Nestlé adds sugar to infant milk sold in poorer countries, report finds

MicroWave@lemmy.world to World News@lemmy.world – 810 points – Nestlé adds sugar to infant milk sold in poorer countries, report finds
theguardian.com

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.

89

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.

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

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

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.

Ugh their firm grip on the pet food market endlessly pisses me off. I paid for a fancy B Corp certified cat food brand for years before realising it had been bought out by Nestlé

You're feeding your cat the equivalent of potato chips. No shit it's all they want to eat lol

Edit: I can't read. See below

At least they're hydrating potato chips. Kidney failure is a big problem for cats, sticking to an all-wet diet is already better than average.

Oh. I genuinely misread OP's post as Friskies, not Fancy Feast. I agree any wet food is miles better than dry food. Apologies @Dohnuthut@lemmy.world

I will take this opportunity to plug https://catfooddb.com to find quality wet foods because not all are created equally. Many have more fat than protein, which is not normal in the diet of a cat in the wild.

My personal recommendation is Tiki Cat

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Well, capitalism sees a vacuum where there’s no need and artificially creates need.

Of course there are a percentage of women who can’t breastfeed or babies who won’t, but as you said, they wedged the shitheel of companies into a space with limited need and lied to people, making babies less healthy and less developed. For money.

But it’s the best system there is, right? “Effective” and “best” don’t mean the same thing. But here we are. Led by greedy fuckers, tricking idiots, buying people up the information chain, to fool literally everyone.

Dog food is another great example. Did you know that iams/purina/science diet fund a ton of veterinary schools? They basically own the schools and inject their own “lessons” into the nutrition curriculum. Not to mention they turn vets into even higher priced retail food sales by calling it “prescription” food. That food is dog shit. Not dog food. But hey, capitalism “innovated” this type of shit into existence. And, this is just my opinion, but the fact that the food is so shitty I think might be calculated too. Get the dogs to have worse health, bring them back to the vet, more opportunities to sell a super cheaply made food at incredibly inflated prices.

Fuck capitalism. That’s all I have to say. Fuck it straight to hell.

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.

3 more...

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

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??

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

Sugar is psychologically addictive

I agree, but kids will be addicted to sugar pretty quickly regardless. Maybe that's the reason, but it seems like an awfully big expense when all they have to do is sell chocolate and the kids come running.

Yeah, but this is milk. For small babies that don't eat solid food. This is basically training them to crave sugar as early as possible.

It's in a follow-up milk for kids over 1 and in a cereal.

Kids don't get addicted to sugar much if there isn't much sugar intake occasion. I'm sure they checked the market and found that they could sell more sugar-based product later with this initial push.

In poorer countries, they might not buy non-essentials like sweets and chocolate as much as in the West. This ensures the sugar addiction starts early!

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.

I can't ever think about Coke marketing anymore without being reminded of the most evil thing I've ever seen committed to film.

https://screenmusings.org/movie/blu-ray/Slumdog-Millionaire/images/Slumdog-Millionaire-0272.jpg

Remind me how that guy/scene relates to coke? I haven't seen that movie since it came out

(Not arguing! I just need a refresher to get the reference)

He meets the kids and hands them each a Coke as a way of presenting himself as friendly and generous--and it looks like a marketing money shot; I wish I could find a gif of it. Those Cokes look like ambrosia from heaven.

And then a few scenes later he's putting out kids' eyes to make them more effective beggars.

Aha! I remember now. I figured he was the kid-mutilator but completely forgot the Coke part.

Thanks for the reminder!

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.

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

Some brain and a bunch of gut biome I suspect.

Once the sugar eating biome get established they rule the roost.

Also social factors come to play, like influencing purchasing behavior, cooking, food at restaurants etc

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.

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

1 more...

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.

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?

Correct

I think that's incorrect. Not against the honey, but the reasoning. I think it can harbor anaerobic bacteria which the child's immune system is not ready to handle.

I see they are trying to start metabolic syndrome very early indeed.

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!

Until recently in my country, baby formula for babies from 0 to 6 months had to be prepared with 3 grams of sugar or maltodextrin (and 2 ml of vegetal oil) every 100 ml (we had to add it manually along the formula powder). Because it was not enough. It changed because now we have access to formula that doesnt need to be modified to meet babies needs. Maybe the "per serving" in the article is misleading, and I didnt find a direct comparison between the exact product for the same age in the article. And, I don't defend Nestlé either but I think the information given is very incomplete and only creates worry. English is not my first language.

2 to 6.8 grams of sugar is less than 2 teaspoons, it's not much sugar. The US guidelines recommend substituting no-calorie sweeteners instead, so it's probably just a manufacturing issue not some evil corporate plot. Also the honey is in a product for kids 1 year and older which is safe.

Just a small but very important correction: the article says 6 grams per serving. Giving them two extra teaspoons with the small amount that babies take is much more significant.

EDIT: A quick search said that one serving of baby food tends to be around 75g? That means that that's 8% of it being pure sugar.

That's a decent amount for a small child, about half the maximum daily intake for a one year old. The recommended amount for children up to four (at least in the UK) is none.

I really don't like this article because it reminds me of the crazy health nut parents who get disgusted by fat babies and try to make them diet for "health" and instead starve them. Babies are supposed to be fat.

Is the writer here applying guidelines for adults to babies? Babies are supposed to take in foods that are high calorie. I think Nestle is a shit company, but I am extremely suspicious of the article.

Yes babies are supposed to be fat. But not from sugar. To the best of my knowledge , when they are older and able to consume solid foods, things like actual fat or butter are fine ( the stuff that clogs arteries etc) but there is no point in a baby's development that requires sugar as a necessity.

So it's not really that the article is based on guidelines for adults and applying it to babies. It's simply that the guideline for babies is that sugar is not necessary and can actually be more harmful than a multitude of other alternatives that can fulfill the same energy requirements of a baby subsistent wholly on milk.

If you read the whole article it also explains that it's European version of the same product doesn't contain added sugar.

The auto summary missed some key points in the article.