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.
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