this post was submitted on 05 May 2024
649 points (98.2% liked)

World News

39004 readers
2575 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Experts say there can be long-term health consequences for babies and infants who consume too much sugar at a young age.

In Switzerland, the label of Nestlé’s Cerelac baby cereal says it contains “no added sugar.” But in Senegal and South Africa, the same product has 6 grams of added sugar per serving, according to a recent Public Eye investigation. And in the Philippines, one serving of a version of the Cerelac cereal for babies 1 to 6 months old contains a whopping 7.3 grams of added sugar, the equivalent of almost two teaspoons. 

This “double standard” for how Nestlé creates and markets its popular baby food brands around the world was alleged in a report from Public Eye, an independent nonpartisan Swiss-based investigative organization, and International Baby Food Action Network. 

The groups allege that Nestlé adds sugars and honey to some of its baby cereal and formula in lower-income countries, while products sold in Europe and other countries are advertised with “no added sugars.” The disparities uncovered in the report, which was published in the BMJ in April, has raised alarms among global health experts.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] videogamesandbeer@lemmy.world 131 points 6 months ago (2 children)
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 47 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Everyone says that. Have been for decades now.

But as long as our major politicians are Republicans and neoliberals, nothing is going to change.

Because their whole economical philosophy is corporations over money and that wealth "trickles down".

You want to do something about Nestle?

Vote progressives, especially ones that eschew corporate donors.

I'm just tired of the vast majority of people being against something,, but (at least for Americans) voting for people who like it.

https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?id=D000042332

We need to get rid of the shit show that is American lobbying, and only progressives push for that

[–] RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world 24 points 6 months ago (18 children)

But as long as our major politicians are Republicans and neoliberals, nothing is going to change.

Those poorer countries have governments too. They should be the first line of defense for their citizens. Fuck Nestle and all their products, but the reality is that there's absolutely nothing a foreign power can do to protect the people living in those countries

[–] Tryptaminev@lemm.ee 19 points 6 months ago (7 children)

There was a great John Oliver episode about how Cigarettes are sold in African and South Asian countries. Any effort to regulate the market, like introducing warning labels, limiting tobacco ads, or even just disallowing the sale of individual cigarettes in front of schools, was immediately met with huge backlashes by big tobacco.

If your countries GDP is 5 Billion US-D and Phil Morris has a turnover of 80 Billions US-D plus the lobbying power to have the US or EU threaten sanctions against that country, it is pretty darn difficult to provide the same level of consumer protection laws.

Don't blame the countries that are on the short end of neocolonialism, when your government is complicit in it.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] manucode@infosec.pub 17 points 6 months ago (2 children)

You could pass legislation that requires corporations not to do harmful activities in other countries if these activities are illegal in your country. If a corporation does such an activity abroad it would still be prosecuted as a crime in your country. If a corporation doesn't want to subject itself to such accountability, it would have to stop doing business in your country.

[–] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 6 points 6 months ago

We usually have those, our overlords don’t enforce or selectively them.

So , the only halfway effective method we have is to not give them our money.

Is it super effective? Nah

But has it saved them getting probably 10’s of thousands of my dollars over the years.

I miss crunch bars, Kit Kats, stouffers pizzas, and especially tollhouse cookies, but they are baby killers, and one of the worst possible ways to die in to boot.

Fuck em, and do your part even if no one else is

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 10 points 6 months ago

This.

Nestle products comply with European law in Europe. Nestle products comply with Senegalese law in Senegal. Nestle products comply with South African law in South Africa.

When companies use ingredients that are banned in Europe to produce food for American markets, (brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, BHA, BHT, etc), we point the finger at lax American regulators for allowing it. When Nestle produces food for African markets that doesn't meet European standards, we don't blame African regulators.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Those poorer countries can’t

I wish I could find it but there was a palm oil company that was banned from an island and they just ignored it

[–] RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Nestle most probably just buys local factories which already produce this crap and rebrands it. Even if Nestle would be forbidden from doing business in those countries, the locals would not be any better off. They really need their authorities to step in. There's no other way.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Corporations do depend on money, so every bit of money you don't give to Nestlé reduces their power just a tiny bit. Nestlé is a difficult company to boycott though, because they own so many brands.

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Most of their brands are crap products though. I'm sure I'm not 100% successful,but I mostly cook my own fresh foods, and if you eliminate most of the processed "food" from your diet, its a great big step. I still eat cheetos and pork rinds and potato chips though.

[–] bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)
[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago

JIF is delicious! And I gave it up because of all the palm oil. Now it's Teddie for me!

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Sanctions.

If America told Nestle and other corporations that if you're committing human rights abuses anywhere, you're not welcome in our markets.

It's not some impossible thing.

It's just something that isn't possible till we have politicians who represent voters more than corporations.

We need progressive majorities for that. But shit can be better

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Salix@sh.itjust.works 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I am confused why you're talking about USA. The article doesn't mention USA, and Nestle is a Swiss company.

I mean, better regulations in the US would be great though

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Because America is where they do a lot of shady shit....

If America threatened to cut Nestle off from the American market they would break their backs bending over for whatever we asked.

Other countries have more people, but don't spend as much money. Other countries have more money, but don't buy garbage food.

America is Nestle's ideal market, and they have large monopolies.

[–] Salix@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago

I guess looking at their official 2023 report, it does look like they make a lot in the North American Zone (Canada, US, Mexico) compared to other zones.

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 6 points 6 months ago

I told my kid no to some nestle brand of bottled water and explained to him why in the water aisle at Walmart and I met a random who congratulated me on knowing and rejecting them.

We exist, and there are enough of us, that I pulled a random in a town of less than 20,000!

[–] Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 76 points 6 months ago (3 children)

The same company that gave out free baby formular to poor African families and then, after a couple of months, went "nuh-uh you now have to pay so your babies don't die lol"? Surprising.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 27 points 6 months ago

And after the mother's stopped producing their own milk, when they only had dirty water to mix with the formula.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 24 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

If we didn't live in corporatocracies masquerading as "democracies" the execs and managers who pulled that shit would be serving life in prison.

Edit: Note that Nestle did this so the mothers would stop producing milk and their babies survival would become dependent on Nestle — pure unadulterated psychopathy!

[–] john89@lemmy.ca 14 points 6 months ago (1 children)

corporatocracies masquerading as “democracies”

Thank you. I've been trying so hard to figure out exactly what's going on in the world and the "democracy is best no matter what" mentality a lot of useful idiots seem to believe.

This sums it up very well.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Democracy IS best. We arguably don't have it because capitalism is pay to play and money equals speech = the orgs and individuals with the most money have the most influence over politics and government; so much so that wealth essentially controls policy — note that despite the USA being one of the most obvious and egregious examples, the problem is not isolated in any way shape or form.

If there were hard limits on individual wealth, every business was a co-op owned by the workers, and their influence on society was properly regulated, maybe we would have much more egalitarian democracies, but individuals and orgs will always strive to corrupt the system for their own power/wealth advantage (incl under any other system e.g. socialism).

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 15 points 6 months ago

Let's not forget they dressed their workers as nurses

[–] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 72 points 6 months ago

They’ve been criminally evil forever. Fuck Nestlé.

[–] Blackout@kbin.run 17 points 6 months ago

If you can commit an evil with food or water rest assured, Nestle® is on it.

[–] thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Evil aside, what is the benefit to Nestle of adding sugar? It's not like the babies are asking for the high sugar stuff at the grocery store...

[–] Spookyghost@sh.itjust.works 49 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's less expensive than the other ingredients and is additictive.

[–] TootSweet@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

They'd put heroin in baby formula if it was cheap and they could get away with it.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

This is the best summary I could come up with:


And in the Philippines, one serving of a version of the Cerelac cereal for babies 1 to 6 months old contains a whopping 7.3 grams of added sugar, the equivalent of almost two teaspoons.

In the European Region, the World Health Organization guidelines state that no added sugar should be used in foods for infants under the age of 3.

And the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control in Nigeria released a statement in response to the report that said the Nestlé products in the country do adhere to their standards.

A spokesperson for Nestlé told NBC News that the company is working on reducing added sugars worldwide and offers sugar-free products in several countries.

All our early life foods and milks are nutritionally balanced as defined in the commonly accepted scientific guidelines and dietary recommendations, including CODEX.”

Siddiqui said that monetary stressors might also be influencing parents to continue buying  added sugar formulas and baby cereals that their children appear to like.


The original article contains 1,039 words, the summary contains 166 words. Saved 84%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] IAmLamp@fedia.io 6 points 6 months ago

I would love it if the auto TL;DR bot would summarize every article about nestle with simply, “Fuck nestle” and save its compute cycles for other news.

[–] I_Miss_Daniel@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

"Sweet!" - Eric Cartman.

load more comments
view more: next ›