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.
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!
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??
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.
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.
And Perrier, because why have one competing brand when you could have all of them
I switched to Gerolsteiner and never looked back. It’s amazing.
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.
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.
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)
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 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.
