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.

  • @Buffalox
    link
    English
    218
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    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.

      • @Sweetpeaches69
        link
        English
        522 months ago

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

        • @Dohnuthut
          link
          English
          222 months ago

          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.

          • @jpeps
            link
            English
            72 months ago

            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

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            6
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            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

            • @Soggy
              link
              English
              12 months ago

              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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                1
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                Oh. I genuinely misread OP’s post as Friskies, not Fancy Feast. I agree any wet food is miles better than dry food. Apologies @[email protected]

                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

        • @kautau
          link
          English
          172 months ago

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

          • @disguy_ovahea
            link
            English
            92 months ago

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

      • 👍Maximum Derek👍
        link
        fedilink
        English
        34
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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.

        • @JokklMaster
          link
          English
          92 months ago

          Operative word being: knowingly.

      • @Buffalox
        link
        English
        122 months ago

        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.

  • @nutsack
    link
    English
    186
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    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.

    • @affiliate
      link
      English
      702 months ago

      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

      • @A_Random_Idiot
        link
        English
        422 months ago

        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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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.

      • @nutsack
        link
        English
        -12 months ago

        GET OIT OF MY ROOM, DAD

        • @aidan
          link
          English
          42 months ago

          It even says that in the first line of the post

    • @T156
      link
      English
      292 months ago

      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.

    • @tacosplease
      link
      English
      62 months ago

      They also used to send their sales reps dressed like doctors

  • @EdibleFriend
    link
    English
    1092 months ago

    If there was a profit in dropkicking the babies Nestle would be doing it in a heartbeat

  • @Ensign_Crab
    link
    English
    452 months ago

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

    • FiveMacs
      link
      fedilink
      English
      332 months ago

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

    • @QualifiedKitten
      link
      English
      332 months ago

      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??

      • @Passerby6497
        link
        English
        412 months ago

        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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        272 months ago

        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.

    • Toes♀
      link
      fedilink
      English
      122 months ago

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

  • Flying SquidM
    link
    English
    262 months ago

    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.

      • @ours
        link
        English
        182 months ago

        And super cheap.

      • Flying SquidM
        link
        English
        -162 months ago

        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.

        • RBG
          link
          fedilink
          English
          482 months ago

          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.

          • AmidFuror
            link
            fedilink
            82 months ago

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

        • @cley_faye
          link
          English
          232 months ago

          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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          42 months ago

          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!

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      422 months ago

      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.

        • @glimse
          link
          English
          152 months ago

          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)

          • Xhieron
            link
            English
            102 months ago

            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.

            • @glimse
              link
              English
              52 months ago

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

              Thanks for the reminder!

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      27
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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

      • @Pretzilla
        link
        English
        82 months ago

        Some brain and a bunch of gut biome I suspect.

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

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          2 months ago

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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      272 months ago

      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.

    • Annoyed_🦀 🏅
      link
      fedilink
      English
      15
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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.

    • @someguy3
      link
      English
      92 months ago

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

    • @KISSmyOSFeddit
      link
      English
      62 months ago

      1kg formula/sugar-mix is cheaper than 1kg pure formula

  • @TokenBoomer
    link
    English
    132 months ago

    Cut it with Ozempic to even it out.

  • @SomeGuy69
    link
    English
    13
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    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.

  • Nougat
    link
    fedilink
    92 months ago

    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?

    • @Bgugi
      link
      English
      82 months ago

      Not allergies, botulism

      • @Kage520
        link
        English
        62 months ago

        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.