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.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          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

      • Salix@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

  • thesporkeffect@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    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…

  • Ksin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

      • Ksin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.