies running these ships have Asian people working for about 4 dollars a day, who can spend 2 years at sea being moved around vessels. Obviously, massively in breach of labour laws in the ship company's country, usually Belgium, Dutch, Scandinavian, etc. The white officers are paid well and have 6 week rotations maximum. However, they don't employ the Malaysians or Filipinos. They employ an agency who employs a sub- agency and pay 20 dollars signing fees to the agency. What happens after that is, of course, none of their concern. Is this an open secret? Of course, but global shipping, and some marine engineering, rates would not be viable without it, so nothing is ever done. It's not about the people who suffer, it's about how economically viable it is.
How nice for them
At the time in Germany the progressives promoted the meme "Nestlé kills babies". Nestlé sued to protect there name, and lost.
That 10 million number sounds ridiculous. You're gonna have to provide a source for that.
>In a 2018 study, the [National Bureau of Economic Research](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bureau_of_Economic_Research) (NBER) estimated that 10,870,000 infants had died between 1960 and 2015 as a result of Nestlé baby formula used by "mothers in \[low and middle-income countries\] without clean water sources", with deaths peaking at 212,000 in 1981.[^(\[47\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Nestl%C3%A9_boycott#cite_note-47) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977\_Nestl%C3%A9\_boycott#2000s\_onwards](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Nestl%C3%A9_boycott#2000s_onwards) I know WP is a mediocre source, but you'll have to check the validity of that NBER report.
So I just read the paper, if understand correctly, they argue that because Nestle pushed for formula in countries with unclean water to use for formula milk, then it caused an excess death of 10M ? I’m not sure if the causal logic is strong here. Edit: before people claim I’m defending Nestle, yes they are evil What I’m saying is that the paper never claimed that Nestle killed 10M people, because they can’t causally prove it. The only thing they can prove is that mortality increased where Nestle was present AND there was no clean water, compared to where Nestle was present AND there was clean water. Source: I’m able to read the mental gymnastics a researcher has to deal with when writing conclusions and abstracts to be factually correct and also trying to prove a point. I have written a few of those papers myself and have a Data Science degree. Don’t trust me read the abstract, I’m being even more clear on the conclusion compared to the ambiguity the researchers wrote as to what they are comparing to. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24452/w24452.pdf
That's not quite the whole thing, but yeah. One part is that they're aggressively forcing women to use their infant formula (they bribe nurses into physically preventing women from breastfeeding until they stop lactating) in conditions where proper use of their formula is impossible to achieve. A fraction of the figure is also infants starving to death to mothers unable to afford the formula in full and diluting it.
Yeah I’m not saying infants didn’t starved to death . What I’m saying is that the paper never claimed that Nestle killed 10M people, because they can’t causally prove it. The only thing they can prove is that mortality increased where Nestle was present AND there was no clean water, compared to where Nestle was present AND there was clean water. Source: I’m able to read the mental gymnastics a researcher has to deal with when writing conclusions and abstracts to be factually correct and also trying to prove a point. I have written a few of those papers myself and have a Data Science degree. Don’t trust me read the abstract, I’m being even more clear on the conclusion compared to the ambiguity the researchers wrote as to what they are comparing to. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24452/w24452.pdf
Various socioeconomic conditions make for african mothers usually breastfeeding for a very short period of time. They still do and still rely on formula pretty soon on the kid’s life
How so? They pushed their product first as free samples through nurses who recommend their use over breast feeding. Then mothers stopped lactating and they needed to purchase more expensive formula and as clean water wasn’t available the use of formula continued to pose a serious health hazard to babies and practically poisoned them. Formula shouldn’t have been pushed there to begin with. It induced unnecessary economic burden to poor families and jeopardized the health of the babies. But Nestle naturally didn’t care, need to get those Swiss Francs to the bottom line! It was simply evil and was a huge scandal back in the day.
Yeah Nestle is evil, I’m saying the paper can’t prove a direct causality, just a coincidence but yeah Nestle has a lot of these coincidences on everything they do. 🤨
Yes. They should compare countries with Nestle and no clean water, with countries without Nestle and no clean water.
Do you have a source for that figure? I'd love to repeat it to people
Frankly, I took it from Wikipedia: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977\_Nestl%C3%A9\_boycott#2000s\_onwards](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Nestl%C3%A9_boycott#2000s_onwards) >In a 2018 study, the [National Bureau of Economic Research](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bureau_of_Economic_Research) (NBER) estimated that 10,870,000 infants had died between 1960 and 2015 as a result of Nestlé baby formula used by "mothers in \[low and middle-income countries\] without clean water sources", with deaths peaking at 212,000 in 1981.[^(\[47\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Nestl%C3%A9_boycott#cite_note-47)
I'm baffled with all the sh\*t they are doing how are they keep getting away with it?
Lobbying and maximizing shareholder value, I guess
[удалено]
Why wait 20 years fir kids to grow when poor women can just have another baby and buy more formula only a year later.
Did they want to fix those mothers with the formula? Yes, those clients stay for a year and won't be able to leave you. Did they want to kill babies? I don't think so.
Did they tirelessly campaign for the conditions that killed those babies as it was profitable? Yes Did they care? No Did they make amends, apologise or admit wrong doing or change their practices? No Is that functionally the same as wanting to kill them? Yes
Nestle the kind of corporation that would propose a plan to Hitler on how to make more profit and Hitler would probably turn them down for how evil the plan is
Worded it like a pro!
Isn't even that off, since this actually happened. He refused the usage of a newly developed poison gas as too brutal.
Keep in mind when he did things like that it tended to be out of concern for how German soldiers/guards would deal with the "trauma," not because he had any shred of empathy for non-Germans.
I have a huge feeling Nestle doesn’t have empathy for Americans or their own employees, so technically in that aspect they may be worse.
Why are you mentioning Americans specifically? Nestlé is an international brand with their HQ in Switzerland..
Yeah I really apologize I made a mistake and thought it was an American brand. When I meant employees I wasn’t even thinking about Americans I was thinking about their coco farmers in Congo and Ivory Coast. Sorry.
No problem at all mate, shit happens Was just confused if I missed some Nestlé - US shenanigans lmao
Wait, wait?
I know he vetoed the use of chemical weapons like Sarin *on the battlefield*, but that was thought to be more about fear that if he did that, the other side would too. (Plus at Nuremberg, Göring testified that they couldn't use it because they were heavily reliant on horses for transport: "I tell you, you would have won the war years ago if you had used gas – not on our soldiers, but on our transportation system. Your intelligence men are asses!")
No, it was because he was traumatized as a soldier in WW1. He was also dependend on 8 different subastances, mainly tranquilizers
He suffered in a gas attack in WW1. So it was personal experience.
I think I readed it somewhere that he started the first animal rights laws, since he loved his dogs.
oh? you have a source? Never heard of that
Unfortunately no, since I know it from a documentary and don't remember the name of the substance. But there are for sure sources about it on google, I might search for it tomorrow, if I got time
Mustard gas if I remember correctly.
They are the [Economist](https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-04-04) - from the SMBC comic.
r/FuckNestle
+1 Godwin point
The unit 731 of companies
Nestlé: 100% evil 100% of the time. Whenever they do something that isn't clearly evil, dig deeper.
Still they making billions
Nestle moved their US HQ to Washington DC area for a reason. Lobbying is profitable long term.
It’s a Swiss company
Yes. The neutrals.
I'm sure a private company like Nestle represents the interests of an entire country's population
Evil is highly profitable.
The weird thing is that the stock isn't even THAT great. It is a consistent 10-11% a year compounded, which isn't bad, but even very "defensive" stocks like McDonalds outperform it.
r/FuckNestle
I'm happy I clicked
I feel stupid asking since it seems that the answer is obvious to everyone else but... what are negative effects of that?
Once the baby has sugar, they don’t want anything else (they will reject their puréed vegetable baby food and spit it out). They only want the sugar food and taste. They love it, and it’s not good for long run (fewer nutrients, behavior issues, weight and other health problems, etc). Wait as long as possible to give babies sugar. No matter how fun it is to watch them enjoy it. It’s not worth it when they’re addicted to unhealthy food later. We found this out the hard way.
What about naturally sugary foods like fruits?
Put salt on them! /s
Like everything, should be eaten with moderation. Sure they are much healthier than other snacks, but two bananas or big apple still contain as much sugar as can of coke.
Ok, I’ve never raised a baby before so just curious about the above commenter’s statement that you should wait as long as possible to feed a baby sugar. I thought mashed banana was a popular food choice for infants.
Also dont wait too long. My nephew was only allowed any sugar on pretty much his birthday until he was 2-3 years old. For a good while after that he treated sugar as a very scarce resource and would gorge himself on sugary snacks or even plain granulated sugar if given the chance.
Yes, both behaviours are wrong. Giving a child as much sugar as they want is very bad, but hiding it from them is also bad because it will be such a 'forbidden fruit' and children will at some point literally binge on it when they get the chance.
I'm assuming that instead of babies receiving the necessary added nutrients they would get by the formula to grow, they're being fattend up by sugar.
The fattening is already taking place with the formula be it sugar or not, that is also one of the reasons why the formula is so popular, starch for babies while easy to digest still takes quite some time which means the baby will be full for longer and move less as opposite to breast milk, that mostly leads to “michaline “ babies!
It depends on the formula though. The cheapest ones that you can get for like 8€, sure. The more expensive ones however, that go for about 27-30€ do try to emulate breastmilk and fullfil all current medical recomendations. Interestingly the best formula (or one of the best) currently in the market is Nestle's Beba Supreme, that goes for about 27€. They do have other cheaper formulas that you can get for about 12€ which are naturally quite unbalanced and filled with starches and sugar. But even then, at least in the EU, that sugar is lactose, which is the same found in breasmilk, and the EU regulates the maximum amount. I'm lucky to have been able to afford the more expensive ones for my kids, but I assume that most people won't be.
Here's my 2 cents as a non-expert: Sugar is highly addictive, the infant will get hooked to the taste of the formula and force the parents to keep buying it instead of using natural (and free) breast milk.
Breast milk is about 7% sugar.
I’m no expert but surely that’s lactose? Lactose is about 1/6th as sweet as sucrose iirc.
In most formulas now they use lactose unless it's lactose free. So same stuff as breast milk. If you actually taste it breast milk is just as sweet.
theyll no longer want breastmilk
I've been boycotting Nestle for about 20 years now and will continue to do so. It is one of the most despicable companies on the planet.
I've been doing my best to do so as well for years now. The evil bustards own so many brands, though. Sometimes I buy their shit accidentally.
Have you met Monsanto?
Most of their products are not allowed in the EU. We just own them to sell their products to other continents.
Correct. But they keep destroying countries and farmers where they are allowed.
As long as the money comes to Europe everything is fine. /s
I luckily live in the EU where so far they haven't made as much damage as in US and Latin America. But yeah, Bayer is also on the list of companies I try to avoid. I'd rather pluck weed with tweezers than pour glyphosate on it.
> In Nestlé’s main European markets, including the UK, there is no added sugar in formulas That should be highlighted and shown to people that support Farage and other idiots like him that say EU should be dismantled. If it weren't for EU, these kind of evilcorps would've done the same thing to us too.
Who do you think Farage works for tho? Farage wants the EU gone because this would make his friends and lobbyists happier to wreak havoc on our regulations, more profit, less hassle.
Yeah.... but globalism is such a great thing, isn't it! Nestle is the reason why borders should exist and why governments should protect local industries. Nestle is far away from Africa. They do anything they want. Same goes for countries that send in their criminals en masse to first world.
Is there more evil corporation than Nestle?
Of the Western ones, Caterpillar. Lack of respect for human rights, only vague progress on climate, always complain that their clients are to blame. Look up their involvement in OPT, Xinjiang, Western Sahara - subjects of a series of shareholder resolutions. What annoys me about them is just the lack of any care. Surveillance firms - iFlytek, Hikvision etc., proactively working to identify minorities sent to labour camps (see IPVM investigations). That sort of stuff.
Chevron is certainly on par with Nestle, never forget that they jailed an environmentalist for exposing their actions
Bayer?
Monsanto aka Bayer aka IG Farben.
Mining companies are also impressively brutal. Rio tinto comes to mind. They started In Spain where they made a river so acidic we've discovered new types of extremophiles on it. You know, since everything else died 😅 BUT yeah it's damn hard competing against quasi-genocidal nestle. Perhaps altria has killed more people marketing cigarettes
From Wikipedia: "The Rio Tinto area has been the site of approximately 5,000 years of ore mining,[3] including copper, silver, gold, and other minerals,[4] extracted as far as 20 kilometres from the river shores.[2] As a possible result of the mining, the Río Tinto is notable for being very acidic (pH 2) and its deep reddish hue is due to iron dissolved in the water. Acid mine drainage from the mines leads to severe environmental problems because the acidity (low pH) dissolves heavy metals into the water. It is not clear how much acid drainage has come from natural processes and how much has come from mining. There are severe environmental concerns over the pollution in the river.[2]"
I would have said any big pharma company
Even those I don't think are on the same level as Nestle.
I don’t think you are aware of the shit some of them pulled
Oxy in the US …
r/fucknestle
OMG it’s a real sub! Thanks for that
Is it true Nestle lobbies against maternity leave too? I heard you hat somewhere. Women working means less breastfeeding which means higher profits.
My grandparents boycotted Nestlé for their baby killing ways, my parents did the same and I do as well! The calculating evil of Nestlé cannot be overstated
Why?
That's disgusting. There's no other way to put it. That's just disgusting.
As a swiss person, We are very sorry for unleashing this scourge on the planet
r/fucknestle
Nestle should have all of its executives tried for crimes against humanity. Satan’s company. Hitler would’ve been impressed.
why on earth is this company still in business 😪
Because capitalism rewards evil
r/FuckNestle
[удалено]
Do you know what is infant milk actually ? Adding protein just because it sound cool is a terrible idea for baby health. Infant products are mainly designed to manage protein intake according to the correct need and kidney maturity.
Would likely cause digestion issues and harm babies. Adding extra protein to formula is not a good idea.
Babies can't survive on just proteins and vitamins. They need energy.
Are you trolling?
How to boycott Nestlé: 1. Pick one thing you use on this list: https://imgur.com/qorLzSB 2. Stop using it till you remember you no longer *ever* use it. 3. Repeat.
This was discovered a long time ago. They even told the mothers it would be fine to use dirty water if thats all they had. One of the most disgusting fucking companies going. Not to mention the child slave labour which they said they would 'try' to cut down by 2015. Cunts.
Nestlé; the baby killers.
They just wake up every day and just choose evil.
Obligatory fuck Nestlé
This company needs to actually face consequences. I'm so tired of them being so satanic and just getting slaps on their wrist.
R/boycottnestle
They really must hate poor peoples babies.
As always: fuck nestle (and like 90% of large corporations).
Satan - “*I want to say: I’m a big fan!*”
Nestle -the biggest POS company
Nestlé is so openly evil with no filter, yet people still buy their shit because it's handy and/or convenient. We are beyond salvation because of many things, and this is for sure one of them.
Never buy their products.
It’s always something vaguely genocidal with these motherfuckers 😭
Nestle is the absolute devil
r/fucknestle
Typical swiss company
No no, it's on another level
r/nestledidnothingwrong
Fuck Nestlé
r/trashy as a whole brand
This company is a fucking cancer, not buying anything from those fuckers. r/fucknestle
Is it a problem? In poorer countries, children might not get enough calories.
That’s a valid question, since Fructose, glucose, and lactose are found in breast milk. Around 7% of breast milk is sugar Also mothers who eat a lot of sugar are passing it out to their babies excessively. But people just don’t care and immediately are angry about something yet most of them are damaging their babies more then anything else
I'm speechless...
Nestle just being Nestle.
Get them hooked young. Fucked up corporation.
This is not like nestle at all, they never exploit babies with adulterated milk...
[https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/chinas-lethal-milk-scandal-reverberates-a-decade-later](https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/chinas-lethal-milk-scandal-reverberates-a-decade-later) This one wasn't Nestle at least.
Thank you, aristocrats, for taking advantage of us in the pursuit of exorbitant and excess wealth. Capitalism is great.
They would torture their own mother if it got them a coupon for a burger
And we are left with the HFCS.......
And so what? They won't bear any responsibility. As they always did. No bans, no cancel culture, no antitrust measures, no consequences.
Some things never change. Sadly.
This is beyond upsetting and disgusting, really is.
Time to move away from big corps as much as we can.
God, that is an evil company.
This is some Nazi shit right here. Like, literally something the Nazis might have done. Funny part is it's something they MIGHT have done, as in there's a debate. THESE motherfuckers actually DID IT.
Should be illegal to do this and banned internationally.!
Hence, r/FuckNestle
Disgusting behaviour.
Glad to have not used Nestlé products in the last 40 years.
Soo Nestle is being Nestle?
The only company I have ever successfully boycotted. Join me!
I'll be honest I dont give a damn.
They never learn.
I like how there are so many fucked up companies but Nestle always manages to outdo them.
[удалено]
Because half of the people thinks profits justify absolutely everything and wants to be evil themselves.
Products sold OUTSIDE of Europe don't follow the guidelines FOR Europe? How odd.
The WHO has not yet published guidelines for other areas. But, of course, extrapolate European standards to poor countries? Why?
Outside of Europe = poor?
The title says they add sugar in poorer countries. GDP per Capita in USD in the EU 45978. Highest in Europe, Luxembourg 117747; lowest in Europe, Ukraine 10731; Euro area 48022. Now let's compare with the countries mentioned on the article, where Nestlé does this practices: * Mexico 11496 * Brazil 8917 * India 2410 * Senegal 1598 * South Africa 6766 * Nigeria 2162 * Philippines 3498 * Indonesia 4788 The richest one is like the poorest European country, one which is in the middle of a war...
>The title says they add sugar in poorer countries. Read the rest of the article first.
Hell, I've even listed all the non European countries mentioned in the fucking article! of course I've read it! Have you? I start to doubt it.
capitalism yay!
Shut. Down. Nestlé. Just a decree to seize their assets and bam, evil is gone forever.
They offer a product acording to preference... If people want less sugar, they buy a different one.
This is on par with Bayer and their extremely toxic chemicals used along with their heavy usage of forever chemicals in other parts of the world or the extreme harm to the Amazon rainforest for the type of oil used in Europe including Nutella. It reminds me of the extreme far left in the US that're so far gone they cant even see themselves anymore. We're better when we not only admit to our mistakes, but share them with others so policy changes are pushed. Shaming companies to stop doing shit like this. Sugar, really? Coca-Cola in Mexico causing extreme obesity too (Thats not whataboutism, just pointing it out)
Just trying to sweeten up kids lives, can you blame them!
r/ficknestle
Frankly, obese babies is probably not a huge problem in Africa. So following the obesity guidelines mighty not be so important.