817
submitted 4 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

Swiss food firm’s infant formula and cereal sold in global south ignore WHO anti-obesity guidelines for Europe, says Public Eye

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.

Campaigners from Public Eye, a Swiss investigative organisation, sent samples of the Swiss multinational’s baby-food products sold in Asia, Africa and Latin America to a Belgian laboratory for testing.

The results, and examination of product packaging, revealed added sugar in the form of sucrose or honey in samples of Nido, a follow-up milk formula brand intended for use for infants aged one and above, and Cerelac, a cereal aimed at children aged between six months and two years.

In Nestlé’s main European markets, including the UK, there is no added sugar in formulas for young children. While some cereals aimed at older toddlers contain added sugar, there is none in products targeted at babies between six months and one year.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 220 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Nestle is a notorious scumbag company, personally I have avoided anything Nestle all my life, since when I grew up, there were already news about illegally bad quality/harmful formula food. I have NEVER heard a good thing about that company.

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 118 points 4 months ago

That’s surprisingly hard to do. Nestlé produces 35% of the products in a North American grocery store.

[-] Sweetpeaches69@lemmy.world 53 points 4 months ago

I felt so betrayed the other day when I looked at my San Pellegrino and saw it was a Nestlé company.

[-] Dohnuthut@lemmy.world 23 points 4 months ago

As of now, the only product I have to buy to support this atrocious company is Fancy Feast because it's the only food my picky senior cat will eat.

[-] EssentialCoffee@midwest.social 10 points 4 months ago

I was so happy I could get my cat off of Purina.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] kautau@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago

And Perrier, because why have one competing brand when you could have all of them

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

Perrier bought San Pelegrino, then Nestle bought Perrier. Perrier Group of America owned several water brands in the ‘90s and early ‘00s.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de 34 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It looks hard, in practice it is not. I haven't knowingly purchased a Nestle product in over decade. Mistakes happen now and again, but when they do I add that brand to my mental list and move on.

Where it gets confusing is international brand ownership differences. For example, Cheerios is still made and distributed by General Mills in North America, but by Nestle in most of the rest of the world.

[-] JokklMaster@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

Operative word being: knowingly.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Cheradenine@sh.itjust.works 28 points 4 months ago

They have been doing things like this since at least the '70's .

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

Yes I'm 61, and that's what I remember. But what's worse is that they continue to do it, so there are regular scandals about it. That's why I've never forgiven the company, because when it could have been time, there's a new scandal.

[-] nutsack@lemmy.world 186 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

they also tell doctors in these poor countries to give the stupid products to new mothers with perfectly normal milk production. they tell them it's better than natural milk. It's an American product, and they buy into it because they want their kid to be smart like an American. Nestle is an awful company.

[-] affiliate@lemmy.world 70 points 4 months ago

it’s worth mentioning that very rarely is baby formula better than breast milk. the contents of breast milk change depending on the what the child needs at the moment. it’s really sick that some companies market it as a better option than breast milk

source

[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 42 points 4 months ago

whats really sick is the fact that nestle gave free formula to women in poor companies, telling them that it was better, just long enough for their breast milk to dry up, before starting to charge them insane prices for it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TheMusicalFruit@lemmy.world 39 points 4 months ago

Nestle is a Swiss company.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] T156@lemmy.world 29 points 4 months ago

The babies going on formula means that the mother's milk supply dries up when the baby isn't having any, and that they're then dependent on it, since it is quite difficult to start producing milk again after.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 109 points 4 months ago

If there was a profit in dropkicking the babies Nestle would be doing it in a heartbeat

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 22 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Economics says anything that turns a profit is morally right and good! (not sarcasm, many people think this.)

[-] AccurstDemon@sopuli.xyz 51 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

!fucknestle@lemmy.world

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 45 points 4 months ago

Sugar and honey? Aren't you not supposed to give honey to infants?

[-] QualifiedKitten@lemmy.world 33 points 4 months ago

added sugar in the form of sucrose or honey in samples of Nido, a follow-up milk formula brand intended for use for infants aged one and above,

I hate that it sounds as if I'm defending them, but the only specific mention of honey does say it was in a product targeted at children over 1 year old. I believe the recommendation I've heard is that honey is dangerous for children under 1 year old. But fuck, if unsweetened products are good enough for infants in wealthy countries, WTF are they doing adding it to products aimed at infants in poorer countries??

[-] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 41 points 4 months ago

if unsweetened products are good enough for infants in wealthy countries, WTF are they doing adding it to products aimed at infants in poorer countries??

Getting their customers addicted early.

[-] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 33 points 4 months ago

They don't care, it's about forming that early addiction to sugar. Thats all they want. More sugar consumption and addiction.

[-] mp3@lemmy.ca 24 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

You can't give them honey because it can cause botulism. The risk is greater with unpasteurized honey, but it seems pasteurized honey can also carry the bacteria and their weak immune system might not be able protect them.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-safety-vulnerable-populations/infant-botulism.html

[-] sik0fewl@lemmy.ca 27 points 4 months ago

It's not the immune system, but rather their stomachs are not acidic enough to neutralize the bacteria.

They could still heat the honey enough in an industrial setting (beyond just pasteurization) to kill the bacteria as well, so I doubt that's a real concern.

[-] Toes@ani.social 12 points 4 months ago

You aren't because it can contain harmful stuff but I suspect it's so ultra processed by this stage it won't matter.

[-] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 months ago

Come closer son, and let me just tell you a little secret about Nestlé corporation...

[-] chemicalprophet@lemm.ee 32 points 4 months ago

Nestle is comically evil, but it's just not funny.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 26 points 4 months ago

Maybe I missed it in the article, but isn't it more expensive for Nestlé to add the sugar than to not use it? I don't understand their motivation here. I mean, I assume it's evil considering what company this is, I just don't understand it.

[-] Pogogunner@sopuli.xyz 81 points 4 months ago

Sugar is psychologically addictive

[-] ours@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago

And super cheap.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] treefrog@lemm.ee 42 points 4 months ago

It's a return on investment. Sugar is addictive, and they get a competitive edge vs. less sweet formulas that are following the WHO recommendations.

Coke is cheaper than bottled water for similar reasons. Especially in developing countries.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 27 points 4 months ago

I'm pretty sure sugar is cheaper than the rest of the formula by weight. They are essencial ly cutting formula with a cheaper more readily available product.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Anamana@feddit.de 27 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Their motivation might be to get the kids hooked on the stuff early on. Sugar works like a drug in some ways by releasing dopamine in the brain and if you train your brain early on it will affect it longterm. Plus it will influence their future taste preferences. Everything else, besides Nestle's oversugared snacks will taste bland in comparison. Leading to kids crying at supermarket checkouts to get their favourite snacks :D

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 15 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Babies like sugary thing, adding it in formula make sure babies refuse healthier alternative other than product made by Nestle for at least 3 years.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

I assume they then dilute it back down so it's the same calories per 100 ml. Sugar is cheap.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago

Cut it with Ozempic to even it out.

[-] SomeGuy69@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

As if we needed any more reasons to hate Nestlé. If they ever find a sugar that's as addictive as heroin, they'd sell it to the world without telling anyone.

[-] Nougat@fedia.io 9 points 4 months ago

Nestlé, the world’s largest consumer goods company, adds sugar and honey to infant milk and cereal products sold in many poorer countries, ...

Isn't honey verboten for infants because of the possibility of severe allergic reaction?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
817 points (99.0% liked)

World News

38147 readers
2341 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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