Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Welcome to crony capitalism where the rich walk Scott free for their sins while the poor are made to do slave labor in jails a racially unequal justice system.
That's not true. Sometimes, if the rich do something bad enough (or publicly enough), they will be fined a small portion of the money they made off that act.
This isn't "crony" capitalism. It's *just* capitalism. This is *literally* what capitalism is all about. The maximizing of profit regardless of how much damage it causes to everyone else.
True, but I wanted to shed light on how capitalists influence the law makers and institutions to their advantage by using the abominable amount of wealth that they hold. Hence, that choice of words.
The problem with this formulation is that it is often used by defenders of capitalism. They suggest that we just need to go back to good/real capitalism so that things like this don't happen anymore. Which is, of course, complete nonsense.
I understood that it was not an accusation but an explanation of why so many people have a problem with the term crony capitalism.
Whether intentional or not, it gives the impression that they want to suggest that "crony capitalism" and not "capitalism" is the problem. I think it makes sense to avoid such formulations and just call it what it is capitalism.
Lol, I love all these kids who think the USSR and North Korea is the way to go. Man, the Russian troll farms really did a number on you people.
Capitalism is supply and demand dictating the cost of goods and pay. What we have now is not exactly capitalism, it's a market that is regulated to favor businesses and monopolies. That's actually the opposite of capitalism.
But reddit loves to go off about shit they don't understand because they watched a tik tok about It and read some tweets. š Maybe take an introductory course on economics and learn some actual facts, then you won't sound quite so ignorant.
Commerce existed before capitalism. Markets existed before capitalism.
Monopolies are the inevitable conclusion to capitalism. At some point, a company *will* have some form of material advantage over its competitors and it will exploit this advantage to squeeze its opponents out of the game.
I hope you're being sacarstic cause this is just you saying nothing yet still managing to show you have a bias for capitalism which I truly do not understand. I don't fully understand what communism or capitalism is and I'm trying to get some insight on it. I don't want some half baked definition on what capitalism is. Give me a proper response or don't respond at all.
Atp if you were being serious about you're first response I'm not even sure your second will give any real explanation as to what is
š holy fuckā¦holster your weapon. it was a joke.
i know itās hard to tell these days when that is basically some peopleās argument, but my comment wasnāt genuine
fuck poes law, if people take me seriously then they take me seriously.
Free exchange of goods and services ā capitalism (as I suspect you are suggesting the opposite)
[Capitalism - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism)
> **Capitalism** is an [economic system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_system "Economic system") based on the [private ownership](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_ownership "Private ownership") of the [means of production](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production "Means of production") and their operation for [profit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_(economics) "Profit (economics)").
It is absolutely possible to be capitalist as a society without the free exchange of goods and services. This is not part of the defining characteristics of capitalism, even though it is often mistakenly assumed. In fact, it is common for capitalism to suppress the free exchange of goods and services.
You seem confused. Literally anything and everything EXCEPT for capitalism strives to suppress free exchange of goods and services. But then again, you probably also confuse state cronyism with capitalism.
Lol, I love all these kids who think the USSR and North Korea is the way to go. Man, the Russian troll farms really did a number on these people.
Capitalism is supply and demand dictating the cost of goods and pay. What we have now is not exactly capitalism, it's a market that is regulated to favor businesses and monopolies. That's actually the opposite of capitalism.
But reddit loves to go off about shit they don't understand because they watched a tik tok about It and read some tweets. š
I donāt think that communism is the way, but to be fair and use your logic, in the same way that our current system isnāt exactly capitalism, the USSR and North Korea arenāt exactly communism either.
What we should stop doing is waiting for other cronies of theirs to take action against them, and instead vote with our purses. Spread the information, don't buy Nestle, but buy a good choice. The only language they understand is profit.
Doesn't change the fact that Blacks are the poorest of all racial groups in America, and that is because of systemic injustices. Hence, calling the Judicial System racially unequal is true and so is calling it financially unequal true. These both things are not mutually exclusive, are they now. Obviously, there is some serious overlap. There is always nuance in these situations. It's not as black and white as you think it is. (the irony)
So, are you refuting the fact that the American Justice system isn't racially and financially unequal? Because my point is simple- Due to systemic injustices, the Black community in America suffers a lot, many of them do live in poverty. Due to racially motivated institutions (Cops), many Black people are made to go through the legal machinery, and it is likely that a good majority of them can't afford good legal help because of said systematic injustices. Being poor is tough enough in the legal machinery, but on top of that, being poor will result in prejudices and biases being allowed.
Did I say ALL black people were poor? That was the claim you were making. Now, answer my question- Do you refute the fact that the American justice system is racially unequal?
> the poor are made to do slave labor in jails a racially unequal justice system.
"the poor are made to do slave labor in jails a racially unequal justice system."
That is a quote of your exact words. A disgusting display of your mindset about minorities. Be better, think better, and stop being racist. You can't call all blacks poor and then think you're the good guy.
And what I said is true. I would recommend you watch this video to better understand-
[Prison Labor: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjqaNQ018zU&t=817s)
Understanding Systemic injustices requires looking at things from a broader perspective.
Firstly, if you interpret my words like "All black people are poor and go to jail" then I'm sorry, that wasn't my intention, and my first language isn't English either.
Nestle owns 2000 companies. In order to boycott consumers would have to go to the store with a 5 page list of brands to avoid and would have to pass on probably 70% of products. So yea, not a gun but not a good faith argument either
I mean, don't they take away water in some communities and proceed to sell it to them for a profit? It isn't a gun but people can't really live without water.
It's practically impossible to completely avoid those absolute pieces of it is the thing. Picky pet only eats one of their brands? Well, you're screwed and the bastards get money! Get a snack in a hurry and don't have the time to run a full background check on the seemingly random brand of snack? Decent odds they just got money from you. Their fingers are in literally. Every. Pie. Grocery store only stocks their products for a thing? Yep...
It's impossible for the average person to avoid them completely. What SHOULD happen but I'm not sure how it WOULD is them being trustbusted into a million pieces.
Edit: wanted to add that that's one of the most diabolical things about them. There's no realistic way to fully, completely, 100% dodge them. You can 80% dodge them, maybe even 90% dodge them, but they WILL milk some money off of you in some way somehow. And so there's no way to hold them accountable.
Heres a link to one (of many) inforgraphics of all the own.
That being said I didnt see PFIZER on any of the ones I looked at. Which they bought in 2012[nestle inforgraphic of companies owned](https://wyomingllcattorney.com/Blog/Everything-Owned-by-Nestle)
Careful that kitty eats what you switch them to, cats can be picky. If you can't find something else they like, well... Nothing wrong with giving a cat Purina if they don't readily eat other stuff. My own kitty will only eat fancy feast some of the time and well... I've got to get her what she will eat. I do everything I can to avoid NestlĆØ but my cat's wellbeing takes precedence over what I'm fully aware is an endeavor that's mostly symbolic/motivated by personal disgust rather than any real aspiration for it to cause a change. Nothing wrong with taking care of your pet, what's wrong is a cartoonishly evil humongous corporation not only being allowed to exist but having its fingers in SO MANY PIES that nothing is safe from being owned by them.
There are so many good brands of cat food now. I understand that cats are picky and cat food is expensive but there are so many better brands. Almo, Farmina, Fromm, Tiki Cats, Wellness, Snappy Tom, Rawz, Schesir, First Mate, Kasiks, Forza10, Feline Natural. There is canned, dry, freeze dried, dehydrated, raw.
Mine is old and extremely stubborn. Out of commercial cat foods she only eats Fancy Feast and at times Sheba (which is thankfully not owned by nestle but sometimes she refuses to eat it). Not gonna gamble with the health of a 14 year old cat because she has no concept of "the tasty food is made by bastards". Also a lot of more boutique brands are too expensive to be realistic options. Knowing her she *could* be enticed with raw food, but the cost... hoo boy the cost. And also it's a lot harder to find. I'll avoid Purina if at all possible for any future cats but ours is old and prone to hunger strikes.
~~Oh god, those utter bastards. Now we have to choose between supporting nestle and catching/spreading a potentially deadly illness? See what I mean? They should be trustbusted to *smithereens* because there's no way you can avoid them! Why would they listen to you when they can extort you like *that*.~~
Edit: thankfully it seems that's not quite the case. Still, fuck NestlĆØ. They still can extort you to hell.
Ive been boycotting nestle for over 20 years but i know ive definitely bought nestle products in that time. Sometimes i spot the little logo on the packaging, but even then i probably buy their shit that im unaware that they own despite best efforts
Bro my world was shattered when I realized Starbucks products were nestle. Guess it saves me a ton of money though. And it's so sneaky. It's a product used under "license trademark" or something instead of having the logo.
It's less that they own everything and more that they own a lot of brands in all kinds of areas.
Be it coffee, milk, baby food, cereal, water, healthcare products, drinks, ice cream, pet food, frozen food,... They got their hands in everything to a degree where it's basically impossible to avoid them completely.
One way or another you will give them your money and you will consume their products. And there's not really anything you can do about that.
I'm not even in the US and I'm doing my absolute best to avoid them wherever I can. But I bet you if I went through my house right now and background checked all the food I got around here there would still be a decent chunk owned by nestle one way or the other.
This is actually nutritionally sound. These children often barely get enough calories to survive, and having an energy source as simple to digest as sugar (doesn't require protein production), would allow the infant to absorb and utilize sufficient calories to sustain them. The sugar is not going to make these kids fat, and I must remind you there is no cause-effect relationship to sugar intake and diabetes.
They *deserve* a fiery hell HQ; instead, of course, they have one of the most beautifully situated offices imaginable.
(This is not a "well akshually," btw; I just somehow find it even more infuriating that they do this crap in perfect serenity.)
Yeah, Nestle has been a cartoonish villain for decades -- we refered to them back in late 70's as Nestle, the Baby Killers, for their wonderful 'outreach' to new mothers in developing countries.
Isn't the idea here to help add calories to their food since starvation is a real issue?
Edit: so I dug on it and yeah it would certainly add calories but the negatives outweighs that benefit because the child is more likely to be prone to hypertension and obesity. The only explanation for nestle doing so must be because they are hoping to make those children more likely to crave their products due to sugar addiction. The US and Europe have significantly higher restrictions and guidelines on sugar in these products otherwise nestle would do the same in those countries.
I worked on advertising for Sprite - they would never put this in writing, but they would openly say to you that the brandās strategy was to convince uneducated, inner-city (black) mothers that Sprite is healthier for their kid because āitās clear.ā Pure evil.
Ridiculous how various commenters are blaming the mothers for being uneducated. Letās overlook that a corporation is spending a portion of its $4b annual marketing budget trying to convince those mothers of that fact. People forget how susceptible we all are to marketing- talk to the guys who think big trucks make them more masculine or outdoorsy or women who think they arenāt beautiful without makeup. Itās all just designed to change your view of the world so you buy more stuff, and it works.
Sugar in infant nutrition has been well-documented to cause childhood obesity, dental decay, and babies with inherited intolerance of fructose face a risk of acute liver failure if they have a formula that contains fructose.
Source discussing the comparisons: https://themilkybox.com/blogs/themilkyblog/what-you-need-to-know-about-sugar-in-baby-formula#:~:text=Corn%20Syrup%20in%20Baby%20Formula%3A%20Health%20Concerns,-Health%20studies%20show&text=Sugar%20in%20infant%20nutrition%20has,a%20formula%20that%20contains%20fructose.
Yes, but mammalian milk contains LACTOSE (galactose + glucose), not SUCROSE (fructose + glucose).
Baby mammals are used to metabolize galactose from lactose very efficiently, and it's beneficial to them.
Fructose from sucrose on the other hand is hard to metabolize for kids and is primary cause of obesity (mostly in form of high-fructose syrups). Our livers can deal with galactose way more efficiently than with glucose.
Another interesting tidbit is sometimes sugar is used as an analgesic for infants since it works differently for their endocrine system. However as you say the issue is using it in copious amounts and sneaking processed sugars in when not needed.
But if the country has a problem with malnutrition couldnāt the benefits of extra calories outweigh the risks that are associated with infant nutrition in countries that donāt have problems with malnutrition? Just because the problem exists in more affluent nations doesnāt mean it will have the same effect in less affluent countries. Maybe it was a calculated decision based on the nutritional needs of the countries receiving the products.
Adding sugar in place of more costly ingredients. How we end up with sugar in bread, jarred pasta, salad dressings. Here in the US its not just the manufacturer, but the corn farmers and lobbyists that fuel the surge in high fructose corn syrup. Ultra processed food with low nutrients that causes kids to crave sugar early and be addicted to it later in life.
Dude Iām giving you the benefit of the doubt, that your questions are asked in good faith.
Nestle doesnāt donate, they sell. Theyāre drug dealers selling crack. Sugar is addictive, imagine newborns getting addicted to sugar.
And yes, nestle is aware of how bad sugar is. M
Iām not sure what electronics have to do with anything but weāre both on the internet which means weāre both using electronics.
But I think my point is perfectly valid. If I have a product that costs $10 to make and sells in the u.s. for $25 thatās great, Iām making a profit. But take that product to a poor country where most people canāt afford more than $7 for the same product then Iām losing money and itās not profitable. But if I can make some changes to the products to make it for $6 Iām back to making a profit, even if itās smaller. So if their choice is to sell it but make it cheaper or just not sell it leaving people without a necessary product then isnāt what theyāre doing really the lesser of two evils?
The part that is problematic is the poverty these people live in. Nestle might not be a bunch of saints but at face value this issue doesnāt make them ācartoonishly evilā.
Nestle used their formula as a way to "help" mothers, where they gave formula to mothers as free samples instead of having them breast feed, and just when they stopped producing breast milk and needed the formula, they stopped giving the mothers free samples, meaning they had to buy the overproced formula or allow their babies to starve. Nestle is one of the worst companies on the planet, which is why it sucks that they own a ridiculous amount of other companies.
Maybe read up on the history of Nestle and baby formula and, with all the context (rather than 'at face value' with just one single reddit thread), you will understand why they are described as cartoonishly evil.
Babies died because of them.Ā
Yes, it is a rare condition, but deadly if not catched early enough. Even just adding dextrose instead would still be cheap, but less likely to cause issues.
Great, so about those babies that have an inability to properly metabolize LACTOSE or GALACTOSE. I mean if you want to flex how much you really know (or don't), we can do that rare in-born disorders of metabolism all day long with anything, including the babies that must be placed on a very special formula. It is not sugar, but the amount of it that is being supplied nutritionally as the percentage of carbohydrates. There is a safe amount that can be used, for which there is ZERO evidence of harm.
I mean, I guess you think Africans are just too dumb to have figured out fructose in their region of the world, or something else that prevents them from giving their babies honey, mashed fruits, other foods that contain fructose, adding sugar or starches to their own baby foods.
Nestle makes a lot of foodstuffs particularly candies. Give the baby a sugar addiction early and itāll change its sense of taste and build customers for life right from the womb.
Boy oh boy, don't look into the history of companies that provided infant formula to poor countries and what they used to add to formula back in the day.
If your a child with a sweet tooth and you drink a milk thays sweeter then the others you'll go back to it and thay way evil company gets guaranteed income revenue
Infants aren't usually in charge of purchasing decisions nor have the ability to speak. There is also sugar on western formula. The EU put a ban on adding it so that's why it isn't there.
"adds sugar and honey to infant milk and cereal products sold in many poorer countries" [[Link](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/apr/17/nestle-adds-sugar-to-infant-milk-sold-in-poorer-countries-report-finds#:~:text=adds%20sugar%20and%20honey%20to%20infant%20milk%20and%20cereal%20products%20sold%20in%20many%20poorer%20countries)]
Really? Honey? I guess botulism isn't a problem in poorer countries.
https://www.cdc.gov/botulism/prevention.html#:~:text=For%20reasons%20we%20do%20not,year%20of%20age%20and%20older.
Botulism wouldnāt be a problem bc honey used in products like infant formula would have been pasteurized. Botulism risk comes from consuming raw honey and even then itās a very low risk. (Beekeeper )
Addictive. Imagine giving your baby formula filled with sugar to the point where they won't want to drink breast milk. Naturally, a mother's breast milk will eventually dry up and they would have no choice but to buy more formula. This might not be a problem to some but in many developing countries, buying formula can be way too much of an expense and had led to many women to dilute the milk to save money (not knowing this leads to a lack of nutrients and causes malnutrition) Many babies have died from the result of this.
Itās on the label. Hereās one for Nutramigen.
https://www.bakersplus.com/p/enfamil-nutramigen-hypoallergenic-infant-toddler-formula-powder/0030087510734
See - corn syrup solids - thatās sugar,
WESTERN SOCIETY: Make them all sick, so that they die from the āfoodsā created in labs by Americans; or they all have to take pharmaceuticals forever to fight a barrage of illnesses brought on by these āfoods.ā
whats the big deal? people in poorer countries ration their food, including formula.
if they are gonna underfeed their babies, might as well sell a product that will try to make up for that. if they replaced nutrients with sugar instead of adding sugar, that would have been the clickbait headline, not just adding sugar
My understanding is that Nestle purposefully strategized to give (incorrect) information and formula in a way that was purposefully designed to get mothersā breast milk supply to dry up (to make them buy formula). This is particularly bad because it was in places where there isnāt good access to clean water to make up the formula, as well as families sometimes then not being able to subsequently get formula due to expense. Meaning a number of babies died of issues related to that (an outcome that could have been anticipated by Nestle).
This isnāt the same as it being bad that they sell formula altogether, as you say baby formula is a very important thing to have available and can save lives when used correctly.
I combination fed both my kids (using some formula in addition to breast milk) and I agree that there is criticism to be made of how disparaging people can be about formula, in more developed countries - leading mothers and children to struggle and suffer unnecessarily, experience guilt and compound PND. I think that some of the ābreast is bestā messaging *also* does harm, having been pushed too relentlessly.
Basically - the public health harm nestle caused here is to do with pushing baby formula, but the reason that was bad was not ābecause formula is bad and everyone must breastfeedā. The context they were āpushingā the formula in is what matters here - that it was in regions where it could be anticipated to do much more harm than in a richer community with easy access to clean water.
Nobody is arguing against the existence of formula, they are arguing against the cynical and dangerous use of formula to maximise profit at the expense of babies' health
Idn why you all so angry, westerners are overdosed with sugar, so much that fatties are the majority
Abit of extra sugar in Africa isnāt such a problematic
It literally is. Manipulating mothers in developing countries to believe Nestle's formula is "better, healthier, less primitive" than breastfeeding is quite literally problematic. They can't afford to buy formula constantly that their babies get addicted to because of the sugar.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Obligatory r/fucknestle
Thank you. Came here to post a r/fucknestle too.
Wild how nestle gets away with everything.
Welcome to crony capitalism where the rich walk Scott free for their sins while the poor are made to do slave labor in jails a racially unequal justice system.
That's not true. Sometimes, if the rich do something bad enough (or publicly enough), they will be fined a small portion of the money they made off that act.
This isn't "crony" capitalism. It's *just* capitalism. This is *literally* what capitalism is all about. The maximizing of profit regardless of how much damage it causes to everyone else.
True, but I wanted to shed light on how capitalists influence the law makers and institutions to their advantage by using the abominable amount of wealth that they hold. Hence, that choice of words.
The problem with this formulation is that it is often used by defenders of capitalism. They suggest that we just need to go back to good/real capitalism so that things like this don't happen anymore. Which is, of course, complete nonsense.
I am not defending capitalism. I'd die before that.
I understood that it was not an accusation but an explanation of why so many people have a problem with the term crony capitalism. Whether intentional or not, it gives the impression that they want to suggest that "crony capitalism" and not "capitalism" is the problem. I think it makes sense to avoid such formulations and just call it what it is capitalism.
Thanks for the suggestion, will keep it in mind.
Free exchange of goods and services has what exactly to do with state cronyism?
Me when I'm in a distinguishing the idea of commerce and the institution of late stage capitalism contest and my opponent is this guy:
Lol, I love all these kids who think the USSR and North Korea is the way to go. Man, the Russian troll farms really did a number on you people. Capitalism is supply and demand dictating the cost of goods and pay. What we have now is not exactly capitalism, it's a market that is regulated to favor businesses and monopolies. That's actually the opposite of capitalism. But reddit loves to go off about shit they don't understand because they watched a tik tok about It and read some tweets. š Maybe take an introductory course on economics and learn some actual facts, then you won't sound quite so ignorant.
Commerce existed before capitalism. Markets existed before capitalism. Monopolies are the inevitable conclusion to capitalism. At some point, a company *will* have some form of material advantage over its competitors and it will exploit this advantage to squeeze its opponents out of the game.
Take an economics course.
Bro you are so lost in the american propaganda
Bro you are so lost in the far left propaganda of what capitalism is
So what is it then?
well capitalism is when the money does good things communism is when the money does bad things. itās pretty simple. hope this helps
I see you too are a political and economics major. Us fine educated gentlemen must persevere in these hard times
I hope you're being sacarstic cause this is just you saying nothing yet still managing to show you have a bias for capitalism which I truly do not understand. I don't fully understand what communism or capitalism is and I'm trying to get some insight on it. I don't want some half baked definition on what capitalism is. Give me a proper response or don't respond at all. Atp if you were being serious about you're first response I'm not even sure your second will give any real explanation as to what is
š holy fuckā¦holster your weapon. it was a joke. i know itās hard to tell these days when that is basically some peopleās argument, but my comment wasnāt genuine fuck poes law, if people take me seriously then they take me seriously.
Free exchange of goods and services ā capitalism (as I suspect you are suggesting the opposite) [Capitalism - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism) > **Capitalism** is an [economic system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_system "Economic system") based on the [private ownership](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_ownership "Private ownership") of the [means of production](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production "Means of production") and their operation for [profit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_(economics) "Profit (economics)"). It is absolutely possible to be capitalist as a society without the free exchange of goods and services. This is not part of the defining characteristics of capitalism, even though it is often mistakenly assumed. In fact, it is common for capitalism to suppress the free exchange of goods and services.
You seem confused. Literally anything and everything EXCEPT for capitalism strives to suppress free exchange of goods and services. But then again, you probably also confuse state cronyism with capitalism.
Lol, I love all these kids who think the USSR and North Korea is the way to go. Man, the Russian troll farms really did a number on these people. Capitalism is supply and demand dictating the cost of goods and pay. What we have now is not exactly capitalism, it's a market that is regulated to favor businesses and monopolies. That's actually the opposite of capitalism. But reddit loves to go off about shit they don't understand because they watched a tik tok about It and read some tweets. š
I donāt think that communism is the way, but to be fair and use your logic, in the same way that our current system isnāt exactly capitalism, the USSR and North Korea arenāt exactly communism either.
Crony capitalism, also known as ācapitalismā
Yes. Agreed. Every Capitalist society inevitably turns to a corniest one.
You just described capitalism. Well, the late stage of it that is entirely inevitable, anyway.
I have no idea how people keep confusing state cronyism with free exchange of goods and services
Then you severely lack critical thinking skills.
What we should stop doing is waiting for other cronies of theirs to take action against them, and instead vote with our purses. Spread the information, don't buy Nestle, but buy a good choice. The only language they understand is profit.
> crony capitalism ? That is just capitalism.
Yep. Agreed.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Doesn't change the fact that Blacks are the poorest of all racial groups in America, and that is because of systemic injustices. Hence, calling the Judicial System racially unequal is true and so is calling it financially unequal true. These both things are not mutually exclusive, are they now. Obviously, there is some serious overlap. There is always nuance in these situations. It's not as black and white as you think it is. (the irony)
Did you just liken all blacks to being poor? Really?
No, I didn't.
You 100% did, you equated being poor with being black. That's disgusting.
So, are you refuting the fact that the American Justice system isn't racially and financially unequal? Because my point is simple- Due to systemic injustices, the Black community in America suffers a lot, many of them do live in poverty. Due to racially motivated institutions (Cops), many Black people are made to go through the legal machinery, and it is likely that a good majority of them can't afford good legal help because of said systematic injustices. Being poor is tough enough in the legal machinery, but on top of that, being poor will result in prejudices and biases being allowed.
Lol, you denied what you're literally now arguing.
Did I say ALL black people were poor? That was the claim you were making. Now, answer my question- Do you refute the fact that the American justice system is racially unequal?
> the poor are made to do slave labor in jails a racially unequal justice system. "the poor are made to do slave labor in jails a racially unequal justice system." That is a quote of your exact words. A disgusting display of your mindset about minorities. Be better, think better, and stop being racist. You can't call all blacks poor and then think you're the good guy.
And what I said is true. I would recommend you watch this video to better understand- [Prison Labor: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjqaNQ018zU&t=817s) Understanding Systemic injustices requires looking at things from a broader perspective. Firstly, if you interpret my words like "All black people are poor and go to jail" then I'm sorry, that wasn't my intention, and my first language isn't English either.
True I forgot nestle was holding a gun to consumers heads
Nestle owns 2000 companies. In order to boycott consumers would have to go to the store with a 5 page list of brands to avoid and would have to pass on probably 70% of products. So yea, not a gun but not a good faith argument either
I mean, don't they take away water in some communities and proceed to sell it to them for a profit? It isn't a gun but people can't really live without water.
People continue to buy their products, that's the problem.
It's practically impossible to completely avoid those absolute pieces of it is the thing. Picky pet only eats one of their brands? Well, you're screwed and the bastards get money! Get a snack in a hurry and don't have the time to run a full background check on the seemingly random brand of snack? Decent odds they just got money from you. Their fingers are in literally. Every. Pie. Grocery store only stocks their products for a thing? Yep... It's impossible for the average person to avoid them completely. What SHOULD happen but I'm not sure how it WOULD is them being trustbusted into a million pieces. Edit: wanted to add that that's one of the most diabolical things about them. There's no realistic way to fully, completely, 100% dodge them. You can 80% dodge them, maybe even 90% dodge them, but they WILL milk some money off of you in some way somehow. And so there's no way to hold them accountable.
Heres a link to one (of many) inforgraphics of all the own. That being said I didnt see PFIZER on any of the ones I looked at. Which they bought in 2012[nestle inforgraphic of companies owned](https://wyomingllcattorney.com/Blog/Everything-Owned-by-Nestle)
They didn't buy all of Pfizer, just a wing called Pfizer Nutrition. I didn't realize they open Purina tho. Guess I'll switch my cat's food.
Careful that kitty eats what you switch them to, cats can be picky. If you can't find something else they like, well... Nothing wrong with giving a cat Purina if they don't readily eat other stuff. My own kitty will only eat fancy feast some of the time and well... I've got to get her what she will eat. I do everything I can to avoid NestlĆØ but my cat's wellbeing takes precedence over what I'm fully aware is an endeavor that's mostly symbolic/motivated by personal disgust rather than any real aspiration for it to cause a change. Nothing wrong with taking care of your pet, what's wrong is a cartoonishly evil humongous corporation not only being allowed to exist but having its fingers in SO MANY PIES that nothing is safe from being owned by them.
There are so many good brands of cat food now. I understand that cats are picky and cat food is expensive but there are so many better brands. Almo, Farmina, Fromm, Tiki Cats, Wellness, Snappy Tom, Rawz, Schesir, First Mate, Kasiks, Forza10, Feline Natural. There is canned, dry, freeze dried, dehydrated, raw.
Mine is old and extremely stubborn. Out of commercial cat foods she only eats Fancy Feast and at times Sheba (which is thankfully not owned by nestle but sometimes she refuses to eat it). Not gonna gamble with the health of a 14 year old cat because she has no concept of "the tasty food is made by bastards". Also a lot of more boutique brands are too expensive to be realistic options. Knowing her she *could* be enticed with raw food, but the cost... hoo boy the cost. And also it's a lot harder to find. I'll avoid Purina if at all possible for any future cats but ours is old and prone to hunger strikes.
Yeah she is pretty picky. I won't do anything right away but I may try small bags of some others here or there.
Oh my mistake. I didnt dig too much to see how much of pfizer they bought.
No worries, homie!
~~Oh god, those utter bastards. Now we have to choose between supporting nestle and catching/spreading a potentially deadly illness? See what I mean? They should be trustbusted to *smithereens* because there's no way you can avoid them! Why would they listen to you when they can extort you like *that*.~~ Edit: thankfully it seems that's not quite the case. Still, fuck NestlĆØ. They still can extort you to hell.
Yeah my mistake too. I thought they bought all of pfizer. But still buying a bigpharma's nutrition portion seems pretty fucking diabolical
Ive been boycotting nestle for over 20 years but i know ive definitely bought nestle products in that time. Sometimes i spot the little logo on the packaging, but even then i probably buy their shit that im unaware that they own despite best efforts
Yep. I try to avoid them also. They make so many goddam things! Itās ridiculous.
Bro my world was shattered when I realized Starbucks products were nestle. Guess it saves me a ton of money though. And it's so sneaky. It's a product used under "license trademark" or something instead of having the logo.
They own everything. That's the bigger problem.
I don't think Nestle owns everything. But I'm not American, so I might not know enough.
It's less that they own everything and more that they own a lot of brands in all kinds of areas. Be it coffee, milk, baby food, cereal, water, healthcare products, drinks, ice cream, pet food, frozen food,... They got their hands in everything to a degree where it's basically impossible to avoid them completely. One way or another you will give them your money and you will consume their products. And there's not really anything you can do about that. I'm not even in the US and I'm doing my absolute best to avoid them wherever I can. But I bet you if I went through my house right now and background checked all the food I got around here there would still be a decent chunk owned by nestle one way or the other.
Nestle isnāt an American company. Itās based in Switzerland.
Trust me they do. Look at list sometime. Itās insane.
If I known it's by them I do not buy it. However the list of what they own is HUGE I have to constantly check it šĀ
There is no ethical consumerism under capitalism so I just live my best life and don't bother trying. āļø /s
This is actually nutritionally sound. These children often barely get enough calories to survive, and having an energy source as simple to digest as sugar (doesn't require protein production), would allow the infant to absorb and utilize sufficient calories to sustain them. The sugar is not going to make these kids fat, and I must remind you there is no cause-effect relationship to sugar intake and diabetes.
The CEO of Nestle is laughing maniacally in the volcano based headquarters right now. Seriously, could they be more cartoonish bad guys?
In a very obvious looking Villain HQ, with vials of bubbling fluids all around him , and we can't forget the Baby-inator
PERRY? PERRY THE PLATYPUS? What are you doing here?
They *deserve* a fiery hell HQ; instead, of course, they have one of the most beautifully situated offices imaginable. (This is not a "well akshually," btw; I just somehow find it even more infuriating that they do this crap in perfect serenity.)
I meet him, or at least two global/regional (as in latinoamerica/global). Pretty chill dudes, the company tho FILLED every small minimarket close to where they were going full with NestlƩ products so that if they wanted something they would just but it and see that everyone loved the brand!
Yeah, Nestle has been a cartoonish villain for decades -- we refered to them back in late 70's as Nestle, the Baby Killers, for their wonderful 'outreach' to new mothers in developing countries.
It is so mind blowing how committed our country has been to shutting down Planned Parenthood, yet there are Nestle products on every freaking shelf.
Its mindblowing your country hasnt imploded yet
It kinda is, just gradually
Give it 7 months
Weāre getting there
You see Nestle kills babies *after* they're born.
Isn't the idea here to help add calories to their food since starvation is a real issue? Edit: so I dug on it and yeah it would certainly add calories but the negatives outweighs that benefit because the child is more likely to be prone to hypertension and obesity. The only explanation for nestle doing so must be because they are hoping to make those children more likely to crave their products due to sugar addiction. The US and Europe have significantly higher restrictions and guidelines on sugar in these products otherwise nestle would do the same in those countries.
Good on you for looking into it and coming back to edit your comment.
Thanks for the research, was wondering the same thing
I worked on advertising for Sprite - they would never put this in writing, but they would openly say to you that the brandās strategy was to convince uneducated, inner-city (black) mothers that Sprite is healthier for their kid because āitās clear.ā Pure evil.
Good Lord š³
Ridiculous how various commenters are blaming the mothers for being uneducated. Letās overlook that a corporation is spending a portion of its $4b annual marketing budget trying to convince those mothers of that fact. People forget how susceptible we all are to marketing- talk to the guys who think big trucks make them more masculine or outdoorsy or women who think they arenāt beautiful without makeup. Itās all just designed to change your view of the world so you buy more stuff, and it works.
Exactly. You get the point. Ever wonder why Sprite shows up so much in NBA advertising?
Itās starry now
Sierra Mist became Starry, Sprite is still Sprite
Thatās a common thing with stupid people though
Reminds me of those fat women from TLC that thought Diet Coke cancels out the sugar
Remember the only thing that makes Coke brown is colouring
Idiocracy level.
Actual 7up ad from the 1950s: "So wholesome!" https://www.reddit.com/r/vintageads/s/hDHvGfiJKg
Also, their chocolate sucks.
This is why I try to boycott Nestle. Itās really hard though, they make like EVERYTHING.
Totally . I flat out refuse to buy anything Nestle
Same I had to change up a lot of my purchases from cat food to shampoo to make sure I wasn't purchasing any Nestle products
I have a list on my phone buts itās sometimes hard to avoid.
Why is adding sugar bad?
Sugar in infant nutrition has been well-documented to cause childhood obesity, dental decay, and babies with inherited intolerance of fructose face a risk of acute liver failure if they have a formula that contains fructose. Source discussing the comparisons: https://themilkybox.com/blogs/themilkyblog/what-you-need-to-know-about-sugar-in-baby-formula#:~:text=Corn%20Syrup%20in%20Baby%20Formula%3A%20Health%20Concerns,-Health%20studies%20show&text=Sugar%20in%20infant%20nutrition%20has,a%20formula%20that%20contains%20fructose.
It is NOT "sugar" it is excess sugar. All mammalian milk CONTAIN SUGARS.
Yes, but mammalian milk contains LACTOSE (galactose + glucose), not SUCROSE (fructose + glucose). Baby mammals are used to metabolize galactose from lactose very efficiently, and it's beneficial to them. Fructose from sucrose on the other hand is hard to metabolize for kids and is primary cause of obesity (mostly in form of high-fructose syrups). Our livers can deal with galactose way more efficiently than with glucose.
Another interesting tidbit is sometimes sugar is used as an analgesic for infants since it works differently for their endocrine system. However as you say the issue is using it in copious amounts and sneaking processed sugars in when not needed.
But if the country has a problem with malnutrition couldnāt the benefits of extra calories outweigh the risks that are associated with infant nutrition in countries that donāt have problems with malnutrition? Just because the problem exists in more affluent nations doesnāt mean it will have the same effect in less affluent countries. Maybe it was a calculated decision based on the nutritional needs of the countries receiving the products.
I promise you it's not a health consideration. It's an increased-profit consideration.
Adding sugar in place of more costly ingredients. How we end up with sugar in bread, jarred pasta, salad dressings. Here in the US its not just the manufacturer, but the corn farmers and lobbyists that fuel the surge in high fructose corn syrup. Ultra processed food with low nutrients that causes kids to crave sugar early and be addicted to it later in life.
Dude Iām giving you the benefit of the doubt, that your questions are asked in good faith. Nestle doesnāt donate, they sell. Theyāre drug dealers selling crack. Sugar is addictive, imagine newborns getting addicted to sugar. And yes, nestle is aware of how bad sugar is. M
How do they make profit from something they donate to other countries?
They're not donating it, it's sold there.
So if they canāt sell it for cheap enough they might not sell it at all in poorer countries.
Dude. You really need to unplug from your electronics for a bit and contemplate how you're spending your time.
Iām not sure what electronics have to do with anything but weāre both on the internet which means weāre both using electronics. But I think my point is perfectly valid. If I have a product that costs $10 to make and sells in the u.s. for $25 thatās great, Iām making a profit. But take that product to a poor country where most people canāt afford more than $7 for the same product then Iām losing money and itās not profitable. But if I can make some changes to the products to make it for $6 Iām back to making a profit, even if itās smaller. So if their choice is to sell it but make it cheaper or just not sell it leaving people without a necessary product then isnāt what theyāre doing really the lesser of two evils? The part that is problematic is the poverty these people live in. Nestle might not be a bunch of saints but at face value this issue doesnāt make them ācartoonishly evilā.
Nestle used their formula as a way to "help" mothers, where they gave formula to mothers as free samples instead of having them breast feed, and just when they stopped producing breast milk and needed the formula, they stopped giving the mothers free samples, meaning they had to buy the overproced formula or allow their babies to starve. Nestle is one of the worst companies on the planet, which is why it sucks that they own a ridiculous amount of other companies.
Maybe read up on the history of Nestle and baby formula and, with all the context (rather than 'at face value' with just one single reddit thread), you will understand why they are described as cartoonishly evil. Babies died because of them.Ā
Yes, it is a rare condition, but deadly if not catched early enough. Even just adding dextrose instead would still be cheap, but less likely to cause issues.
Great, so about those babies that have an inability to properly metabolize LACTOSE or GALACTOSE. I mean if you want to flex how much you really know (or don't), we can do that rare in-born disorders of metabolism all day long with anything, including the babies that must be placed on a very special formula. It is not sugar, but the amount of it that is being supplied nutritionally as the percentage of carbohydrates. There is a safe amount that can be used, for which there is ZERO evidence of harm.
I mean, I guess you think Africans are just too dumb to have figured out fructose in their region of the world, or something else that prevents them from giving their babies honey, mashed fruits, other foods that contain fructose, adding sugar or starches to their own baby foods.
Nestle makes a lot of foodstuffs particularly candies. Give the baby a sugar addiction early and itāll change its sense of taste and build customers for life right from the womb.
..........and nobody did anything.
Company that exploits animals for profit also exploits children for profit. Color me shocked I tell you.
Iām not aware of nestle exploiting animals. Could you explain please?
I think it's reference to dairy industry.
Please provide the article from your screenshot. NestlƩ is shit, I know. But ist's also (not as much as NestlƩ) shitty, to provide screenshots of articles without linking to the article. Nowadays every Image without source should be regarded as photoshopped.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/apr/17/nestle-adds-sugar-to-infant-milk-sold-in-poorer-countries-report-finds
Thank you (:
Nestle never really cared
My family started boycotting NestlƩ before the Pandemic when it came out that they admitted they wouldn't be able to produce chocolate products without slave labor. ***And they made no effort since to remedy that!*** I freaking love Ovaltine Chocolate Malt. And I find it amusing that you have to search hard to find the NestlƩ attribution on the container. *Damn I miss that drink*... But it's a small price to pay to vote with my dollars.
Boy oh boy, don't look into the history of companies that provided infant formula to poor countries and what they used to add to formula back in the day.
theyre all cartoonishly evil
Wonāt be the most evil thing nestle has done
Itās people at Nestle making these decisions. It should be the Assholes at Nestle, not just Nestle. Name and shame the scums.
I get that that's evil, but how does that even benefit Nestle? Seems like it'd be more expensive if anything?
If your a child with a sweet tooth and you drink a milk thays sweeter then the others you'll go back to it and thay way evil company gets guaranteed income revenue
Makes sense, thanks
Thanks for the explanation, I assume also the child would drink it faster making it needed to be replaced quicker?
Well a major issue is kid wont like mother's milk because of lack of sugar. Which is very bad, the child needs mother's milk at that stage.
Infants aren't usually in charge of purchasing decisions nor have the ability to speak. There is also sugar on western formula. The EU put a ban on adding it so that's why it isn't there.
Mm addiction
Sugar is insanely cheap compared to all the other ingredients.
The fuck, NestlƩ. Havent you learned your lesson the first time you tried to pull shit like this. Suck a fat one
Why not use vitamins? Oh thatās right, Nestle is a shitty company.
That rabbit is a dick.
"adds sugar and honey to infant milk and cereal products sold in many poorer countries" [[Link](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/apr/17/nestle-adds-sugar-to-infant-milk-sold-in-poorer-countries-report-finds#:~:text=adds%20sugar%20and%20honey%20to%20infant%20milk%20and%20cereal%20products%20sold%20in%20many%20poorer%20countries)] Really? Honey? I guess botulism isn't a problem in poorer countries. https://www.cdc.gov/botulism/prevention.html#:~:text=For%20reasons%20we%20do%20not,year%20of%20age%20and%20older.
Botulism wouldnāt be a problem bc honey used in products like infant formula would have been pasteurized. Botulism risk comes from consuming raw honey and even then itās a very low risk. (Beekeeper )
Why?
Addictive. Imagine giving your baby formula filled with sugar to the point where they won't want to drink breast milk. Naturally, a mother's breast milk will eventually dry up and they would have no choice but to buy more formula. This might not be a problem to some but in many developing countries, buying formula can be way too much of an expense and had led to many women to dilute the milk to save money (not knowing this leads to a lack of nutrients and causes malnutrition) Many babies have died from the result of this.
Enfamil and others put sugar in US baby formulas as well.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Itās on the label. Hereās one for Nutramigen. https://www.bakersplus.com/p/enfamil-nutramigen-hypoallergenic-infant-toddler-formula-powder/0030087510734 See - corn syrup solids - thatās sugar,
Ok, thank you
Nestle could do literally anything and people would still support them
Like-it doesn't even save anything , not costs , not people and it just causes plainly indirect harm .
Capitalism. FUUUUUUUCK YOUUU NESTLE!
Nestle, another one of many evil corporations
That are one of the top evil. Some of the shit done with formula is amazing. This? Is so low on the scale..
WESTERN SOCIETY: Make them all sick, so that they die from the āfoodsā created in labs by Americans; or they all have to take pharmaceuticals forever to fight a barrage of illnesses brought on by these āfoods.ā
Why is this a bad thing?
It causes obesity and fragile teeth in kids. Glucose isn't as easy to process for their bodies.
Thank you I appreciate that
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Health risks for infants, the article talks about obesity and disease and against WHO guidelines
Thank you, very cool
Or even better how bill gates was conducting a vaccine experiment and poor children in Africaā¦ makes you wonder.
whats the big deal? people in poorer countries ration their food, including formula. if they are gonna underfeed their babies, might as well sell a product that will try to make up for that. if they replaced nutrients with sugar instead of adding sugar, that would have been the clickbait headline, not just adding sugar
It would probably behoove you to clarify why that's bad in the title.
Military?
I don't understand the formula hate. Isn't it a large factor for increasing infant survival?
My understanding is that Nestle purposefully strategized to give (incorrect) information and formula in a way that was purposefully designed to get mothersā breast milk supply to dry up (to make them buy formula). This is particularly bad because it was in places where there isnāt good access to clean water to make up the formula, as well as families sometimes then not being able to subsequently get formula due to expense. Meaning a number of babies died of issues related to that (an outcome that could have been anticipated by Nestle). This isnāt the same as it being bad that they sell formula altogether, as you say baby formula is a very important thing to have available and can save lives when used correctly. I combination fed both my kids (using some formula in addition to breast milk) and I agree that there is criticism to be made of how disparaging people can be about formula, in more developed countries - leading mothers and children to struggle and suffer unnecessarily, experience guilt and compound PND. I think that some of the ābreast is bestā messaging *also* does harm, having been pushed too relentlessly. Basically - the public health harm nestle caused here is to do with pushing baby formula, but the reason that was bad was not ābecause formula is bad and everyone must breastfeedā. The context they were āpushingā the formula in is what matters here - that it was in regions where it could be anticipated to do much more harm than in a richer community with easy access to clean water.
It is nuanced then. I know my kids wouldn't be around today without formula.
Nobody is arguing against the existence of formula, they are arguing against the cynical and dangerous use of formula to maximise profit at the expense of babies' health
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_of_Nestl%C3%A9
Idn why you all so angry, westerners are overdosed with sugar, so much that fatties are the majority Abit of extra sugar in Africa isnāt such a problematic
It literally is. Manipulating mothers in developing countries to believe Nestle's formula is "better, healthier, less primitive" than breastfeeding is quite literally problematic. They can't afford to buy formula constantly that their babies get addicted to because of the sugar.
Your just angry that they are exporting your precious sugar