submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] [email protected] 107 points 1 month ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 54 points 1 month ago

It is not always easy for consumers in any country to tell whether a product contains added sugar, and how much is present, based on nutritional information printed on packaging alone.

That seems like the problem that actually needs solving.

[-] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago

Agreed but our governments have nearly completely checked out of monitoring food less the more immediate consequence type situations. Good luck getting real olive oil for example.

[-] JackFrostNCola 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Not sure which countries you are talking about but Australia's nutritional information seems pretty robust, every food product must list its ingredients, and in order of highest amount to lowest (sometimes with % for things like fruit in syrup, juices, etc).

Also they have a nutrition table where it shows each main factor (vitamins/minerals, sugars, salts, fats, carbohydrates, calories, etc.) And the amount per 'serving' (serving size noted) and per 100g of the product. So you can compare the exact same figures product to product and know which is better for you.

There are often other bits of information on the packs, (some of which are optional i believe) such as %of ingredients grown in australia, if its packed in australia, country of origin, 'health start rating' (0-5 star scale which shows a quick comparison of how healthy a TYPE of food is. Keep in mind a 4.5 star bottle of soft drink isnt healthy, it is simply more healthy than other soft drinks in its category, ie: a better choice)

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

That is great to hear. I assume Extra Virgin Olive oil there is actually pure olive oil and not mixed with unhealthy seed oils?

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

The back of my Australian olive oil. All our food and drink has this, except alcohol which they regulate differently.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

It is how it should be and it is similar here too, but despite labels like this, there has been plenty of fake olive oil discovered as the government stopped checking for quality. Looks like it is the same in Australia but sounds like they are doing something about it. https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2024-04-10/australian-extra-virgin-olive-oil-monitoring-program-starts/103688916

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

It has to be called something else if it's adulterated.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

We're actually quite lucky in Australia and New Zealand with this.

[-] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago

Victim blaming when Nestle could simply do... What's better for the human body?

[-] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago

Yes, true. But have you considered the shareholders?

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Relying on for profit corporations to do what is best for the human body is a fool’s errand.

Strong consumer labelling laws and regulation is the primary way to combat it. Encouraging consumers to actually read the packaging is also required.

[-] [email protected] 37 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Can I sue Nestle and Johnson for milk and baby powder respectively? I am an Indian citizen, so I don't know if I am entitled to the compensation for damages caused - my mother used their shitty products, and apparently, it killed babies in developing countries.

[-] [email protected] 27 points 1 month ago

Unfortunately, Nestle and J&J have spent billions on lawyers and consultants, so even if you could sue it would go nowhere.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Maybe a class action?

[-] [email protected] 31 points 1 month ago

Fuck Nestle!

[-] [email protected] 31 points 1 month ago

But why? It is bad for babies OK, but what is the upside for Nestlé? Is it addiction?

[-] [email protected] 81 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

One of Nestle's main evil plans in the Low Income Countries is to aggressively tell mothers that formula is better than breastfeeding, have doctors suggest it, or even give free formula until the mothers' breastmilk dries up.

Humans evolved to crave sugar which is scarce in nature.

Babies will naturally prefer milk with higher sweetness i.e Nestle Cerelac. This will help convince the mothers to breastfeed less, buy more formula, and/or let their milk dry up.

Edit: here's UNICEF on these evil marketing practices in Bangladesh.

[-] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago

Add to that.

Nestle has a huge bonus long term from sugar. It is hugely addictive. Haveing children grow up with an early addiction can only benifit them long term. Given how much sugar is a part of other non bany products they sell.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

Why do they do this in specifically lower-income countries, where there is less money to be made for them? That's the part that confuses me.

[-] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

They do it wherever they can get away with it. They used to do it in the West.

These days though in the West new mothers are likely to receive education about breastfeeding from advocacy organizations, which formed to combat this problem. Such organizations also put pressure on govts to regulate formula and the health system.

Back in the 1950s when La Leche League was formed, only 20% of mothers in the US were breastfeeding.

[-] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago

There's less regulation in a developing country. So... if you get them hooked on it then, at least, you've got easy (albeit low) income. During the developing country maturity they will then be hooked on sugar and less likely to ban it or curb it.

It's just as any addiction.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

Ah, regulations, that's what I was missing. That sucks.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

It’s also not an exclusive situation: that is, selling to the Global South doesn’t in any way impede or prevent their sales in developed nations. It’s just an extra source of income. Sure, they’re making less money per unit sold, but less extra money is better than no extra money. Aggressively marketing to these countries also helps prevent local companies from creating their own competitive products, which protects Nestle’s global dominance interests.

Suffice to say that the list of reasons they would want to do this is long while the list against is very short.

[-] AlphaOmega 25 points 1 month ago

Sugar is roughly as addictive as cocaine.


So yeah, addiction is probably the end game.

load more comments (20 replies)
[-] Linkerbaan 19 points 1 month ago
[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

no. pedophiles are bad. tasting human shit is bad. the feeling when the love of your life walks out of the room for what you know is the last time is bad.

we need a new word for nestle. this company is like Belgian Congo or maybe even "Israeli" levels of fucked up.

[-] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago


[-] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Does anyone know why Bangladesh had zero added sugar?

Could it be that Bangladesh has stricter regulations?

Edit: it seems I was wrong. I thought when I read this yesterday it said Bangladesh had no sugar, but looking it up today, that's no longer the case.

Source: https://stories.publiceye.ch/nestle-babies/

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

@alvvayson where does it say there's none in Bangladesh?

There's even more sugar in Nestle formula in Bangladesh than there is in India.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

You are correct.

I could swear that when I read the primary source yesterday, it said Bangladesh had zero sugar.

But going to the link, that's no longer the case.

Either I was wrong or they corrected it.

Primary source: https://stories.publiceye.ch/nestle-babies/

[-] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago

Obesity is increasingly a problem in low- and middle-income countries.

Isn't that always going to be the case, regardless of ingredient adjustment? It feels like people who have had very little food will tend towards over-compensating during times of glut - perhaps not so much the generation directly affected, but the care they give to next generations.

As an example vaguely related but less extreme; I was born in 1970 in England to a lower middle-class family. My parents were wartime and post-war babies who had experienced rationing and as a result, I have very strong recollections of being made to "clear your plate" before I could leave the table. (Ironically given this topic, the "there are starving children in Africa who would like that" line was given quite often)

Wasting food was the absolute highest sin I could commit and that's stayed with me to this day.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Nestlé, the world’s largest consumer goods company, adds sugar and honey to infant milk and cereal products sold in many poorer countries, contrary to international guidelines aimed at preventing obesity and chronic diseases, a report has found.

Laurent Gaberell, Public Eye’s agriculture and nutrition expert, said: “Nestlé must put an end to these dangerous double standards and stop adding sugar in all products for children under three years old, in every part of the world.”

It is not always easy for consumers in any country to tell whether a product contains added sugar, and how much is present, based on nutritional information printed on packaging alone.

The UK recommends that children under four avoid food with added sugars because of risks including weight gain and tooth decay.

Biscuit-flavoured cereals for babies aged six months and older contained 6g of added sugar for every serving in Senegal and South Africa, researchers found.

A Nestlé spokesperson said: “We believe in the nutritional quality of our products for early childhood and prioritise using high-quality ingredients adapted to the growth and development of children.”

The original article contains 774 words, the summary contains 180 words. Saved 77%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

People always try to exploit the disadvantaged. That's just how humans are programmed. For me, its not shocking at all.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

I don't have to be shocked to be angry.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] pivot_root 3 points 1 month ago

Nestle is still evil; more news at 11.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
470 points (99.0% liked)

World News

31346 readers
1509 users here now

News from around the world!


founded 4 years ago