8 ms·

Nestle is a very big company making all kinds of products, and since ever more people are following the health and fitness craze, there are so many people obses

by cisstrd 10y ago

Nestle is a very big company making all kinds of products, and since ever more people are following the health and fitness craze, there are so many people obsessed with health, they want to profit from it. They want to adjust their company in order to guarantee future profits, that's actually (a) the most normal thing in the world and (b) a form of following consumer's choice and wishes. I don't see how selling sugary products for those who buy them and selling health products for those who prefer them is any kind of evil moral conflict. No matter if "health product" means low-fat low-sugar foods or pharmaceutical products. Scepticism is good, control and regulation is good, blind condemnation is not, not sure what the article is representing. For me it actually is healthy scepticism, some of the comments here are more condemnation I presume.

malz 10y ago
My local drugstore sells both kinds of products too. If it's evil for Nestle, it's arguably even more evil for Walgreens, since that's where the consumer is making their purchasing decision.
- tawpKek 10y ago
  You could draw a parallel between this and the tabacco free pharmacy push: http://cvshealth.com/thought-leadership/cvs-health-perspective/we-are-tobacco-free http://cvshealth.com/thought-leadership/cvs-health-perspecti...
AndrewUnmuted 10y ago
First of all, diabetes pills are not really 'health products.' They are more like 'you fucked up your health, now try not to die' products. Even Nestle's low-fat and low-sugar "foods" are a far cry from "health products." You are being disingenuous by conflating the two, or even for suggesting that Nestle is in the business of selling "health products." Beyond that, however, I see a pretty big flaw in your reasoning here. Given your argument, can you not then extend your theory on guaranteeing future profits to also include the strategy of selling both the problem and the solution? This, too, is a very 'normal' thing for large, multi-national manufacturers of consumer goods to be engaged in. Nestle, along with Coca Cola and Kroger, is a well-known corporate supporter of programs such as SNAP in the US, and is also one of the largest benefactors from said programs. I am a full-on capitalist, but that does not mean that we ought to give a pass to the morally-flawed existences of companies like Nestle, which leverage its influence in the State to reap greater profits.
- bduerst 10y ago
  How much of the cause of the diabetes endemic is Nestle though? Isn't lack of nutritional education more to blame? It's easy to come down hard on the smoking industry due to the chemically addictive nature and serious health hazards of the product, but there are many consumers who moderate their fat and sugar intake. And then there are diabetics who don't consume any Nestle products - so why can't they be given treatment manufactured from a conglomerate?
  - lloyddobbler 10y ago
    Agreed. As someone with Type 1 diabetes (look up the difference if you don't know), I'm always interested in this distinction. Sugary foods neither "give people" nor cause Type 2 diabetes. A person consistently consuming too many sugary foods over a long period of time causes themselves to be at higher risk for Type 2 diabetes. Cigarettes are a different beast, due to the chemically-addictive nature of them (although in this day and age, one could make the argument that people of all ages should know better than to start smoking, and should thus bear responsibility for the outcome - but that's another discussion for another time). Cigarettes != sugar. End of story.
    - throwaway160303 10y ago
      How are the dopamine hits from a nicotine-delivery product different from the dopamine hits from a glucose-delivery product?
      - TeMPOraL 10y ago
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3188825/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3188825/
    - jakubp 10y ago
      It is possible one day cigarettes will be considered a minor evil in comparison with sugar. Just you wait.
hinkley 10y ago
You know, people say the same kinds of things about Sony, but it's obvious to everybody that Sony Pictures has screwed up Sony Electronics, and badly.

by cisstrd 10y ago

malz 10y ago

My local drugstore sells both kinds of products too. If it's evil for Nestle, it's arguably even more evil for Walgreens, since that's where the consumer is making their purchasing decision.

tawpKek 10y ago
You could draw a parallel between this and the tabacco free pharmacy push: http://cvshealth.com/thought-leadership/cvs-health-perspective/we-are-tobacco-free http://cvshealth.com/thought-leadership/cvs-health-perspecti...

AndrewUnmuted 10y ago

First of all, diabetes pills are not really 'health products.' They are more like 'you fucked up your health, now try not to die' products. Even Nestle's low-fat and low-sugar "foods" are a far cry from "health products." You are being disingenuous by conflating the two, or even for suggesting that Nestle is in the business of selling "health products." Beyond that, however, I see a pretty big flaw in your reasoning here. Given your argument, can you not then extend your theory on guaranteeing future profits to also include the strategy of selling both the problem and the solution? This, too, is a very 'normal' thing for large, multi-national manufacturers of consumer goods to be engaged in. Nestle, along with Coca Cola and Kroger, is a well-known corporate supporter of programs such as SNAP in the US, and is also one of the largest benefactors from said programs. I am a full-on capitalist, but that does not mean that we ought to give a pass to the morally-flawed existences of companies like Nestle, which leverage its influence in the State to reap greater profits.

bduerst 10y ago
How much of the cause of the diabetes endemic is Nestle though? Isn't lack of nutritional education more to blame? It's easy to come down hard on the smoking industry due to the chemically addictive nature and serious health hazards of the product, but there are many consumers who moderate their fat and sugar intake. And then there are diabetics who don't consume any Nestle products - so why can't they be given treatment manufactured from a conglomerate?
- lloyddobbler 10y ago
  Agreed. As someone with Type 1 diabetes (look up the difference if you don't know), I'm always interested in this distinction. Sugary foods neither "give people" nor cause Type 2 diabetes. A person consistently consuming too many sugary foods over a long period of time causes themselves to be at higher risk for Type 2 diabetes. Cigarettes are a different beast, due to the chemically-addictive nature of them (although in this day and age, one could make the argument that people of all ages should know better than to start smoking, and should thus bear responsibility for the outcome - but that's another discussion for another time). Cigarettes != sugar. End of story.
  - throwaway160303 10y ago
    How are the dopamine hits from a nicotine-delivery product different from the dopamine hits from a glucose-delivery product?
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3188825/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3188825/
  - jakubp 10y ago
    It is possible one day cigarettes will be considered a minor evil in comparison with sugar. Just you wait.

hinkley 10y ago

You know, people say the same kinds of things about Sony, but it's obvious to everybody that Sony Pictures has screwed up Sony Electronics, and badly.