Report finds Nestlé adds sugars to baby food in low-income countries
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.
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
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.
This is as far as I got.
TLDR: Everyone is responsible for their own actions
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
sadfsdfasfasf
JIF is delicious! And I gave it up because of all the palm oil. Now it's Teddie for me!
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?
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.
What on earth are you on about? The EU lobbies world wide for consumer and worker protection. Where are you getting your info from?
https://www.euractiv.com/section/development-policy/news/eu-africa-free-trade-agreement-destroys-development-policy-says-merkel-advisor/
https://waronwant.org/news-analysis/empire-20-uk-trade-deals-squeeze-wealth-global-south
https://www.foodwatch.org/en/study-on-precautionary-principle-in-ttip-and-ceta
have you actually read those links? First is a political statement from 2014 which starts with :
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?
Free trade agreements come through pressure from the west -> free trade agreements provide shadow courts for protecting the interests of companies and their profits against national regulation -> free trade agreements destroy labor markets and consumer protection in the weaker side of the "agreement"
that's a ridiculously superficial take on free trade agreements. And since 10 years have passed since then, you should be able to show some evidence of that happening, but you can't.