5 ms·

"does not force or even encourage over consumption of sugar." Actually they do encourage you to eat a lot of sugar. Specially children. Their marketing campaig

by jld89 10y ago

"does not force or even encourage over consumption of sugar." Actually they do encourage you to eat a lot of sugar. Specially children. Their marketing campaigns are specially tailored to that objective. Just look at the cereal advertisements, most of their cereal brands have a lot of sugar in them. If that is not encouraging over consumption of sugar I don't know what is...

jzwinck 10y ago
Their marketing is designed to sell cereal. People unfortunately are happiest (short term) to consume sugary cereal. They really are. I met a breakfast food operative in the supermarket once. I told him I thought his company should offer a low sugar version. He said everyone tells them to do so, but once it's on the shelves it does not sell. People want less sugar in the abstract. But they love sugar in their shopping carts, in the mornings, and in their mouths.
- maus42 10y ago
  ...extra tax for high-sugar products?
  - Erwin 10y ago
    We tried a tax on fatty foods in Denmark and it was a huge mess. People would just drive to Germany to get the stuff, and managing it was an administrative nightmare: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/business/global/fat-tax-in-denmark-is-repealed-after-criticism.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/business/global/fat-tax-in...
    - jacobush 10y ago
      That's like taxing it only in Idaho. Of course it must be done in an economic block, like the US or the EU or China.
    - rlucas 10y ago
      Interesting anecdote, but 1. It's quite possible (though it's a huge rabbit hole we shouldn't plumb here) that they were taxing the wrong macronutrient entirely, that is to say, that fat on the body is more a factor of sugar going in than fat going in. So in addition to imposing costs it may have failed to give benefits (whereas had it worked to improve health outcomes maybe it would have been worth the costs of enforcement etc.) 2. The Danes taxing butter?!? That seems extremely odd given the dairy industry and culture. But I suppose major kudos for being able to overcome such prior biases to even run the experiment.
- mikeash 10y ago
  So they're not encouraging people to consume sugary stuff, they're encouraging people to consume a category of food where people prefer sugary stuff? This is about as sensible as saying that Krispy Kreme isn't pushing sugary foods, people just happen to prefer donuts with lots of sugar in them.
  - jzwinck 10y ago
    What would you have Krispy Kreme do? Pivot to Kimchi Kombucha?
    - mikeash 10y ago
      I don't know. I just think that if we're going to talk about what companies encourage customers to do through their marketing, we should be straight about it.
- fucking_tragedy 10y ago
  The market forces companies to peddle garbage to children who generally lack the capacity to make a healthy informed decision in the face of multimillion dollar campaigns designed to get them to consume sugary cereal? > He said everyone tells them to do so, but once it's on the shelves it does not sell. People want less sugar in the abstract. But they love sugar in their shopping carts, in the mornings, and in their mouths. This sounds a little too just-so.
  - GordonS 10y ago
    > peddle garbage to children who generally lack the capacity to make a healthy informed decision I don't know many kids that do the shopping :) It's parents that choose the sugary breakfast cereals for their children. I think many have the capacity to make a healthy, informed decision, but for some reason they do not. Marketing is likely at least part of the reason.
    - fucking_tragedy 10y ago
      How many cereal advertisements do you see marketing towards parents vs their children? Companies know they influence purchasing decisions through the manipulation of children.
pavel_lishin 10y ago
"Look, we're not encouraging over-consumption of sugar. It's just that we know that people will over-consume sugar, and we make food packed with sugar, and we market it to those people."
- emodendroket 10y ago
  I'm sure they'd say something like that, but it is false. People were not eating gobs of sugar for breakfast until someone came up with sweetened breakfast cereal and marketed it.
  - lake99 10y ago
    I used to eat a lot of sweets when I was young. Not for breakfast, because that's not the customary here, but at all other times. I liked that stuff. As I grew older, I lost my taste for all that. I have seen this pattern in so many other people too. Kids like sweet stuff. As long as they are active and are in the normal weight range, I don't see any reason to discourage it either, except at night, after brushing teeth.
    - emodendroket 10y ago
      Children like sweets more than adults, sure, but the amount of sugar in the average diet is extremely high compared to like a century ago.
    - GordonS 10y ago
      > As long as they are active and are in the normal weight range, I don't see any reason to discourage it either Diabetes is a pretty good reason.
      - vonmoltke 10y ago
        Where is the research linking T2DM to sugar consumption in active, normal-weight people?
      - lake99 10y ago
aedron 10y ago
Marketing potentially harmful products to children should simply not be allowed. It is well-accepted that children lack the experience and power of judgement to properly evaluate marketing claims. A product sold as breakfast, that consists of 25% sugar, absolutely qualifies as harmful.
- adrianN 10y ago
  I dislike the idea of solving this via more regulation. Children don't decide what they eat, their parents do. So either the parents don't care about the health of their children (hard to believe), or they're not properly educated about healthy nutrition.
  - branchless 10y ago
    Or they are exhausted from working all hours because the banks create credit from thin air to maximize rent extraction and lack the willpower to argue with their children every shopping trip. I have kids, it's a constant battle even though we have no TV and I'm fortunate enough to have enough time to educate them. I'm constantly fighting with a whole room of people who are disgusting scumbags with access to millions of advertising spend.
  - nkrisc 10y ago
    Most likely the latter, as well as advertising to children to use them as emotional leverage against the parents.
  - ovi256 10y ago
    The amount of discipline a parent (limited by the time and willpower a parent can input into the process) can impose is finite. Once we accept this hypothesis, we can see how usual norms are imposed by parental discipline plus non-parental discipline. A parent going against a norm will have to use an extraordinary amount of time and willpower to impose his unconventional norm, as he will lack the enforcement of the non-parent actors. Eating sugary cereal is a societal norm in today's developed countries. Therefore, a parent wishing to diverge from this norm would have to expend an extraordinary effort. He's also going against the professionals who already succeeded in imposing the norm and simply have to maintain it today.
johndevor 10y ago
As a CEO in the US you're legally obligated to maximize profits. In that sense I don't see this as a problem with Nestle, more so the greater system in which Nestle sits.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  Is this really true? Over here (EU), the purpose of a corporation does not have to be maximising profit (although that is the default) and CEO does not have to use every legal method to maximize profit, at all costs.
  - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
    Even in the US, it is not really true. The CEO is not allowed to unreasonably undermine the company's profitability, but they are allowed nearly unlimited business judgement. As long as they can come up with any remotely plausible business justification for their actions, no court in the US will stop them. The CEO of Nestle could say something as simple as "acting in this manner will be perceived negatively and will harm our future sales" and they would be safe from legal action.
- Mvandenbergh 10y ago
  That's not true, you're legally obligated not to defraud the company but beyond that you can do whatever the board lets you do.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Nestlé is Swiss.
partiallypro 10y ago
When do you draw the line of "encouraging" and "this is what people actually want." I know that sugary cereals are bad for me, no one is encouraging me to eat them, but sometimes I really want Fruity Pebbles. The fact is that kids like sugary cereals, adults like sugary cereals, and a company is there to provide that product. I see nothing wrong with that. But let's also point out that fact that diabetes is -not- caused by sugar consumption itself. There is a genetic strain, and there is a strain caused by obesity. Does sugar lead to obesity? Yes, it can, but it does not directly cause diabetes. This is an important distinction.

by jld89 10y ago

jzwinck 10y ago

Their marketing is designed to sell cereal. People unfortunately are happiest (short term) to consume sugary cereal. They really are. I met a breakfast food operative in the supermarket once. I told him I thought his company should offer a low sugar version. He said everyone tells them to do so, but once it's on the shelves it does not sell. People want less sugar in the abstract. But they love sugar in their shopping carts, in the mornings, and in their mouths.

maus42 10y ago
...extra tax for high-sugar products?
- Erwin 10y ago
  We tried a tax on fatty foods in Denmark and it was a huge mess. People would just drive to Germany to get the stuff, and managing it was an administrative nightmare: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/business/global/fat-tax-in-denmark-is-repealed-after-criticism.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/business/global/fat-tax-in...
  - jacobush 10y ago
    That's like taxing it only in Idaho. Of course it must be done in an economic block, like the US or the EU or China.
  - rlucas 10y ago
    Interesting anecdote, but 1. It's quite possible (though it's a huge rabbit hole we shouldn't plumb here) that they were taxing the wrong macronutrient entirely, that is to say, that fat on the body is more a factor of sugar going in than fat going in. So in addition to imposing costs it may have failed to give benefits (whereas had it worked to improve health outcomes maybe it would have been worth the costs of enforcement etc.) 2. The Danes taxing butter?!? That seems extremely odd given the dairy industry and culture. But I suppose major kudos for being able to overcome such prior biases to even run the experiment.
mikeash 10y ago
So they're not encouraging people to consume sugary stuff, they're encouraging people to consume a category of food where people prefer sugary stuff? This is about as sensible as saying that Krispy Kreme isn't pushing sugary foods, people just happen to prefer donuts with lots of sugar in them.
- jzwinck 10y ago
  What would you have Krispy Kreme do? Pivot to Kimchi Kombucha?
  - mikeash 10y ago
    I don't know. I just think that if we're going to talk about what companies encourage customers to do through their marketing, we should be straight about it.
fucking_tragedy 10y ago
The market forces companies to peddle garbage to children who generally lack the capacity to make a healthy informed decision in the face of multimillion dollar campaigns designed to get them to consume sugary cereal? > He said everyone tells them to do so, but once it's on the shelves it does not sell. People want less sugar in the abstract. But they love sugar in their shopping carts, in the mornings, and in their mouths. This sounds a little too just-so.
- GordonS 10y ago
  > peddle garbage to children who generally lack the capacity to make a healthy informed decision I don't know many kids that do the shopping :) It's parents that choose the sugary breakfast cereals for their children. I think many have the capacity to make a healthy, informed decision, but for some reason they do not. Marketing is likely at least part of the reason.
  - fucking_tragedy 10y ago
    How many cereal advertisements do you see marketing towards parents vs their children? Companies know they influence purchasing decisions through the manipulation of children.

pavel_lishin 10y ago

"Look, we're not encouraging over-consumption of sugar. It's just that we know that people will over-consume sugar, and we make food packed with sugar, and we market it to those people."

emodendroket 10y ago
I'm sure they'd say something like that, but it is false. People were not eating gobs of sugar for breakfast until someone came up with sweetened breakfast cereal and marketed it.
- lake99 10y ago
  I used to eat a lot of sweets when I was young. Not for breakfast, because that's not the customary here, but at all other times. I liked that stuff. As I grew older, I lost my taste for all that. I have seen this pattern in so many other people too. Kids like sweet stuff. As long as they are active and are in the normal weight range, I don't see any reason to discourage it either, except at night, after brushing teeth.
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    Children like sweets more than adults, sure, but the amount of sugar in the average diet is extremely high compared to like a century ago.
  - GordonS 10y ago
    > As long as they are active and are in the normal weight range, I don't see any reason to discourage it either Diabetes is a pretty good reason.
    - vonmoltke 10y ago
      Where is the research linking T2DM to sugar consumption in active, normal-weight people?
    - lake99 10y ago

aedron 10y ago

Marketing potentially harmful products to children should simply not be allowed. It is well-accepted that children lack the experience and power of judgement to properly evaluate marketing claims. A product sold as breakfast, that consists of 25% sugar, absolutely qualifies as harmful.

adrianN 10y ago
I dislike the idea of solving this via more regulation. Children don't decide what they eat, their parents do. So either the parents don't care about the health of their children (hard to believe), or they're not properly educated about healthy nutrition.
- branchless 10y ago
  Or they are exhausted from working all hours because the banks create credit from thin air to maximize rent extraction and lack the willpower to argue with their children every shopping trip. I have kids, it's a constant battle even though we have no TV and I'm fortunate enough to have enough time to educate them. I'm constantly fighting with a whole room of people who are disgusting scumbags with access to millions of advertising spend.
- nkrisc 10y ago
  Most likely the latter, as well as advertising to children to use them as emotional leverage against the parents.
- ovi256 10y ago
  The amount of discipline a parent (limited by the time and willpower a parent can input into the process) can impose is finite. Once we accept this hypothesis, we can see how usual norms are imposed by parental discipline plus non-parental discipline. A parent going against a norm will have to use an extraordinary amount of time and willpower to impose his unconventional norm, as he will lack the enforcement of the non-parent actors. Eating sugary cereal is a societal norm in today's developed countries. Therefore, a parent wishing to diverge from this norm would have to expend an extraordinary effort. He's also going against the professionals who already succeeded in imposing the norm and simply have to maintain it today.

johndevor 10y ago

As a CEO in the US you're legally obligated to maximize profits. In that sense I don't see this as a problem with Nestle, more so the greater system in which Nestle sits.

ptaipale 10y ago
Is this really true? Over here (EU), the purpose of a corporation does not have to be maximising profit (although that is the default) and CEO does not have to use every legal method to maximize profit, at all costs.
- TheCoelacanth 10y ago
  Even in the US, it is not really true. The CEO is not allowed to unreasonably undermine the company's profitability, but they are allowed nearly unlimited business judgement. As long as they can come up with any remotely plausible business justification for their actions, no court in the US will stop them. The CEO of Nestle could say something as simple as "acting in this manner will be perceived negatively and will harm our future sales" and they would be safe from legal action.
Mvandenbergh 10y ago
That's not true, you're legally obligated not to defraud the company but beyond that you can do whatever the board lets you do.
jessaustin 10y ago
Nestlé is Swiss.

partiallypro 10y ago

When do you draw the line of "encouraging" and "this is what people actually want." I know that sugary cereals are bad for me, no one is encouraging me to eat them, but sometimes I really want Fruity Pebbles. The fact is that kids like sugary cereals, adults like sugary cereals, and a company is there to provide that product. I see nothing wrong with that. But let's also point out that fact that diabetes is -not- caused by sugar consumption itself. There is a genetic strain, and there is a strain caused by obesity. Does sugar lead to obesity? Yes, it can, but it does not directly cause diabetes. This is an important distinction.