8 ms·
Nestlé adds sugar to infant milk sold in poorer countries, report finds
- gnabgib 2y agoHN discussion:[0] (278 points, yesterday, 160 comments) [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40067575 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40067575
- Semitangent 2y agoWhat I would like to know here is whether the suggested serving amounts in those countries are adjusted, as well. Sugar is bad for our health, sure, but it's not like it is rat poison. It gives easily digestible calories and in a product like baby formula, where you have defined amounts of that product to consume every day, "added sugars" in a vacuum does not seem to be such a big problem to me.
- adrianN 2y agoA baby's digestive system is not set up to digest sugars other than lactose for the first few months.
- belval 2y agoGenuinely asking, is that true? Sugar or sucrose is a combination of glucose and fructose that can be broken down by water, since glucose is the basic sugar that cell uses wouldn't that be available regardless of the baby's digestive system?
- adrianN 2y agoFructose is metabolized very differently from galactose. Babies also don't have a fully formed gut microbiota. Introducing carbohydrates other than lactose too early can mess that up.
- edarchis 2y agoIt's maltodextrin and designed to be digestible by babies. You can buy it in a fine powder marketed as "Caloreen" from Nestlé. Our pediatrician pushed us to use it in supplement to breast-feeding because the baby was below the expected curve. For what it's worth (not much), our baby that was fed Caloreen has no sugar addiction, quite the contrary. Knowing our pediatrician, I am 99.9% sure that he didn't have any incentive from Nestlé and was just having the baby interest in mind. I am rather blaming the weight curves that are more designed for bottle-fed babies than breast-fed ones, combined with the human tendency to focus on the indicators rather than what they represent.
- agos 2y agoarticle says it's sucrose or honey, not maltodextrin
- mathattack 2y ago[flagged]
- Closi 2y agoAt the very least it's a bad look considering Nestle's history here.
- chabes 2y agoGiving empty sugar calories to babies (regardless of the fact that infant malnutrition is more prevalent in these countries) is bad actually.
- triceratops 2y agoWTF is a "suggested serving amount" for a basic food? These aren't mixed nuts to snack on with your beer. For formula-fed infants the suggested serving amount is "exactly as much they want".
- watwut 2y agoBaby formulas do have suggested serving amounts, sugar or not.
- triceratops 2y agoWhat do you do if you've fed the suggested serving amount, the baby is still hungry, and there's no breast milk?
- Dalewyn 2y agoA person's caloric and nutrient needs will vary from moment to moment, a suggested daily serving is merely an average value for average people used as an objective frame of reference. And if we're going to argue whether a food has more or too much sugar than other foods, we need to use an objective frame of reference as a point of comparison. Anyway, the Nestle hate in this overall thread is just as worthless as the Boeing bashing and Musk Derangement Syndrome seen in other threads.
- triceratops 2y ago"An objective frame of reference" sounds like it should be standardized. A suggested serving amount is pretty arbitrary and up to the manufacturer to determine, and is the opposite of "objective". In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40087543 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40087543 I suggested using per 100g or per 100 calories as a reference. Extremely objective and clear.
- cryptonector 2y agoGP's point is that you're not going to significantly reduce the suggested serving size of an essential food on account of having made it sweeter because the other nutrients are still needed.
- temp0826 2y agoIt practically is poison, it's just the effect takes years to become obvious. Obesity, type-2 diabetes accompanied by all of its implications and effects leading to miserably unhealthy lives and early deaths. I hope there is a reckoning with the industry (and the "experts" and supposed government watchdog organizations lying and feigning to protect us) someday and sugar is treated more like cigarettes with disgusting pictures of people dying on the fronts of cereal boxes.
- watwut 2y agoI wonder where eating disorders in teenagers come from ... seriously, sugar is not poison, it is food and on itself wont harm you.
- KomradeKeeks 2y ago[flagged]
- dang 2y agoPosting like this will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are, so please don't post like this to HN. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- bravetraveler 2y ago... and fast food companies test weird products in the Midwest here at home The amount of toying with this stuff is both fascinating and terrifying
- helboi4 2y agoNestle cannot stop fucking with the health of children in third world countries man
- pcdoodle 2y agoJig is up here in the USA. Now we export our fat assess to the 3rd world. Don't support companies like Nestle, don't work for them, shame anyone that does.
- watwut 2y agoAnd in next thread, we discuss why the teenagers get eating disorders more then then used to. It is totally social media, nothing to do with how we talk about food and weight.
- kamikazeturtles 2y agoIsn't Nestle European? Apparently the Eu doesn't care when their own companies become monopolies and do questionable things like this
- TimMurnaghan 2y agoNice try to bring in some EU bashing. But Switzerland isn't a part of it.
- jajko 2y agoIs Switzerland some internally-accepted authority on how food content is supposed to look like everywhere, and force it down the throat of literally whole world? We know how that would work... These are private corporations, their HQs are in Switzerland purely for corporate tax reasons, otherwise they would move away long long time ago, given massive salaries required to get & keep top staff. If given countries were really that concerned and wanted to push for better products sold in their countries, there are numerous ways. They can do literally anything they want back home on their own market, or they can push ie via WTO arbitrage, heck even European courts do handle some Swiss lawsuits. Or you know, people just educate themselves a trivial bit about nutrition and stop buying stuff that is harmful. We can have a smart discussion with facts and reality check, or emotional outbursts that lead nowhere.
- tru3_power 2y agoWhat would be the reason for this
- fpgamlirfanboy 2y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_%26_Williamson#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_%26_Williamson#Controver... > Wigand turned his attention to improving tobacco additives, some of which were designed for "impact boosting", using chemicals like ammonia to enhance absorption of nicotine in the lungs and affect the brain and central nervous system faster. Wigand believed this process was a deliberate attempt to increase addiction to cigarettes.
- CooCooCaCha 2y agoSome people are truly evil.
- Biganon 2y agoI'm sorry but I find this answer completely ridiculous. People do stuff for reasons, selfish reasons, but "hehe I'm evil just because" is absurd.
- pjerem 2y agoPeople are evil because it makes money, which buys power. It really is that simple and miserable.
- phone8675309 2y agoThe love of money is the root of all evil
- marcosdumay 2y agoYes, this case is about money. But I've seen many cases that elude any explanation. Some people truly just like to see others suffering because of them.
- CooCooCaCha 2y ago
- gsky 2y agoI never bought a Nestle product in ages but is this worse than what coco-cola (pepsi, etc), lays and MLM companies like Amway do? I saw kids as small as 7-8yr old drinking sugary drinks and eating lays on their way to school. Manufacturers to advertising firms to media companies all should be hanged for what they have done to kids
- outime 2y agoManufacturers will do only what they're allowed to by law and even more. Expecting ethics from companies, especially (but not only) corporations, must stop. It's not going to happen, and it will only lead to further disappointment.
- Loughla 2y agoThat is such a shitty take, regardless of whether it's real or not (I do agree with you). It's just infuriating that we accept that we are going to get fucked by every company that can possibly do so, in every aspect of our lives. Humans run those companies. What can we do to stop this vicious cycle, outside of guillotines?
- tudorw 2y agoB-Corps are a interesting line, also Co-operatives and worker owned companies, these have the freedom to align with greater goals than pure profit. https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/ https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/ and https://cafe-libertad.de https://cafe-libertad.de are examples of what can be done aside from throwing your hands in the air and walking on by.
- dopylitty 2y agoThe point is a good one though. We can't expect companies to be ethical or moral or good in our current system because our current system values profits for shareholders/"owners" and high executive salaries above all else. That doesn't mean we need to just accept it and let them do whatever they want though. What it means is we need to change the system so that companies aren't putting profits first and instead require them to prioritize product quality, employee well being, and environmental sustainability. Profit should be a distant fourth if it's allowed at all. Frankly the idea that some amount of value is just sucked out of companies by parasites who don't contribute to the company at all is just not right.
- jascii 2y agoNestle has been murdering infants for a long time: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal
- cynicalkane 2y agoThis link is about a Chinese company that isn't Nestlé and only affected Nestlé products in trace amounts.
- ginko 2y agoThis one isn’t: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Nestl%C3%A9_boycott https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Nestl%C3%A9_boycott
- neilv 2y agoThis is far from the worst-sounding thing we've heard of Nestlé. Is there a unified explanation for the company's behavior?
- graemep 2y agoIts like everyone else, chasing profits. Western media covers it because it is a well known name that has done similar things before and is sells a lot of things aimed at babies and toddlers.
- Funes- 2y agoYou haven't heard about capitalism as of late? It's all about profits, at the expense of everything else.
- rqtwteye 2y agoWhat is the motivation behind pouring tons of sugar into almost every food? Is it to change people’s tastes and make them addicted so they eat even more sugary? I am always shocked how much added sugar is put into foods where you wouldn’t expect sugar.
- financetechbro 2y agoSugar is an addictive substance, more so than cocaine
- pas 2y agookay... that's a very general and super strong claim. what data is this based on?
- busterarm 2y agoYes. To stimulate demand for other Nestle products as they grow up.
- waihtis 2y agoIts exactly that. I recall there are receptors in your stomach lining which detect the presence of sugar even when its not obviously tasteable, such as in predominantly salty fast foods and so. This is a sneaky way to make you addicted while you don't even realize it.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- btbuildem 2y agoThese are the people who are directly responsible: https://www.nestle.com/investors/corporate-governance/management/board-directors https://www.nestle.com/investors/corporate-governance/manage... Directors at Nestlé and their other associations: - Paul Bulcke: L'Oréal, Roche Holding - U. Mark Schneider: None listed - Henri de Castries: HSBC Holdings, Saint-Gobain - Dick Boer: None listed - Kimberly A. Ross: PQ Group Holdings, Chubb Ltd - Dinesh Paliwal: Bristol Myers Squibb, Raytheon Technologies - Patrick Aebischer: Lonza Group, Logitech - Kasper Rorsted: Siemens AG, Bertelsmann - Lindiwe Majele Sibanda: None listed - Anna Richell: None listed - Eva Cheng: None listed - Renato Fassbind: Swiss Re, Kühne+Nagel International
- gruez 2y ago>directly responsible It's fine to claim "the buck stops at the board/CEO and they should be responsible", but claiming that all directors are directly responsible, just because they're on the board is a stretch. If that counts as "directly" responsible, what type of "responsible" is associated with explicitly ordering/approving the decision?
- financetechbro 2y agoSo if the BoD is supposed to oversee the executives to ensure that Nestles operations are maximizing shareholder holder returns, and if through the course of overseeing management, Nestle decides to attempt a new strategy for customer retention (sugar addiction), which most certainly was at least mentioned to the board in passing during some update meeting, and if the board did not shut down the initiative because it’s good for shareholder returns (addicted customers are customers for life), then in some ways they are responsible for the company’s actions.
- gruez 2y ago>if through the course of overseeing management, Nestle decides to attempt a new strategy for customer retention (sugar addiction), which most certainly was at least mentioned to the board in passing during some update meeting, and if the board did not shut down the initiative 1. those are a lot of "if"s 2. it's not necessary that the explicit decision to add sugars made it all the way up to the board. That could be due to banal (eg. board of directors doesn't care about every minutiae of how the business) or nefarious reasons (ie. providing plausible deniability). >then in some ways they are responsible for the company’s actions To be clear, I'm not claiming they should be left off the hook entirely, just that claiming they're "directly" responsible doesn't make much sense. From my original comment: >It's fine to claim "the buck stops at the board/CEO and they should be responsible"
- bg117 2y agoGuess, it has to do with profit margin. To be price competitive and also make a huge profit, sugar is added as a filler. Sugar is cheap compared to other ingredients may be. Added sugar varies by countries.
- cbm-vic-20 2y agoIMO this is a much more credible take than the prevailing conspiracy theory that Nestle is specifically getting kids addicted to sugar so they'll be reliable Nestle customers in the future. Nestle is like any other corporation- they need to show that profit now. The side effect of getting kids addicted to sugar- which they can also get from Nestle's compeitors- is just a side benefit.
- 1970-01-01 2y ago>The Nido brand is trusted by mothers, with a taste that kids love. https://www.nestle.com/brands/baby-foods/nido https://www.nestle.com/brands/baby-foods/nido
- richwater 2y ago> 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. So they've done nothing illegal and people are free to buy another product. Why is this even news? > WHO guidelines for the European region say no added sugars or sweetening agents should be permitted in any food for children under three. While no guidance has been specifically produced for other regions, researchers say the European document remains equally relevant to other parts of the world. So "researchers" wrote this article because Nestle sells a product that the WHO disagrees with? Who fucking cares? It's sugar.
- mint2 2y agoHonest answer: People with empathy and knowledge of chemistry and biology care that the company known for child labor among many other scandals is also robbing babies of nutrient in poor countries.
- WhereIsTheTruth 2y agoThat's how you destroy their beautiful genes, by creating addictions to non-healthy food, you'll end up with a population with serious health issues and more importantly.. precious teeth I wish they let them know and i wish they enforce a ban on these products and start to develop a local brand that cares about its people
- xanthor 2y agoHow much sugar is in an equivalent amount of breast milk?
- troyvit 2y agoIt's not just how much but what kinds. According to this paper[1] there's about 1g - 2.5g of lactose and 30 other oligosaccharides per 100 ml of breast milk depending on if it's colostrum or mature milk. I don't know how that compares to how much sugar Nestle puts in, but the mix of different sugars and the timing of their introduction are helpful in regulating the baby's gut flora. I doubt the same can be said for just straight up sucrose and honey. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/392766/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/392766/
- xanthor 2y agoIt's difficult to ascertain whether the Nestlé milks exceed the 7% carbohydrate content of breast milk that study establishes since the linked report only describes grams of sugar per serving, without defining the size of a serving. I'm sure honey is not equivalent to the sugars in breast milk in terms of suitability for an infant, but it's not clear to me that reducing the carbohydrate content would necessarily be better if breast milk wasn't available.
- hammock 2y agoAdded sugar leads to overweight and obesity. But can’t you be healthy at any weight? Not every overweight human needs to lose weight. And it’s probably ok to have a little sugar, even if you’re a small child, if it’s part of a balanced diet
- kstrauser 2y ago> But can’t you be healthy at any weight? No. For an extreme case, it’s impossible to be healthy at 1,000 pounds. You will have diabetes. You will have wrecked joints. You will have dire circulatory issues. Those things are absolutely guaranteed. Your body can’t support being that size, or processing the amount of food required to become that size. You can be pretty healthy at the low end of the obese range. I could stand to lose a bit of weight, but also hit the gym and run frequently. My labs are just fine. You cannot be healthy at the extreme sizes. Everyone’s body would cross the line somewhere in the middle.
- ipaddr 2y agoSugar comes from food, the rate we absorb sugar depends on the form. Saying that a balanced diet involves sugar is true but saying that we need it in a form that will overload the body is not true. This is not the part I would balance the diet on.
- donor20 2y agoSugar is listed as an ingredient at least in India
- ChrisArchitect 2y ago[dupe] More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40067575 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40067575
- jajko 2y agoNobody reads content, are we really that degenerate in 2024? Or just think a little dammit (this is pre-made artificial product and not just 100% extract from some mother's breasts, so variations to content and quality are to be expected). I know this is about south hemisphere but those folks aren't magically mentally disabled, they can read and grok same stuff we up here do. I mean yes, these food corporations are evil in same ways pharma is evil in maximizing extracted money from their customers. Every single business is doing this in some way, the limit is normally law and law so far allows this. We all know law is imperfect, catches up slowly, can be corrupted. This means, and always meant, that parents should actually be effin' parents and go that extra mile and check what they are putting in kids mouths. 'We have no time' excuse I call BS, just manage your phone/TV/gaming addiction and learn a bit instead, there lies a problem. Critical thinking. Expecting world will magically take care of you and solve your concerns/problems. In many parts of western Europe, food is not just a necessity and afterthought, but one of main focuses in one's life. Preparing it is often ritual that puts together family, a lot of attention is put into its quality, and not quantity. Self-cooked meals are on average much healthier than pre-done. Boycotting some evil company X will just move you to company Y, and if you look these corporations own most of the market [1], rather educate people around you, be an example and push those few political buttons that are there. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=nestle+company+graph https://www.google.com/search?q=nestle+company+graph
- sershe 2y agoFlagged - "If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic." Nothing to do with tech or tech industry. More to the point... "The results, and examination of product packaging, revealed added sugar". So basically Nestle puts sugar in the products exactly as it says, in a way that's completely legal and visible to consumers, and some random NGO thinks EU regulations should apply to the entire world. How is this news at all, of any kind? Guardian is basically breitbart of the left, please don't post propaganda.
- colpabar 2y agofrom the same guidelines - "If you flag, please don't also comment that you did." And why comment on a post you think is flag-worthy?
- flakiness 2y agoHappened to be reading a book called "Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us" Nestle is one of the major players in the book. So this news is probably not a surprise for people around the food industry. https://www.amazon.com/Salt-Sugar-Fat-Giants-Hooked/dp/0812982193 https://www.amazon.com/Salt-Sugar-Fat-Giants-Hooked/dp/08129...
- coldfoundry 2y agoI still stand by the fact that quitting sugar was the hardest addiction I’ve ever had to overcome - more so than even nicotine. I had to chew doublebubble sugar gum to ween myself off the dependance. Best choice I’ve ever made.
- tsoukase 2y agoTwenty two years ago I tasted a Nestle candy and found it contained caffeine (except being excessively sweety). It was placed between regular candies in order to fool and addict customers. I never ever bought a nestle product since
- Alifatisk 2y agoNestlé is the only company (and its child companies) I’m actively trying to boycott because of their history. Many have told me to quit making it hard for myself (it’s not even hard) and that it was long time ago they acted in a hostile matter. But this shows me how they are still the same shitty company.
- teilo 2y agoThese are the same people that convinced 3rd-world mothers to feed their babies freely provided formula until their breast milk dried up, and then the formula ran out, and they could not afford more, and their babies starved to death.