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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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)
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.
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.
