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.
This really doesn’t have much to do with Nestlé. This is about the purchasing habits of consumers in different markets as influenced by global wealth inequality, lacking education, and inadequate access to healthcare. While large corporations absolutely have certain influence on those factors, this issue of more sugar in some products is so far downstream from the real problems that it’s just a useless distraction.
High sugar for poor babies doesn’t concern you?
Nestlé isn’t the only brand of baby food available in those markets, they sit right next to products that do have that “no added sugar” label. But that healthier alternative is not what sells better, the cheaper ones do, why? Because the consumers in those markets either can’t afford the healthy food or they lack the education to know the importance of a good diet.
What products are available on a market is a reflection of the purchasing habits of the consumers in that market, and those habits are a result of the macro socioeconomic factors of the region. If Nestlé changed all their products to be “no added sugar” right now then the prices of those products would need to be bumped up slightly which would mean the consumers would shift to another brand that’s cheaper which has the same issue and hey presto nothing has changed.
Nestlés products having added sugar is not the problem it is a symptom.
So what do we do if we want to solve these big problems? Well that’s not easy, it largely depends on the governments and people of those regions, but we can help. There are charities like plan-international.org which tries to directly tackle inequality and education, but driving economic activity can also help, maybe next time you go grocery shopping you buy a Senegal peanut oil or a pack of batteries from The Philippines. These are big hard problems that won’t be easily solved, but if we are to have any chance to fixing them we need to be able to identify what the problem is, getting mad at a brand is a lot easier than recognizing the underlying issues.
“Sweet!” - Eric Cartman.
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.
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!
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.
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).
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
wealth essentially controls policy
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
And after the mother’s stopped producing their own milk, when they only had dirty water to mix with the formula.
Let’s not forget they dressed their workers as nurses
If you can commit an evil with food or water rest assured, Nestle® is on it.
#FCKNSTL
Fuck Nestle.
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
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
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
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.
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
this article is not about acts of human rights abuse, is it?
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.
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.
deleted by creator
JIF is delicious! And I gave it up because of all the palm oil. Now it’s Teddie for me!
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.
-
adding sugar to baby food is not necessarily illegal
-
there is already legislation which prevents companies from engaging in illegal activities overseas but it’s really not efficient since it is so easy to offload any illegal activity to a locally owned company. This is more about human rights abuse and illegal lobbying than product quality control though.
-
there is nothing forcing multinational corporations to act as a unique global entity when it comes to quality control and any attempt to enforce such legislation would just be quickly sidestepped with local subsidiaries.
Really, the only defense for the locals is the local government. As it should be.
-
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
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.
Incorrect.
You blame everyone involved in the bad things they are doing and do your best to hold them responsible.
You can only hold people responsible for things they actually have the power to decide on. But if they tried and they are pressured not to change something then the blame lies solely with the people that pressure them.
If I pressure you to kill your child or yourself and you choose to kill your child, do you bear no responsibility?
Everyone has the choice not to do something, even if their only other choice is death.
You wouldn’t accept that reasoning for other causes, you would say they shouldn’t support it at all.
This is no different than the Israelis trying to blame everything they are doing on hummus.
You pulled the trigger, you are responsible.
Hell, you spray the graffiti protesting against something, you are still responsible.
You can’t just pretend someone else is making you do something.
It takes all the integrity out of what you are doing.
It’s like these kids who are catching a record and getting charged.
Should they be charged? I don’t think so. Maybe the ones who were supposedly holding a janitor against their will, I haven’t seen anything proving that yet though so…
The impressiveness of protest is people standing together and saying this is wrong and we are willing to do this to affect change.
If there’s no consequence, it’s no where near as impressive.
If you are trying to show people how important your cause is, German shepherds and water cannons, show dedication.
Immediately begging to get your record cleared, shows you don’t, to me at least anyway.
If you aren’t willing to deal with the consequences, which is perfectly reasonable, don’t let it get to that part, it shows weakness.
Just walk away at that part so they don’t get the pr win.
These are completely different and not even remotely comparable situations.
But to see the only similarity to Israels genocide: The worst criminals are sitting on their desks and organize in the background. They must be held accountable too. And in the context of trade agreements and consumer protection in African countries those criminals are the western institutions and lobby groups.
Everyone has the choice not to do something, even if their only other choice is death.
This is as far as I got.
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.
No you don’t understand, America = bad. If someone is doing something wrong it must be Americas fault or I must find some way to shoehorn politics into every conversation.
America and the EU are imposing the economic and political order that gives those companies leverage over small countries and blocks them from consumer protection or worker protection legislation. Heck, the US invaded foreign countries more than once to make sure their companies get to maximize profits, while making the people suffer.
America and the EU are imposing the economic and political order that gives those companies leverage over small countries and blocks them from consumer protection or worker protection legislation.
What on earth are you on about? The EU lobbies world wide for consumer and worker protection. Where are you getting your info from?
have you actually read those links? First is a political statement from 2014 which starts with :
Germany and Europe contribute large sums of tax money toward various development programmes in Africa, Nooke explained, but the economic agreement with African states cancels out these efforts.
and it should be easy to see now that the guy was just playing his voters.
the second one is about britain post brexit
the 3rd is about the influence of other markets on the quality of products in the EU.
Which one of those actually proves your point?
deleted by creator
Nestle is a swiss company. They do business in the US, but that doesn’t make them a US company anymore that Pepsico or Kraft-Heinz are European.
The US does have immense economic sway, but it’s already difficult enough to craft and enforce laws punishing American companies for violating international and certain domestic laws overseas.
Laws controlling the actions of foreign companies doing business in the US who complied with local laws in a third country in a fashion that violates US dietary norms is going to be very difficult.Also, I totally get that Evil American Business person is a media trope around the world for a reason, but common, we’re not Nestle bad. We have standards.
The American way is to find a way to monetize breastfeeding. Giving away months worth of product is just inefficient.
deleted by creator
clearly you’re not up to speed on your American rules of acquisition.
Rules 523: Never sell at a loss, but reduced profits can be treated like one for advertising.Also, it was a joke, albeit one grounded in a hint of truth, since there’s a lot of money to be made in selling breastfeeding supplies and supplements.
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
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.
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.
deleted by creator
The majority of the current ‘democrat’ party in the US are Neoliberals. Yeah it’s a right wing ideology, that’s the whole point of recognizing that even the ‘left wing’ here are still primarily conservatives.
All my homies hate Nestle
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!
I’ve known this for years. Why is it news now?
So it shouldn’t continue to be exposed ? Let the bad news (for Nestle) blow over ?
Nothing wrong with that at all. I’m just not sure what new information there is here? This is a “Today I learned” not a “today we learned.”
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…
It’s less expensive than the other ingredients and is additictive.
They’d put heroin in baby formula if it was cheap and they could get away with it.
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!
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.
They’ve been criminally evil forever. Fuck Nestlé.
