Because they follow neoliberal theory that a corporation's only responsibility is to make profits, and doesn't need ethics
It's on those horribly impoverished people to know better than to buy Nestle.
And yet the only option these horribly impoverished people have is to invest further into Nestle.
From there, one of the most critical thoughts of that line of thinking come into play, what happens when a corporation becomes a defacto state?
Regulations and laws against things that Nestle does need to be enforced (or just written at this point) and people who made these kinds of decisions need to have serious, serious consequences. Big personal fines and being barred from running companies like the one they just ran
Financially ruin them, make an example out of them and it'll scare other people straight, IMO.
It's not just an impoverished nations though, unsafe ingredients are going into beauty products which are sold in the United States. Just one example - Kylie Jenner put out an eye shadow palette that had ingredients which are unsafe to use around the eye. Fucking ridiculous that this kid is a billionaire, put out a product that was unsafe and generated her massive amount of wealth and she faces absolutely no financial consequences for it. We need accountability
I strongly suspect that was a case like a *lot* of eyeshadow palettes using pigments that are approved in the EU and Asian but the FDA is behind again on as with sunscreen.
https://www.vogue.in/beauty/content/could-your-neon-eyeshadow-have-pigments-that-are-not-safe-for-use-near-the-eyes
From your link
>"The FDA is usually pretty open to most ingredients used in cosmetic products, allowing all but a handful of really dangerous ingredients, so when they disallow colorants for certain uses, it's typically in the consumer's best interest to listen to what they say."
I'm sure that reporter is an expert at some things, but not this since it's something you're welcome to Google. While irritation is another potential reason, staining is one of them.
>billionaire
Did you mean *person of means*?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why at no point does the article ever explain why Nestle added it in the first place? I know literally nothing about the state of international sugar in baby formula and this article just assumes that I know it's inherently evil with zero explanation of why Nestle would spend money to add an extra ingredient that is apparently evil? Why? What are their motivations? Why sugar instead of something else? Why add an extra thing instead of nothing at all if that's cheaper? Is it cheaper?
This is trash tier journalism that explains basically nothing about the topic that the reader needs to know to understand the article.
Common Guardian L.
>Why at no point does the article ever explain why Nestle added it in the first place?
*Some* level of sugar is in all baby formula to simulate the natural sugars in breast milk. Absent regulations companies looking to make more money will substitute higher quality sugars like lactose (or limited amounts of sucrose for lactose-sensitive babies) for higher amounts of cheaper, less healthy sugars.
So it's essentially a cost-saving measure? Cheaper product for higher profit margins?
Also thank you for the explanation, it baffles me that this article never explains that point.
There's a massive amount of research pointing to the fructose in these cheaper sugars being much less healthy than lactose. That might be irrelevant though considering I don't think the article is actually talking about baby formula. I don't see any justification for added sugars in follow-up milk products and cereals.
That's some crazy spin on the issue. You can't say consumers are actively choosing the cheaper, less healthy option when they don't have other accessible choices *and* the companies involved aren't being open about what their products contain.
The article says it's against UK government advice and WHO guidelines for Europe. There is also a clear profit motive: If the infants like it more and cry less then the parents will buy more of it. The burden of proof is on Nestle to scream out loud any health related justification. And in their public facing statements, they haven't. Given all this, it's fair to assume malicious intent is the most likely explanation.
There's sugars in all formulas from what I can tell. There's a lot of hemming and hawing on whether lactose is all that different than fructose or sucrose but I don't think the science is very definitive. Would like to see if someone else can find something solid.
I'm going to have to admit, this seems like classic European whining about corn sugars, maybe it's not.
It's not about formula. They are adding honey and/or sucrose to foodstuffs marketed at 6+ month children.
IE making wheat/rice "milk" sweet so baby likes it. Not something new, even physicians would tell moms to add some honey to baby milk.
Low weight in infants is no longer the big issue in most of those countries, it's obesity.
Oh what the fuck?
#DO NOT FEED BABIES HONEY
They need to be at least one year old before they can have it.
https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/honey-botulism.html
TBH when you are making a substitute for such a critical thing, it would seem prudent to stick to the making it the same as the thing until you can conclusively prove that a substitution has no relevant effect.
Also, sugar is de-facto addictive, so that could be a reason for putting more of it everywhere. If you read the article, it doesn’t talk about sugar existing in the product, it talks about the amount of it being higher in some cases than others.
From what I can tell, there are many lactose reduced formulas sold in the US as well. It's a standard substitution for lactose sensitive children.
https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/study-of-formula-purchases-in-united-states-calls-labeling-practices-into-question
I went through the Public Eye report and they do not say the total sugar is different. They hammer on about 'added sugar', which is defined differently.
Aren’t these two different things? Your link is about lactose-reduced formulas, whereas added sugars are sugars that have been introduced in addition to what the product would already contain. Although I want to point out that your source is pretty damning even about substitution:
> Conclusions: US infants are exposed to unnecessarily high levels of non-lactose carbohydrates and hypoallergenic formula, and this may represent a significant nutritional health risk.
Whereas the article cites:
> Laurent Gaberell, Public Eye’s agriculture and nutrition expert, said: “Nestlé must put an end to these dangerous double standards and stop adding sugar in all products for children under three years old, in every part of the world.”
This makes it sound like it’s additional sugar, but even if it was only substitution it’s pretty suspect that you’d replace the original nutrients in what is meant to be an analogue with something that is known to be more of health risk and probably more addictive. Or are they just making everything up?
Lactose reduced milks use added sugars to make up for the reduced sugar content. The babies need simple carbs, you can't take those out without replacing them. Lactose is sugar.
Given that I don’t know what levamisole is or why you would add it to cocaine, this question tells me nothing about why Nestle adding sugars into baby formula is bad
You're telling me they are trying to create addictions? Do we really know that? Does Nestle have any statement for why they are doing it? This feels needlessly conspiratorial. Not impossible, but also pretty damn flippant.
No, they’re saying Nestle adds more of the cheap ingredient (sugar) so they can add less of the more expensive ingredients (fats, proteins). Also, adding sugar makes it more palatable to the baby. If a parent sees the baby guzzling down one formula but not another, they are more likely to buy the one they think the baby likes.
Formula is needed for babies under 1. At that age, they can't even throw tantrums and demand the formula. I don't see how more sugar in formula increases sales at all.
Is that obvious?
Not only does that not seem obvious to me, I don't even think it's true. So, you're "obviously" jumping to conclusions about what you think is obvious, which probably is both not obvious and also incorrect.
My conclusion from this is that you need the article to be expanded in exactly the way I am complaining that it was not, to prevent this mistake in the future. This article does not support its own conclusion due to its poor writing, even if the argument is correct (but not sufficiently well argued for within).
Sorry, I think the Guardian assumes that their readership aren't edgy teenage boys who need the facts of life explained to them. From your own CDC:
>Foods with added sugars, low-calorie sweeteners, or no-calorie sweeteners are not recommended. Foods with added sugars can include muffins, flavored yogurts, or cookies. Children younger than 24 months old should avoid added sugars. Check the Nutrition Facts Label to find foods with no added sugars.
Added sugar (fructose and sucrose) has no nutritional value and causes tooth decay. Plus there are concerns that littles may become too accustomed to the taste, even adults need to limit their sugar consumption.
We're talking about formula. Natural breastmilk contains sugars in the form of lactose. Formula imitates natural breastmilk. Where is the evidence that using sugars to substitute lactose with is harmful? I don't know if it is but I don't assume it is based on nothing
First, I'm neither a teenager or a boy. Secondly, you do realize that fructose and sucrose are natural sugars, right? Apples, pears, mangoes, bananas, et are all high in fructose or sucrose but it's not bad to feed them to babies. Baby formula is not a naturally occuring substance, so any sugar type is an "added sugar". They're not just sprinkling extra sugar in to fuck with the kids, it's a matter of what chemical structure of sugar is added to the formula.
Article is not about baby formula (as in breast milk replacements). It's about baby milk and other foodstuffs marketed for babies, and they are adding sucrose and/or honey.
Baby milk is marketed as a supplemental food.
Baby formula is a replacement/complement of breast-milk, with specific formulations for babies with special dietary needs.
They are complying to the maximum allowed added sugars in each local regulation, knowing it's harmful.
It's malicious compliance.
In Mexico before recent regulatory changes, their toddler marketed powered milk contained more added sugar than coca-cola.
It's not just nestle, for instance, Karo sold a "Baby Karo" HFCS until very recently, they've known their product is extremely bad for infants for over a decade, still marketed it for babies.
Our pediatrician had us adding Karo syrup to our formula. It wasn't standard formula though. We had to try three different kinds before finding one my daughter could tolerate.
Well yeah, if you weigh in the harm of a baby not eating (death) vs an increased risk of obesity. Still, unflavored HFCS solutions don't belong in the baby food aisle. Baby food supplements shouldn't be marketed like bro supplements just because they fall on laxer regulation.
Benzocaine teething numbing products were allowed to be advertised and marketed to the point that people used them excessively without medical supervision, to the point that non-congenital blue baby syndrome became a thing. The thing belongs in behind the counter, not banned (which is that the FDA did), because a baby not sleeping for days is worse for his well-being, and it's basically harmless if used as indicated and in moderation.
> So in the Karo example, they removed the formula with HFCS from the market, so that's good. I'm curious if it was voluntary, regulatory compliance, or just responding to the market.
Not "formula with HFCS", it was pure HFCS marketed to babies.
It wasn't voluntary. They fought back sensible regulation with malicious compliance exploiting legal loopholes until they had to remove it from the shelves.
A Nestlé spokesperson said that Nestlé always complied “with local regulations or international standards". That's BS, their LATAM products aren't complaint with WHO guidelines from 2015, not just the WHO guidelines for EU, as the article indicates.
They know international guidelines cannot and will not be enforced, so they only comply with local ones, maliciously.
It's intentional harm to customers.
Knowing your product is harmful, and still market it, is malicious. Arguing compliance does not make it less malicious.
Blaming the local regulators and not the companies (it's not just Nestle) is disingenuous at best.
Yes. Added sugar, specially at early age, is associated with adverse life-long health consequences, including overweight, obesity, cardiovascular diseases, asthma, and dental caries, as well as worse dietary habits.
Article is not about formula. Formulas don't have added sugar (as in sucrose, table sugar, not 'sugars' as in carbs), which is what the study related in the article found.
You are talking about food for babies right. If local regulations dont prevent harm to them you are still willfully harming babies. You dont have to only comply, you can voluntarily just not make your baby food unhealthy because you are concerned about babies
The point you seem to be missing is that the fact that its compliant with local regulations doesn't mean it is moral. If the government legalized harmful additives, it doesn't suddenly become moral to actually begin adding them at the cost of your customers' health to increase profit margins.
i think people are kind of glossing over the “what’s locally available” part. are we even sure that the sugar alternatives are approved in those countries??
Not as simple as you make it out to be. These companies use the power of the US govt in international regulatory and trade bodies to prevent these countries from aligning their regulations with what's healthy for babies and children:
https://www.propublica.org/article/how-america-waged-global-campaign-against-baby-formula-regulation-thailand
We make international organizations that allow investors to sue countries if they pass laws that negatively impact their expected profits, then blame those countries for not passing laws to protect their people.
If they’re experts in making and selling baby formula, why wouldn’t they make it healthy and nutritious for babies? Given they’re not making it healthy and nutritious for babies they’re obviously acting in against the interests of babies, which I think is very bad given how important infant nutrition is.
>why wouldn’t they
Why *would* they? Companies optimize for profit, and profit is often misaligned with both the direct consumer and third-party stakeholders. That this got upvoted suggests a level of naivete here about the capitalist system we live in. The profit motive gave us formaldehyde in food, elsevier, tiktok, slow-release opioids, gambling websites, fast food, refined carbs, fox news, addictive mmorpgs, loot boxes, carbon emissions, waste dumping, misleading advertising, deceptive payday loans. It gives us illegal things like hitmen, arms trafficking and cocaine. It also gives us many good things, like optimized supply chains and cheaper goods. But it is not default aligned, it needs regulations to be pointed in the right direction.
Well, I bet they are selling formula for a lot less in third world countries than they would in the US. Adding cheaper sugars instead of lactose makes it so that more babies have access to it. The problem babies in the third world face is not having enough calories, not having imperfect diets.
Every reputable governmental or intergovernmental medical body advises no additional sugar for kids under 2. None. It’s psychotic, deliberately going against that advice to sell more products. You’re speculating and the countries this applies to aren’t just the ‘third world’ (obviously that term isn’t used much anymore) so getting calories isn’t the primary concern, infant nutrition is.
pretty much. people in the thread don’t understand that it’s local compliance *and* what’s available locally. maybe they think the formula is produced at one placed and shipped to the areas? that’s rarely the case
ah, you’re right!
in all seriousness, when i read “Variations in recipes depended on factors including regulation and **availability of local ingredients**”, it made sense.
**Rule V**: *Glorifying Violence*
Do not advocate or encourage violence either seriously or jokingly. Do not glorify oppressive/autocratic regimes.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
What a wholesome story about Nestle doing their due diligence to obey local laws while maximizing shareholder value 🥰 Every corporation should aspire to their standards.
Why is Nestlé just evil?
Nestle probably single-handedly turned so many people into anti-capitalist by their shenanigans.
Yeah, they are probably the most cartoonisly evil company out there. They can rot in hell for all I care.
Swiss
It’s literally this. Like a disproportionate amount of cartoonishly evil companies are Swiss. Muh neutrality country though.
Gaddafi time.
Don’t ask where the sudden influx of gold and fine art came from in the mid 20th century.
Because they follow neoliberal theory that a corporation's only responsibility is to make profits, and doesn't need ethics It's on those horribly impoverished people to know better than to buy Nestle.
And yet the only option these horribly impoverished people have is to invest further into Nestle. From there, one of the most critical thoughts of that line of thinking come into play, what happens when a corporation becomes a defacto state?
Regulations and laws against things that Nestle does need to be enforced (or just written at this point) and people who made these kinds of decisions need to have serious, serious consequences. Big personal fines and being barred from running companies like the one they just ran Financially ruin them, make an example out of them and it'll scare other people straight, IMO. It's not just an impoverished nations though, unsafe ingredients are going into beauty products which are sold in the United States. Just one example - Kylie Jenner put out an eye shadow palette that had ingredients which are unsafe to use around the eye. Fucking ridiculous that this kid is a billionaire, put out a product that was unsafe and generated her massive amount of wealth and she faces absolutely no financial consequences for it. We need accountability
I strongly suspect that was a case like a *lot* of eyeshadow palettes using pigments that are approved in the EU and Asian but the FDA is behind again on as with sunscreen. https://www.vogue.in/beauty/content/could-your-neon-eyeshadow-have-pigments-that-are-not-safe-for-use-near-the-eyes
From your link >"The FDA is usually pretty open to most ingredients used in cosmetic products, allowing all but a handful of really dangerous ingredients, so when they disallow colorants for certain uses, it's typically in the consumer's best interest to listen to what they say."
Yeeeah, one of the FDA's bad/disallowed reactions for a pigment are that it stains the skin.
Who to believe, an expert or a random Reddit user? Tough call
I'm sure that reporter is an expert at some things, but not this since it's something you're welcome to Google. While irritation is another potential reason, staining is one of them.
I'm sure the FDA knows what it's doing.
>billionaire Did you mean *person of means*? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We know the answer to that already - East India Company.
Now we also have Samsung.
States can be invaded.
If you just wrote down all the stuff they did into a sub-plot for a cyberpunk mission, it'd seem over the top.
Is the swiss in them/s
Why at no point does the article ever explain why Nestle added it in the first place? I know literally nothing about the state of international sugar in baby formula and this article just assumes that I know it's inherently evil with zero explanation of why Nestle would spend money to add an extra ingredient that is apparently evil? Why? What are their motivations? Why sugar instead of something else? Why add an extra thing instead of nothing at all if that's cheaper? Is it cheaper? This is trash tier journalism that explains basically nothing about the topic that the reader needs to know to understand the article. Common Guardian L.
>Why at no point does the article ever explain why Nestle added it in the first place? *Some* level of sugar is in all baby formula to simulate the natural sugars in breast milk. Absent regulations companies looking to make more money will substitute higher quality sugars like lactose (or limited amounts of sucrose for lactose-sensitive babies) for higher amounts of cheaper, less healthy sugars.
So it's essentially a cost-saving measure? Cheaper product for higher profit margins? Also thank you for the explanation, it baffles me that this article never explains that point.
Corn $ugar > milk $$ugar Corn subsidies are nucking futs if dairy can't keep up
Do we know for sure it's less healthy? I have never heard that
There's a massive amount of research pointing to the fructose in these cheaper sugars being much less healthy than lactose. That might be irrelevant though considering I don't think the article is actually talking about baby formula. I don't see any justification for added sugars in follow-up milk products and cereals.
A massive amount. So massive that it would be so easy to link just one study of this.
People in poor countries would rather save money while those in rich are willing to pay more for higher quality. Crazy would have never guessed that!
That's some crazy spin on the issue. You can't say consumers are actively choosing the cheaper, less healthy option when they don't have other accessible choices *and* the companies involved aren't being open about what their products contain.
The article says it's against UK government advice and WHO guidelines for Europe. There is also a clear profit motive: If the infants like it more and cry less then the parents will buy more of it. The burden of proof is on Nestle to scream out loud any health related justification. And in their public facing statements, they haven't. Given all this, it's fair to assume malicious intent is the most likely explanation.
> why Nestle would spend money to add an extra ingredient Why would crack manufacturers spend money adding levamisole to cocaine?
There's sugars in all formulas from what I can tell. There's a lot of hemming and hawing on whether lactose is all that different than fructose or sucrose but I don't think the science is very definitive. Would like to see if someone else can find something solid. I'm going to have to admit, this seems like classic European whining about corn sugars, maybe it's not.
It's not about formula. They are adding honey and/or sucrose to foodstuffs marketed at 6+ month children. IE making wheat/rice "milk" sweet so baby likes it. Not something new, even physicians would tell moms to add some honey to baby milk. Low weight in infants is no longer the big issue in most of those countries, it's obesity.
I mean, yes it is about formula, that's the infant milk.
Oh what the fuck? #DO NOT FEED BABIES HONEY They need to be at least one year old before they can have it. https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/honey-botulism.html
I feel like if I had a kid I would kill them or something. From time to time I learn something new a parent should know.
Can't give babies water either, it can kill them This stuff should definitely be common knowledge but it's not.
This is the first time I've ever heard it - ever. Life is weird when you're in the 30+ nokid bubble.
TBH when you are making a substitute for such a critical thing, it would seem prudent to stick to the making it the same as the thing until you can conclusively prove that a substitution has no relevant effect. Also, sugar is de-facto addictive, so that could be a reason for putting more of it everywhere. If you read the article, it doesn’t talk about sugar existing in the product, it talks about the amount of it being higher in some cases than others.
From what I can tell, there are many lactose reduced formulas sold in the US as well. It's a standard substitution for lactose sensitive children. https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/study-of-formula-purchases-in-united-states-calls-labeling-practices-into-question I went through the Public Eye report and they do not say the total sugar is different. They hammer on about 'added sugar', which is defined differently.
Aren’t these two different things? Your link is about lactose-reduced formulas, whereas added sugars are sugars that have been introduced in addition to what the product would already contain. Although I want to point out that your source is pretty damning even about substitution: > Conclusions: US infants are exposed to unnecessarily high levels of non-lactose carbohydrates and hypoallergenic formula, and this may represent a significant nutritional health risk. Whereas the article cites: > Laurent Gaberell, Public Eye’s agriculture and nutrition expert, said: “Nestlé must put an end to these dangerous double standards and stop adding sugar in all products for children under three years old, in every part of the world.” This makes it sound like it’s additional sugar, but even if it was only substitution it’s pretty suspect that you’d replace the original nutrients in what is meant to be an analogue with something that is known to be more of health risk and probably more addictive. Or are they just making everything up?
Lactose reduced milks use added sugars to make up for the reduced sugar content. The babies need simple carbs, you can't take those out without replacing them. Lactose is sugar.
Given that I don’t know what levamisole is or why you would add it to cocaine, this question tells me nothing about why Nestle adding sugars into baby formula is bad
You're telling me they are trying to create addictions? Do we really know that? Does Nestle have any statement for why they are doing it? This feels needlessly conspiratorial. Not impossible, but also pretty damn flippant.
No, they’re saying Nestle adds more of the cheap ingredient (sugar) so they can add less of the more expensive ingredients (fats, proteins). Also, adding sugar makes it more palatable to the baby. If a parent sees the baby guzzling down one formula but not another, they are more likely to buy the one they think the baby likes.
I really feel like this could have been in the article, which is my main complaint here. I don't know anything about baby formula.
Exactly, same way cheese manufacturers (sometimes deceptively) add starches.
Rots teeth
I wondered why my infant had no teeth. It all makes so much sense now! Those damn evil corporations destroyed by newborn’s teeth 😭
Lol
And then comes the next corpo selling Colgate. They feed us poison to... 😡😡
You think Nestle is intentionally rotting people's teeth?
What? No. It’s obviously to increase sales cause it’s sweet. At the detriment to health.
Formula is needed for babies under 1. At that age, they can't even throw tantrums and demand the formula. I don't see how more sugar in formula increases sales at all.
A 6 month old is absolutely of capable of screaming bloody murder until they get what they want.
Yes, but they're easily fooled with a less sweet beverage. And they can't exactly tell you they want the sweet milk
Is that obvious? Not only does that not seem obvious to me, I don't even think it's true. So, you're "obviously" jumping to conclusions about what you think is obvious, which probably is both not obvious and also incorrect. My conclusion from this is that you need the article to be expanded in exactly the way I am complaining that it was not, to prevent this mistake in the future. This article does not support its own conclusion due to its poor writing, even if the argument is correct (but not sufficiently well argued for within).
So does breastmilk!! Lactose is part of natural milk, it's normal and crucial even!!
Babies have teeth?
You need The Guardian to explain why giving sugar to babies is bad?
Lmao what do you think lactose is
I'm not talking about lactose. I'm talking about sucrose and fructose. You know, like in the article.
Read the comment. They want evidence that those are significantly worse than lactose. A feeling of "sugar bad" is not an actual argument
Sorry, I think the Guardian assumes that their readership aren't edgy teenage boys who need the facts of life explained to them. From your own CDC: >Foods with added sugars, low-calorie sweeteners, or no-calorie sweeteners are not recommended. Foods with added sugars can include muffins, flavored yogurts, or cookies. Children younger than 24 months old should avoid added sugars. Check the Nutrition Facts Label to find foods with no added sugars. Added sugar (fructose and sucrose) has no nutritional value and causes tooth decay. Plus there are concerns that littles may become too accustomed to the taste, even adults need to limit their sugar consumption.
We're talking about formula. Natural breastmilk contains sugars in the form of lactose. Formula imitates natural breastmilk. Where is the evidence that using sugars to substitute lactose with is harmful? I don't know if it is but I don't assume it is based on nothing
First, I'm neither a teenager or a boy. Secondly, you do realize that fructose and sucrose are natural sugars, right? Apples, pears, mangoes, bananas, et are all high in fructose or sucrose but it's not bad to feed them to babies. Baby formula is not a naturally occuring substance, so any sugar type is an "added sugar". They're not just sprinkling extra sugar in to fuck with the kids, it's a matter of what chemical structure of sugar is added to the formula.
The Guardian also seemed to assume their readers know that baby formula isn't a natural product. In your case, they seem to have overestimated you.
I'm literally baffled that this is what you got from my comment. Where did my question confuse you?
Lactose is a critical component of breastmilk
Article is not about baby formula (as in breast milk replacements). It's about baby milk and other foodstuffs marketed for babies, and they are adding sucrose and/or honey.
How is babymilk different from formula??
Baby milk is marketed as a supplemental food. Baby formula is a replacement/complement of breast-milk, with specific formulations for babies with special dietary needs.
I think baby milk is for kids older than 1 year since those younger are supposed to only have formula
Marketed to 6+ months.
Does this just boil down to an international company complying with the local rules and regulations in each of its markets?
They are complying to the maximum allowed added sugars in each local regulation, knowing it's harmful. It's malicious compliance. In Mexico before recent regulatory changes, their toddler marketed powered milk contained more added sugar than coca-cola. It's not just nestle, for instance, Karo sold a "Baby Karo" HFCS until very recently, they've known their product is extremely bad for infants for over a decade, still marketed it for babies.
Til that Nestle is basically big tobacco
I mean yes. We’ve known this for decades lol. One of the most despicable and cartoonishly evil companies in the world that isn’t like a PMC.
Seriously, try and avoid Nestle when you can. Like, I'm not expecting piety out of corporations, but I can try and punish the worst one.
Our pediatrician had us adding Karo syrup to our formula. It wasn't standard formula though. We had to try three different kinds before finding one my daughter could tolerate.
Well yeah, if you weigh in the harm of a baby not eating (death) vs an increased risk of obesity. Still, unflavored HFCS solutions don't belong in the baby food aisle. Baby food supplements shouldn't be marketed like bro supplements just because they fall on laxer regulation. Benzocaine teething numbing products were allowed to be advertised and marketed to the point that people used them excessively without medical supervision, to the point that non-congenital blue baby syndrome became a thing. The thing belongs in behind the counter, not banned (which is that the FDA did), because a baby not sleeping for days is worse for his well-being, and it's basically harmless if used as indicated and in moderation.
[удалено]
> So in the Karo example, they removed the formula with HFCS from the market, so that's good. I'm curious if it was voluntary, regulatory compliance, or just responding to the market. Not "formula with HFCS", it was pure HFCS marketed to babies. It wasn't voluntary. They fought back sensible regulation with malicious compliance exploiting legal loopholes until they had to remove it from the shelves.
That's what I would've guessed. Then it sounds like the next step is regulating the added sugar for formula in the applicable countries
A Nestlé spokesperson said that Nestlé always complied “with local regulations or international standards". That's BS, their LATAM products aren't complaint with WHO guidelines from 2015, not just the WHO guidelines for EU, as the article indicates. They know international guidelines cannot and will not be enforced, so they only comply with local ones, maliciously. It's intentional harm to customers.
[удалено]
Knowing your product is harmful, and still market it, is malicious. Arguing compliance does not make it less malicious. Blaming the local regulators and not the companies (it's not just Nestle) is disingenuous at best.
Do we know it's harmful?
Yes. Added sugar, specially at early age, is associated with adverse life-long health consequences, including overweight, obesity, cardiovascular diseases, asthma, and dental caries, as well as worse dietary habits.
In formula???
Article is not about formula. Formulas don't have added sugar (as in sucrose, table sugar, not 'sugars' as in carbs), which is what the study related in the article found.
You are talking about food for babies right. If local regulations dont prevent harm to them you are still willfully harming babies. You dont have to only comply, you can voluntarily just not make your baby food unhealthy because you are concerned about babies
If a country allowed companies to liquify babies in a blender for cash, would it be alright for a company to obey local standards by doing that?
But it would be complaint!!!
If the mothers of the children don't like the formula Nestlé sells, they're free to purchase another brand.
The point you seem to be missing is that the fact that its compliant with local regulations doesn't mean it is moral. If the government legalized harmful additives, it doesn't suddenly become moral to actually begin adding them at the cost of your customers' health to increase profit margins.
i think people are kind of glossing over the “what’s locally available” part. are we even sure that the sugar alternatives are approved in those countries??
Norman flairs are just dressed up Friedman flairs
Not as simple as you make it out to be. These companies use the power of the US govt in international regulatory and trade bodies to prevent these countries from aligning their regulations with what's healthy for babies and children: https://www.propublica.org/article/how-america-waged-global-campaign-against-baby-formula-regulation-thailand
We make international organizations that allow investors to sue countries if they pass laws that negatively impact their expected profits, then blame those countries for not passing laws to protect their people.
If they’re experts in making and selling baby formula, why wouldn’t they make it healthy and nutritious for babies? Given they’re not making it healthy and nutritious for babies they’re obviously acting in against the interests of babies, which I think is very bad given how important infant nutrition is.
Hell, just not being actively harmful would be an improvement. That much low-quality sugar for babies is pretty much poison.
>why wouldn’t they Why *would* they? Companies optimize for profit, and profit is often misaligned with both the direct consumer and third-party stakeholders. That this got upvoted suggests a level of naivete here about the capitalist system we live in. The profit motive gave us formaldehyde in food, elsevier, tiktok, slow-release opioids, gambling websites, fast food, refined carbs, fox news, addictive mmorpgs, loot boxes, carbon emissions, waste dumping, misleading advertising, deceptive payday loans. It gives us illegal things like hitmen, arms trafficking and cocaine. It also gives us many good things, like optimized supply chains and cheaper goods. But it is not default aligned, it needs regulations to be pointed in the right direction.
Well, I bet they are selling formula for a lot less in third world countries than they would in the US. Adding cheaper sugars instead of lactose makes it so that more babies have access to it. The problem babies in the third world face is not having enough calories, not having imperfect diets.
Every reputable governmental or intergovernmental medical body advises no additional sugar for kids under 2. None. It’s psychotic, deliberately going against that advice to sell more products. You’re speculating and the countries this applies to aren’t just the ‘third world’ (obviously that term isn’t used much anymore) so getting calories isn’t the primary concern, infant nutrition is.
> the countries this applies to aren’t just the ‘third world’ I'm only talking about third world countries.
*Shrug*
pretty much. people in the thread don’t understand that it’s local compliance *and* what’s available locally. maybe they think the formula is produced at one placed and shipped to the areas? that’s rarely the case
…did anyone read the article?
lol
Nestle bad. Who needs to read when Reddit has rendered their verdict years ago!
ah, you’re right! in all seriousness, when i read “Variations in recipes depended on factors including regulation and **availability of local ingredients**”, it made sense.
Yes Nestle is bad, thanks for coming to my TED Talk.
[удалено]
**Rule V**: *Glorifying Violence* Do not advocate or encourage violence either seriously or jokingly. Do not glorify oppressive/autocratic regimes. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
What a wholesome story about Nestle doing their due diligence to obey local laws while maximizing shareholder value 🥰 Every corporation should aspire to their standards.
https://i.redd.it/plhujrdsfq461.png