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?
So 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.
>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"
What 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.
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.
Can't reply to your other message since it was made dead: I agree with the sentiment, HN is captured by ideology-false narratives and bad actors, and the mechanisms give them outweighed power to suppress.
It's not so casual, nor is it about long-term endpoints.
Every commercial consumer food product from large brands like this is the output of an elaborate, rigorous "food science" endeavor that tests a variety of ingredient and preparation hypotheses against focus groups, established targets for texture/sweetness/..., cost, etc and balances those against any regulations that the brand's lobbying arm hasn't blocked.
They look for maxima across their field requirements and then send the results of that product research to manufacturing and sale.
Presumably, and unsurprisingly, they've found that sweetened milk drives more sales and brand loyalty and have therefore pushed it into any markets that allow it.
> Is it to change people’s tastes and make them addicted so they eat even more sugary?
Sugar gives people a little dopamine boost. So if, as a company, you make your product a little more sugary, people like it more. Then, all the companies are in an arms race to make the tastiest product and you end up where we are.
Of course, it's not only about sugar. You also want to make it more salty and fatty because people like that too.
"Then, all the companies are in an arms race to make the tastiest product and you end up where we are."
And somehow we can't stop this arms race that causes millions of people to have diseases like diabetes and costs society enormous amounts of money. I guess once Nestle buys up Pfizer and health insurance companies, the cycle is complete.
I was amazed how much my taste changed when I cut out carbs for a month. Sweet things started to become unbearably sweet. The sweetness of a red pepper was fantastic and an orange became candy.
I bought a porridge with sugar in it for my 2yo once by accident.
It was really annoying to make him eat ordinary porridge afterwards, so I guess the sugar is much about fooling the parents into believing the kid does not like the non-sugar product.
If you don't read the ingridients list you wont realize there is sugar.
A nurse once made him stop crying when he was to take a vaccine by sticking her finger in his mouth. I was flabbergasted by such a simple trick working so great, until she said she had sugar on the finger.
Humans crave sugar. The babies would like the sweeter formula the most, so parents will buy it. Nestlè notices that the best sellers are the sweetests, so they double down.
For adults salt and monosodic glutamate come into play, the logic is the same. The more you put in the product, the better it sells.
What 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.
It'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.
Genuinely 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?
Fructose 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.
Compare per 100g or per 100 calories. Suggested serving amount implies an amount that is considered appropriate to consume at one time. Which is fine for non-essential foods but nonsensical for baby formula.
BTW manufacturers can (and do) play games with the suggested serving amount to make their product appear healthier or more desirable. Standardize on a common denominator for a product category and stick to it. Then, if needed, call out how many units of the product are in that standard size.
GP'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.
A 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.
"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".
It 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.
Jig 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.
Is 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.
And 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.
I 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
These are sold to much younger children. The article says these are intended for children as young as six months old. They are advertised as being healthy.
So yes, a lot worse. They would not be allowed to do this in a country with better regulation.
Manufacturers 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.
I used to think the same but I'm not convinced anymore.
The issue is, it's really hard to come up with leakproof regulation. Companies have far more resources to look for loopholes than governmental agencies to design the law. An extreme example of this is the financial sector, where regulators have pretty much thrown in the towel. They just write vague law to be able to prosecute whatever after the fact.
BUT if we expect companies to behave ethically and act on that, then the incentives for businesses are effectively altered, and it's much harder to find loopholes in that.
That 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?
B-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/ and https://cafe-libertad.de are examples of what can be done aside from throwing your hands in the air and walking on by.
The 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.
Yes. But what does that look like? If a company has a high quality product, treats its employees great, and is massively sustainable, but makes a product that doesn't sell, what happens?
That's the problem. The current system blows, but what is the alternative?
I know you probably posted that as a semi-joke, but it's true that the US keeps treating terrible corporations with kid gloves. If a human does something heinous, the government and the general public want to throw the book at him, but if a corporation does something heinous, all of a sudden it's "Well, let's not be so hasty... think of the economy, and all those jobs they are providing! Maybe we should send them another letter asking them pretty please, don't do heinous things."
Who will oversee these corporations? The governments who they already bribe or control? Especially when it's only affecting "the other" (ie, populations in other countries).
Well, I also don't believe that's correct. But if it is, and you have a chance of peacefully extinguishing those, you'd be a fool not to.
(That said, there has been examples in history when that happened. Of course, such corporation-like structures were only terminated by war. I really don't think we are anywhere near that today.)
If anyone at all needs to be "hanged", as per your suggestion, it's you (yes, you personally!) and the likes of you .
Why do you get to decide for other people what's good for them? They buy formula with sugar (that's specified on the package, as even TFA itself admits at the very start). If you don't want to buy it, don't buy it. European regulations are not some holy truths for the entire world. Macro-nutrient guidelines in particular don't have a good track record; and come think of it, neither do European decisions implemented in the third world, historically.
1) Who said their science is fake, and what science anyway? They inform the masses of the sugar content as required. Should marketing be a crime? Or science you disagree with?
2) Who decides what is marketing and manipulation and what is just speech? I trust people who want to liberate the "masses" from "manipulation" (and such) far, far less than the most selfish psychopaths. Let the masses decide for themselves.
3) Oh, and if manipulation of masses by cheap marketing was a crime, we'd need to start with abolishing the governments.
4) And while we are at it, this NGO propaganda from guardian would be more of a crime than selling sugar!
5) I do think governments should have extremely high threshold for banning things, but "by your logic" doesn't follow. What the company is doing is completely legal, the governments didn't ban anything in this case. Some despicable activists think they know better than the governments of those other countries and the people buying stuff, and that stupid EU rules should apply worldwide. I frankly think we should ban the use of oxygen by these activists, it's highly combustible and very dangerous. It's for their own good, that they just don't see.
It'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.
It'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.
Nestlé 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.
That'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
These 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.
Twenty 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
I 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.
Guess, 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.
IMO 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.
Flagged - "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.
Nobody 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.
> 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.
> 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.
Honest 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.
Added 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
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.
Sugar 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.
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