Nestlé products in the global south have more sugar than Nestlé products in the global north

[buritobr]

The quality of Nestlé milk and cereal products sold in Asia, Africa and Latin America is lower than the quality of the same products sold in Europe

See Guardian article about this topic

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/apr/17/nestle-adds-sugar-to-infant-milk-sold-in-poorer-countries-report-finds

[Vice President Christian Man]

Concerning, but this still pales to the report of them using slave labor.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Milk products in colder climates are much better quality than those near the equator.

Equally, tropical fruit sold near the equator is better quality than that found in colder climates.

For example, my favourite cheeses are from Norway and New Zealand.

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

Biscuit-flavoured cereals for babies aged six months and older contained 6g of added sugar for every serving in Senegal and South Africa, researchers found. The same product sold in Switzerland has none.

Tests on Cerelac products sold in India showed, on average, more than 2.7g of added sugar for every serving.

In Brazil, where Cerelac is known as Mucilon, two out of eight products were found to have no added sugar but the other six contained nearly 4g for each serving. In Nigeria, one product tested had up to 6.8g .

Meanwhile, tests on products from the Nido brand, which has worldwide retail sales of more than $1bn, revealed significant variation in sugar levels.

In the Philippines, products aimed at toddlers contain no added sugar. However, in Indonesia, Nido baby-food products, sold as Dancow, all contained about 2g of added sugar per 100g of product in the form of honey, or 0.8g a serving.

In Mexico, two of the three Nido products available for toddlers contained no added sugar, but the third contained 1.7g per serving. Nido Kinder 1+ products sold in South-Africa, Nigeria and Senegal all contained nearly 1g per serving, the report said.

Interesting contrast between the Philippines and Indonesia here.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Yeah I see it as far more likely that this is a matter of supply chains and regional tastes rather than an insidious plan by evil Nestle to poison the arteries of the global south peasants by stuffing their food with secret sugar.  Or whatever I'm sure people are saying about this story.

[It’s so Joever]

To what extent to local food regulations play a role? Because this is my initial gut reaction for a “cause”.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Yeah I see it as far more likely that this is a matter of supply chains and regional tastes rather than an insidious plan by evil Nestle to poison the arteries of the global south peasants by stuffing their food with secret sugar.  Or whatever I'm sure people are saying about this story.

No, Nestle is clearly poisoning Indonesians to make them an easier target for the eventual Filipino conquest.

[CumbrianLefty]

Seriously, there were reports of Nestle getting up to dubious stuff in the Third World back in the 1970s and 80s - so they do have form for this sort of thing.

[Red Velvet]

Absolutely disgusting, though I’m not surprised. But good that it gets widely reported so that more people hopefully stop buying that junk.

[dead0man]

why do I have the feeling that if there was less sugar in third world formula they'd be bitching about that too

"Nestle doesn't want global south children to enjoy their formula!  Did you know they add honey in Canada, can you believe it?!"

[Santander]

Forget the global south - CPG companies have been selling inferior versions of their products even in "Eastern" EU countries for a while.

[omar04]

why do I have the feeling that if there was less sugar in third world formula they'd be bitching about that too

"Nestle doesn't want global south children to enjoy their formula!  Did you know they add honey in Canada, can you believe it?!"

Because you didn't read the very first sentence of the article.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

why do I have the feeling that if there was less sugar in third world formula they'd be bitching about that too

"Nestle doesn't want global south children to enjoy their formula!  Did you know they add honey in Canada, can you believe it?!"

Because you didn't read the very first sentence of the article.

Yes, and if it was the other way it might go:

Nestlé, the world’s largest consumer goods company, removes sugar and honey to infant milk and cereal products sold in many poorer countries, raising concerns from equity campaigners.

[omar04]

why do I have the feeling that if there was less sugar in third world formula they'd be bitching about that too

"Nestle doesn't want global south children to enjoy their formula!  Did you know they add honey in Canada, can you believe it?!"

Because you didn't read the very first sentence of the article.

Yes, and if it was the other way it might go:

Nestlé, the world’s largest consumer goods company, removes sugar and honey to infant milk and cereal products sold in many poorer countries, raising concerns from equity campaigners.

No, not really considering their position is that sugar and honey should not be added to baby food to begin with. Or that Nestle doesn't add either to most of their products sold in the first world.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

why do I have the feeling that if there was less sugar in third world formula they'd be bitching about that too

"Nestle doesn't want global south children to enjoy their formula!  Did you know they add honey in Canada, can you believe it?!"

Because people in the third world are perennially demanding that wealthy countries cater to their every whim while simultaneously bitching about how we exploit them.

[CumbrianLefty]

Pretty normal human behaviour, in other words

[buritobr]

This history is worse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Nestl%C3%A9_boycott

[Never Made it to Graceland]

Yeah I see it as far more likely that this is a matter of supply chains and regional tastes rather than an insidious plan by evil Nestle to poison the arteries of the global south peasants by stuffing their food with secret sugar.  Or whatever I'm sure people are saying about this story.

Bro is undefeated against the strawmen in his head.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

why do I have the feeling that if there was less sugar in third world formula they'd be bitching about that too

"Nestle doesn't want global south children to enjoy their formula!  Did you know they add honey in Canada, can you believe it?!"

Because you didn't read the very first sentence of the article.

Yes, and if it was the other way it might go:

Nestlé, the world’s largest consumer goods company, removes sugar and honey to infant milk and cereal products sold in many poorer countries, raising concerns from equity campaigners.

No, not really considering their position is that sugar and honey should not be added to baby food to begin with. Or that Nestle doesn't add either to most of their products sold in the first world.

Sugar is frequently added to cheaper foods as a preservative so it's shelf stable longer. "Whole wheat" bread sold at Dollar General will have more sugar than "whole wheat" bread sold at Trader Joe's, for instance. This probably explains the phenomenon in the article, although it's not a good thing. Poor people are at greater risk of diabetes and that's probably part of the reason why.
Also a laughable strawman from dead0man that people would be complaining it's "too healthy."

[SInNYC]

why do I have the feeling that if there was less sugar in third world formula they'd be bitching about that too

"Nestle doesn't want global south children to enjoy their formula!  Did you know they add honey in Canada, can you believe it?!"

Because you didn't read the very first sentence of the article.

Yes, and if it was the other way it might go:

Nestlé, the world’s largest consumer goods company, removes sugar and honey to infant milk and cereal products sold in many poorer countries, raising concerns from equity campaigners.

No, not really considering their position is that sugar and honey should not be added to baby food to begin with. Or that Nestle doesn't add either to most of their products sold in the first world.

Sugar is frequently added to cheaper foods as a preservative so it's shelf stable longer. "Whole wheat" bread sold at Dollar General will have more sugar than "whole wheat" bread sold at Trader Joe's, for instance. This probably explains the phenomenon in the article, although it's not a good thing. Poor people are at greater risk of diabetes and that's probably part of the reason why.
Also a laughable strawman from dead0man that people would be complaining it's "too healthy."

Poor people being at greater risk of diabetes is an American thing. In the developing world, its rich people that are more at risk since sugar is an expensive luxury. In some countries, diabetes is even considered a rich persons disease.

This of course has nothing to do with Nestle's adding sugar in poor countries.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

why do I have the feeling that if there was less sugar in third world formula they'd be bitching about that too

"Nestle doesn't want global south children to enjoy their formula!  Did you know they add honey in Canada, can you believe it?!"

Because you didn't read the very first sentence of the article.

Yes, and if it was the other way it might go:

Nestlé, the world’s largest consumer goods company, removes sugar and honey to infant milk and cereal products sold in many poorer countries, raising concerns from equity campaigners.

No, not really considering their position is that sugar and honey should not be added to baby food to begin with. Or that Nestle doesn't add either to most of their products sold in the first world.

Sugar is frequently added to cheaper foods as a preservative so it's shelf stable longer. "Whole wheat" bread sold at Dollar General will have more sugar than "whole wheat" bread sold at Trader Joe's, for instance. This probably explains the phenomenon in the article, although it's not a good thing. Poor people are at greater risk of diabetes and that's probably part of the reason why.
Also a laughable strawman from dead0man that people would be complaining it's "too healthy."

Poor people being at greater risk of diabetes is an American thing. In the developing world, its rich people that are more at risk since sugar is an expensive luxury. In some countries, diabetes is even considered a rich persons disease.

This of course has nothing to do with Nestle's adding sugar in poor countries.

That wasn't my point (I was speaking specifically about America there, where Dollar General stores are) but calling it "an American thing" is not accurate. 9 of the 10 most obese countries in the world are Pacific Islands (with the correlating diabetes rates) and part of the reason is because most of their food is imported with these preservatives as mentioned. They are basically eating what you would buy at Dollar General.

And of course America's southern neighbor is another example of a poorer country with a high prevalence of obesity and diabetes as a result of these items in their diet.

The point being there is reason to be concerned about these products destined for poor countries, even if it seems like a small piece of the puzzle that doesn't have a huge impact initially.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

why do I have the feeling that if there was less sugar in third world formula they'd be bitching about that too

"Nestle doesn't want global south children to enjoy their formula!  Did you know they add honey in Canada, can you believe it?!"

Because you didn't read the very first sentence of the article.

Yes, and if it was the other way it might go:

Nestlé, the world’s largest consumer goods company, removes sugar and honey to infant milk and cereal products sold in many poorer countries, raising concerns from equity campaigners.

No, not really considering their position is that sugar and honey should not be added to baby food to begin with. Or that Nestle doesn't add either to most of their products sold in the first world.

Sugar is frequently added to cheaper foods as a preservative so it's shelf stable longer. "Whole wheat" bread sold at Dollar General will have more sugar than "whole wheat" bread sold at Trader Joe's, for instance. This probably explains the phenomenon in the article, although it's not a good thing. Poor people are at greater risk of diabetes and that's probably part of the reason why.
Also a laughable strawman from dead0man that people would be complaining it's "too healthy."

Poor people being at greater risk of diabetes is an American thing. In the developing world, its rich people that are more at risk since sugar is an expensive luxury. In some countries, diabetes is even considered a rich persons disease.

This of course has nothing to do with Nestle's adding sugar in poor countries.

That wasn't my point (I was speaking specifically about America there, where Dollar General stores are) but calling it "an American thing" is not accurate. 9 of the 10 most obese countries in the world are Pacific Islands (with the correlating diabetes rates) and part of the reason is because most of their food is imported with these preservatives as mentioned. They are basically eating what you would buy at Dollar General.

If this is the primary reason, then why aren't whites/Asians also affected by it? For example, in Hawaii Native Hawaiians are very fat (almost at Samoan levels), but the non-Pacific Islander populations are not notably more fat than the American mainland. Anecdotally, there was a small Samoan community near where I lived growing up that was very fat, despite living in California.

https://hhdw.org/health-topics/obesity-2/

"In Hawai’i, while 24.5% of adults had obesity in 2020, prevalence is significantly higher among Other Pacific Islanders (43.6%) and Native Hawaiians (40.0%) and lowest among Other Asian (13.2%) and Japanese (18.1%) (BRFSS). A similar pattern is seen among high school students."

I suspect that the real cause here is at least in part genetic. Historically, the Pacific Islands were settled by impressive voyages across thousands of miles of open ocean. Unlike Europeans/Asians, the Pacific Islanders did not produce large sailing ships, so they tended to travel by canoe instead. The small size of these canoes might have made it important to be able to stow large stores of body fat.

Here is an article from CNN on the topic:

https://www.cnn.com/2015/05/01/health/pacific-islands-obesity/index.html#

"Some scientists believe that Pacific island populations have evolved to maintain their larger build – a concept known as the “Thrifty Gene” hypothesis. For this region of the world, the concept is based on the fact Pacific islanders once endured long journeys at sea and those who fared best stored enough energy in the form of fat to survive their journey."

"“We have the remnants of those people … and their metabolism as well,” says Waqanivalu. The increased risk of obesity among native Pacific islanders is shown on the islands of Fiji, where the population has a more mixed ethnicity. The country stands at the lower end of the region’s spectrum with 36.4% of the adult population classed as obese. Just more than half of the Fijian population are native iTaukei, with the remainder mostly of Indian origin, according to the CIA World Factbook. “That explains the lower rates,” says Waqanivalu."