4 ms·

What is a "health" product or not is of no value to the discussion here I think, we can debate all day long about what way of eating is correct or not, then let

by cisstrd 10y ago

What is a "health" product or not is of no value to the discussion here I think, we can debate all day long about what way of eating is correct or not, then let me put it in broader terms: Targeting different groups with different products that actually might have nothing in common or even be antagonists in a way, is nothing immoral or unusual. I used the term "health product" as an antagonist to their sugary products. I did not in any way say Nestle is not selling the cause and the solution, I was trying to make that point that this in itself is meaningless and in no sense immoral. As kazinator brilliantly put it: "Yamaha wants to sell you noise-canceling headphones, and a motorcycle."[1] We can talk about a tax on sugars, we can talk about a different regulatory framework, but I see nothing wrong with what Nestle is doing here given the current legal and regulatory situation. And people make their choices, if Nestle wouldn't sell product x, someone else would in some form, they are trying that you choose their product, that's all, that's called competition. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11659815 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11659815

yomly 10y ago
Out of interest - if a cigarette company started selling lung cancer treatment, would you still hold this stance? I would hazard to say that the analogy I've chosen aligns more closely with the stance of the article and the posters taking a condemnatory tone than your Yamaha analogy does.
- yomly 10y ago
  Don't really understand the downvotes here can people explain why they are downvoting? The parent opinion is that Nestle is a large corporation and they are diversifying their revenue streams as every profit-seeking company is entitled to. The other opinion elsewhere on this thread is that sugar is the enemy and therefore Nestle should be held accountable for first causing a problem then charging people for offering the solution. It's probably going to be hard to reconcile either opinion given the subject of sugar in diets is already quite divisive, but is an attempt to illustrate the anti-sugar camp's perspective through an extreme but easily understood example not constructive?
  - rhizome 10y ago
    as every profit-seeking company is entitled to. To be sure, this isn't a natural right. The entitlement is entirely a creation of policy and legislation, both of which can be modified or rescinded.
    - yomly 10y ago
      True, completely agree, but we currently live in a world where the majority of corporations will make profit up until the boundaries of legality.
gerardnll 10y ago
We are not talking about what is health or not, the sugar they sell is bad, that's it, there's no questioning, there are doctors that agree on that, non biased studies, half the USA is ill with diabetes, etc. Every company has to have a social responsability, I don't see it here. They are causing harm with their products and they also sell the 'cure'. (actually the best is not to eat any of their products, then you don't need anything they sell, just eat 'real', non processed, food). About Yamaha, motorcycles shouldn't make that many noise, that is the main problem, not the headphones.
- md224 10y ago
  > the sugar they sell is bad, that's it, there's no questioning I dunno, I think sugar is pretty delicious. Not everything has to be about maximizing your lifespan, you know. A balanced life can include tasty stuff.
  - gerardnll 10y ago
    I don't use any sugar in any of my recipes (a part from pastry) and they are tasty. More than all this processed food. Just using whole foods. Maybe it's the mediterranean diet, we eat too good here in Spain ;P At the end it is all about balance as you say, but I really prefer to be balancing between meals that are too caloric than processed foods which we don't even know which ingredients contain.
- lotharbot 10y ago
  > "the sugar they sell is bad, that's it, there's no questioning" I question it. There appears to be little-to-no scientific evidence that there are "bad" sugars and "good" sugars. From what I understand (I'm no doctor, just a person who reads a lot) the main problem is the volume of consumption, not "good" vs "bad" sugars. There's nothing wrong with a normal, healthy person having sugar in any of the forms Nestle sells, only with having too much of it. Now, you could argue that they sell it in quantities that make it easy to have too much, but that's different from saying the sugar itself is bad.
  - 10y ago

by cisstrd 10y ago

yomly 10y ago

Out of interest - if a cigarette company started selling lung cancer treatment, would you still hold this stance? I would hazard to say that the analogy I've chosen aligns more closely with the stance of the article and the posters taking a condemnatory tone than your Yamaha analogy does.

yomly 10y ago
Don't really understand the downvotes here can people explain why they are downvoting? The parent opinion is that Nestle is a large corporation and they are diversifying their revenue streams as every profit-seeking company is entitled to. The other opinion elsewhere on this thread is that sugar is the enemy and therefore Nestle should be held accountable for first causing a problem then charging people for offering the solution. It's probably going to be hard to reconcile either opinion given the subject of sugar in diets is already quite divisive, but is an attempt to illustrate the anti-sugar camp's perspective through an extreme but easily understood example not constructive?
- rhizome 10y ago
  as every profit-seeking company is entitled to. To be sure, this isn't a natural right. The entitlement is entirely a creation of policy and legislation, both of which can be modified or rescinded.
  - yomly 10y ago
    True, completely agree, but we currently live in a world where the majority of corporations will make profit up until the boundaries of legality.

gerardnll 10y ago

We are not talking about what is health or not, the sugar they sell is bad, that's it, there's no questioning, there are doctors that agree on that, non biased studies, half the USA is ill with diabetes, etc. Every company has to have a social responsability, I don't see it here. They are causing harm with their products and they also sell the 'cure'. (actually the best is not to eat any of their products, then you don't need anything they sell, just eat 'real', non processed, food). About Yamaha, motorcycles shouldn't make that many noise, that is the main problem, not the headphones.

md224 10y ago
> the sugar they sell is bad, that's it, there's no questioning I dunno, I think sugar is pretty delicious. Not everything has to be about maximizing your lifespan, you know. A balanced life can include tasty stuff.
- gerardnll 10y ago
  I don't use any sugar in any of my recipes (a part from pastry) and they are tasty. More than all this processed food. Just using whole foods. Maybe it's the mediterranean diet, we eat too good here in Spain ;P At the end it is all about balance as you say, but I really prefer to be balancing between meals that are too caloric than processed foods which we don't even know which ingredients contain.
lotharbot 10y ago
> "the sugar they sell is bad, that's it, there's no questioning" I question it. There appears to be little-to-no scientific evidence that there are "bad" sugars and "good" sugars. From what I understand (I'm no doctor, just a person who reads a lot) the main problem is the volume of consumption, not "good" vs "bad" sugars. There's nothing wrong with a normal, healthy person having sugar in any of the forms Nestle sells, only with having too much of it. Now, you could argue that they sell it in quantities that make it easy to have too much, but that's different from saying the sugar itself is bad.
- 10y ago