Experts say there can be long-term health consequences for babies and infants who consume too much sugar at a young age.

Experts say there can be long-term health consequences for babies and infants who consume too much sugar at a young age.

In Switzerland, the label of Nestlé’s Cerelac baby cereal says it contains “no added sugar.” But in Senegal and South Africa, the same product has 6 grams of added sugar per serving, according to a recent Public Eye investigation. And in the Philippines, one serving of a version of the Cerelac cereal for babies 1 to 6 months old contains a whopping 7.3 grams of added sugar, the equivalent of almost two teaspoons.

This “double standard” for how Nestlé creates and markets its popular baby food brands around the world was alleged in a report from Public Eye, an independent nonpartisan Swiss-based investigative organization, and International Baby Food Action Network.

The groups allege that Nestlé adds sugars and honey to some of its baby cereal and formula in lower-income countries, while products sold in Europe and other countries are advertised with “no added sugars.” The disparities uncovered in the report, which was published in the BMJ in April, has raised alarms among global health experts.

  • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.worldEnglish
    251·
    7 months ago

    If we didn’t live in corporatocracies masquerading as “democracies” the execs and managers who pulled that shit would be serving life in prison.

    Edit: Note that Nestle did this so the mothers would stop producing milk and their babies survival would become dependent on Nestle — pure unadulterated psychopathy!

    • john89English
      151·
      7 months ago

      corporatocracies masquerading as “democracies”

      Thank you. I’ve been trying so hard to figure out exactly what’s going on in the world and the “democracy is best no matter what” mentality a lot of useful idiots seem to believe.

      This sums it up very well.

      • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        7 months ago

        Democracy IS best. We arguably don’t have it because capitalism is pay to play and money equals speech = the orgs and individuals with the most money have the most influence over politics and government; so much so that wealth essentially controls policy — note that despite the USA being one of the most obvious and egregious examples, the problem is not isolated in any way shape or form.

        If there were hard limits on individual wealth, every business was a co-op owned by the workers, and their influence on society was properly regulated, maybe we would have much more egalitarian democracies, but individuals and orgs will always strive to corrupt the system for their own power/wealth advantage (incl under any other system e.g. socialism).