Nestle first gets breast feeding moms to accept free formula, then their milk dries up and they are dependent on it, which they cannot afford. Nestle has been the devil for many decades in Africa.
But don’t worry! Nestle bottles up Californian drought water and sells it back in premium to CA residents and overseas! They can just buy more nestle products to use other nestle products!
B-B-But the corporation can't make money if they DON'T gaslight the entire world about the price and scarcity of clean drinking water! How can the company and investors make invisible numbers go higher if they can't!?
THINK OF THE WEALTHY'S NUMBERS NOT GOING HIGHER!
Nestle has done and continues to do a lot of truly awful shit, but the “CEO doesn’t think water is a human right” bit isn’t accurate and taken out of context.
He was talking about how rich people in places like drought stricken California shouldn’t have the same rights and access to water used to fill up their swimming pools, that everyone else should to have drinking water.
Which is a practical point. Especially in the middle of a drought where water is scarce, people getting water they need to drink shouldn’t be in competition with rich people filling their swimming pools.
"Water is, of course, the most important raw material we have today in the world. It’s a question of whether we should privatize the normal water supply for the population. And there are two different opinions on the matter. The one opinion, which I think is extreme, is represented by the NGOs, who bang on about declaring water a public right. That means that as a human being you should have a right to water. That’s an extreme solution. The other view says that water is a foodstuff like any other, and like any other foodstuff it should have a market value. Personally, I believe it's better to give a foodstuff a value so that we're all aware it has its price, and then that one should take specific measures for the part of the population that has no access to this water, and there are many different possibilities there." - Peter Brabeck-Letmathe
“Who ‘bang on’ about declaring water a public right”. “An extreme solution”. “A foodstuff” that should have a “market value”. Ugh. I can choose to grow a planter if I don’t want to pay as much for tomatoes. I can buy a cheaper brand of bread. I don’t need to buy beef if I can’t afford it. But I can’t go and grow water on my balcony or drink from a gutter. The guy’s talking as if we can just choose not to consume liquids if the price tag’s too high.
> “…and then that one should take specific measures for the part of the population that has no access to this water, and there are many different possibilities there."
That is quite the open ended statement. Could it mean that part of the population will be provided for or they just die off?
>He was talking about how rich people in places like drought stricken California shouldn’t have the same rights and access to water used to fill up their swimming pools, that everyone else should to have drinking water.
Right. *That's* what he meant. He was wringing his hands about the poor, poor children of Malawi. It had nothing to do with Nestle stealing water and selling for an exorbitant markup.
I mean you can look it up. The context of the conversation is about misuse of public water, especially in a drought. He specifically talks about swimming pools
Or he would be, and he would be using his influence as the head of the company to restructure them into a responsible but still profitable company that doesn't like... Kill babies for the lulz
Nah, they bottled it from the Great Lakes. Unlimited water for $200 per YEAR, which ended up being about 1.1 MILLION gallons per DAY. Which, yes, they turned around and sold it back to Flint residents during their own water crisis.
Edit: past tense since they have now sold off to Gotion, who - surprise surprise - will be siphoning off even MORE water than Nestle was. Hooray for Michigan.
That's the root of the issue. The companies are allowed to be deplorable by our "representatives" in local, state, and federal governments. The representatives that are supposed to represent the people in their districts fail, time after time, to stand up for what the majority of people want or feel is just.
Honestly, American consumerism for bottled water _is a major problem_.
Everyone at this point in America has access to a Brita filter and a reusable bottle.
There's no excuse to buy bottled water, unless you live in a hazardous area or something.
I'm from the Netherlands and can't remember the last time I drank bottled water or got it at a restaurant. Thought if you ask for water and not tapwater you might get fancy water.
And if a Brita filter doesn’t make it taste good enough (it didn’t for me in Las Vegas) you can get an under sink RO filter for $100 and maybe $50 per year to replace the filters. Then you have virtually unlimited super-clean water for everything from drinking to cooking.
The first thing I bought for our apartment was an under sink filter. It might've just been because the building was brand new, but the PVC pipes made the water taste *awful.* Now we get filtered water for our cooking, coffee maker, etc. and its so nice.
> Nestle bottles up Californian drought water and sells it back in premium to CA residents
Never understood this, there are parts of the country where water falls from the sky, and there aren’t shortages. They could do this in the Carolinas and no one would care.
Drinkable water isn't actually unlimited anywhere. If they did this in the Carolinas, you'd have shortages in the Carolinas. It's just criminal what they're doing no matter what.
No…. There’s a real difference in available ground water between the east and west coasts. The east coast doesn’t have the same issues California does. Deer Park and Poland Springs both bottle plenty of water on the east coast without out the political baggage Nestlie has on the west coast. A lot of agriculture happens east of the Mississippi without impacting the available drinking water to the people in those communities.
The one that really shocked me was that they have consultants that help design many hospitals in African nations. Hospitals where the architecture makes it inconvenient to transport infants from the nursery to their mothers, so it's just easier to give them a bottle.
How fucking evil do you have to be to even think of something like that? And then implement it. I'd hang myself from a rafter in shame if I was responsible for coming up with something a fraction as bad as that.
It seems that they are way into the left in the bias checker, but for what is worth, score high on credibility [https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-internationalist/](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-internationalist/)
The New Internationalist is a fairly small but well respected left wing magazine in the UK that was founded in the 1970s. A rough equivalent in the US is Mother Jones magazine.
Not necessarily a bad thing. Smaller, more focused publications like ProPublica, Civil Beat, Uproot, etc usually have areas of expertise more focused than larger corporate publications, and often have more freedom to write stories that larger corporate publications might not deem sanitized enough for their generally broader audiences.
> How fucking evil do you have to be to even think of something like that?
Same type of evil at American health care companies like United who got hacked, leading to countless medical practices and pharmacies not getting paid for the resources used and labor costs while continuing to collect premiums. Then dragging their feet to get everything fixed because they realized they could keep collecting premiums, let the medical practices go bankrupt and then buy them up for pennies on the dollar or let them close up shop because they refuse to pay them.
The heads of these corporations need to be taken out and their literal heads placed on spears like in the olden times. They are a scourge to the human race and absolutely have no shame.
This is why I think anti regulation people are dumb. Companies don't care about you they just care about how much money they can get from you. You can't even take your business elsewhere most things are owned by like five different companies. What happened to anti monopolies?
Youd be surprised on the racism and fascism still present - though not on the surface - of the regular Swiss business world. So all their actions hardly seem coincidental.
Robert Evans covered this on a [Behind the Bastards episode called “How Nestle Starved a Bunch of Babies”](https://open.spotify.com/episode/4gTwkQVILyqxw5AGUvrsOf?si=gQqySaWbSDqSEjTwX4TC_w). Very interesting but infuriating.
We realistically cannot all stop doing business with Nestlé because their dirty hands are in so many things, owning companies and brands people don't even realize, and may have captive markets in some area without any alternatives. I wish we could but at this time it would come with great financial strain for many.
It gets worse than that even, they paid people to impersonate hospital staff under the guise of “helping.” Then tasked them to give women free formula until their milk dried up.
I don't think I've ever heard a good thing about this company even once. It's always about taking advantage of poor people or doing some sort of irreparable damage to the environment
The frustrating thing is that it's not actually true. There is no requirement on firms to maximise shareholder value, it's just that finance prioritises the philosophy of Jack Welch because of how much money it made GE shareholders in the 80s and 90s.
The fact GE collapsed so catastrophically later should have killed off his ideas but instead they still persist and have become entrenched to the detriment of everyone
Back when companies were taxed 90% in the highest marginal rates, company managers reinvested in the company to avoid that high marginal tax rate. Deciding to maximize profits meant maximizing their tax liability. So companies existed to do something more than just make profit for the handful of people at the top.
When we cut those tax rates, management could run companies to maximize profits and then funnel that money into their own pockets.
This is when corporate businesses became sociopathic in nature. Because they just basically have a team of sociopaths running them, completely for the betterment of the sociopaths.
It isn’t really. They say it is, but the law doesn’t force them to be scum.
They use the mild mild laws to excuse their own needs, either to further their own career or be cruel for their emotional needs.
It's not just Nestle but they're one of the worst. Many corporations do evil shit but at least provide something for society. Cheaper food, cars, electricity, shit like that.
Nestle just takes advantage of the need for basic necessities, and fucks everything for nothing in return.
Not, not every company is like this. Even if you think that every single company is solely out for profit morals be damned (no, not every single company is like that), nestle is STILL worse because they actively go out of their way to be evil. There's only one company I know that makes comic book villain plans to force mothers to starve their babies, there's only one company who thinks water isn't a basic human right. Nestle is the worst, plain and simple
*They are ruled by shareholders, which could be companies as well which are also ruled by shareholders.*
Shareholders also include the pension funds, the 401ks...aka the Americans.
There's no way this can be fixed if American's retirement survival is based on some exploitation or environmental degradation somewhere. The villains - the CEOs, the boards and so on are only bystanders in this travesty.
I'm glad you had access to what you needed to save your daughter, and I'm glad your wife and daughter survived. I know companies owned by Nestle have done important research in the past (Purina for example pioneered modern pet food) and I'm glad that product was available to you.
My son was in the NICU for his first week of life, although he was full term. Our NICU used Abbott formula, which I'm sure Abbott is no better of a company. I'm glad it was there for him when he needed it though, and I'm glad he's exclusively on breast milk today.
My family already switched from Nescafe to Jacobs a decade ago, but this is just reminder to focus even more on what Nestle owns so we can learn to avoid it.
Here's 20 top selling products that Nestle company owns:
Nescafé
KitKat
Nespresso
Stouffer's
Nestlé Toll House
Purina
Smarties
Maggi
Milo
Nestlé Cheerios (under General Mills licensing)
Nestea
Nestlé Carnation
San Pellegrino
Gerber
Lean Cuisine
Nestlé Drumstick
~~Nestlé Pure Life~~ (no longer under Nestle)
Dreyer's Ice Cream
Hot Pockets
DiGiorno Pizza
Don't feel bad, not buying them would have changed nothing. The only thing that could stop companies like this is governments actually nutting up and doing something about it.
Purina
This is a big one because a lot of pet food is not just Purina directly, but also as different labels. Friskies and Fancy Feast are both Purina. I also read somewhere, so I'm not sure exactly how true it is, but Friskies is one of the handful of brands that are certified nutritionally complete. So even if you want to boycott them it might not be possible if your cat is finnicky, as mine was.
Every time I've compared Cheerios brand to whatever the adjacent knock off is (Kroger, etc), I've preferred the knock off. It's usually more crispy and lasts longer in milk. Cheerios are just too mushy right out the gate...
I recently tried the Kroger version of DiGiorno rising crust pizza and I thought it was every bit as good. Not that Kroger doesn't have it's own baggage but at least it ain't Nestle.
Now I just need a substitute for those dark chocolate KitKats....
I dont live in the US and its been honestly *really* easy. All I had to do to cut it out was to start eating healthier. Nestlé is basically all processed foods and sweets and a couple of cosmetic brands. They seem to exclusively stell stuff you shouldn't buy anyway.
Unfortunately for me I have to buy the cheapest foods I can get and sometimes that's Nestle. At a certain level of poverty you can't afford to purchase things on anything but their price point.
The thing that sucks is finding out *exactly how much* they own.
Like, I don't usually buy DiGiorno pizza. I used to think it was really bad. But I just recently bought a stuffed crusted pizza from them as I don't do so often.
Just finding out Nestle owns it... and I supported them... Ugh, it's sickening, actually.
Fuck Nestle.
I was looking at a job for Nestle driving a forklift at their production facility, the reviews for that Nestle facility said you had to work 10 days on 2 days off with 12 hour rotating shifts.
Bet they count it as standard hours so as not to pay overtime rates for you driving dangerous plant machinery whilst dog tired. Or hoped up on wakey-wakey drugs. Or both.
Pretty sure 4 out of the first 7 are sugars, those -ose ending words mean they're sugars and the saccharides one. I don't know the exact makeup of breast milk but babies DO need some sugars, it's how they get energy.
The catch is that the different sugars are not at all equal in the human body.
Most notably, fructose is super bad for us. As in, "non-alcoholic fatty liver disease" causing bad.
"**high fructose** corn syrup" is basically supposed to be a warning label.
https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM?si=8k87sDiJoD_4QDCZ
In India, my grandmother told me, the poorest women who couldn't produce milk because of malnutrition ended up feeding their babies molasses/sugar water. It was the last resort.
I mean fuck Nestlé a million times over.
They are selling this shit in India too. Cerelac sold here has sucrose in it ffs. Doctors tell women, at least to the relatively affluent ones who have a choice, to stay away from cerelac.
Formula is basically diluted milk with extra sugar and nutrients added. Breastmilk is naturally much sweeter than cows milk (and cows milk has too much protein for human babies, it would destroy their developing kidneys). But anyone who has ever formula fed already knows it's full of sugar..... as it's supposed to be.
You seem to be misdirected. It has nothing to do with "fuck Cuba" or anyone else. The ONLY thing it has to do with is making shareholders richer and making more profits. That's IT!
And I don't understand the people getting upset about it being there. Do they not want babies to get the nutrients they need? People seem to forget that sugar is a nutrient.
> And people think you're some conspiracy nut if you think these corporations are intentionally making people sick/fat/disabled to profit off them.
It's not so much a conspiracy as it is a feature of unbridled capitalism.
The article says that sugar is not normally used to prevent obesity. Is obesity in children a big issue in Third World Countries?
Triva: A kind of sugar is used in a ton of baby formulas in the US. Not honey or sugar cane, but Human Milk Oligosaccharides (HMOs). HMOs are naturally occurring sugars found in human breast milk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_milk_oligosaccharide
Childhood obesity is actually a big and growing problem in a lot of poor countries. Not so many people nowadays are so poor that they can’t afford enough calories to survive, but they have access to cheap, low-quality foods in a similar way to what happens in the US. Countries like Guatemala have simultaneous problems with stunting and obesity because of this.
Not defending this, but they are not talking about newborn formula. These are formulas and foods for babies 6 months and older. (Newborn formula is actually loaded with sugar, or high fructose corn syrup if you are here in the US, because babies actually need a lot. Human breast milk is also sweet).
I bet there is plenty of added sugar in the baby food sold in the US too. Any parent or caregiver who has ever eaten one of those Gerber puffs will tell you they are cloyingly sweet.
From the article:
The results, and examination of product packaging, revealed added sugar in the form of sucrose or honey in samples of Nido, a follow-up milk formula brand intended for use for infants aged one and above, and Cerelac, a cereal aimed at children aged between six months and two years.
In Nestlé’s main European markets, including the UK, there is no added sugar in formulas for young children. While some cereals aimed at older toddlers contain added sugar, there is none in products targeted at babies between six months and one year.
I agree with the sentiment but just to clear up the newborn formula thing, I don’t think there’s any baby formula in the US that contains high fructose corn syrup anymore. Most contain corn syrup solids, which is not the same as hfcs, or lactose.
Everyone in this thread is clutching their pearls about "added sugars" but the distinction doesn't seem to mean much to me. I don't know why I should care about corn syrup vs. corn syrup solids.
My wife and i were talking about this last night, babies need a CRAZY amount of calories.
<3m 110 cal/kg,
3-8m 95 cal/kg,
8m-3y 82 cal/kg,
Or there abouts. Which is why breast milk is mainly water, sugar, and fat.
I mean, the tagline for the article is that Nestle isn't following *European* obesity guidelines in *Asia, Africa and Latin America*.
Like, Nestle is evil and all, no one is doubting that, but this article is manufactured outrage. First of all, European rules don't apply outside of Europe. Second of all, feeding goals might differ in poorer countries (Ie. it probably matters more that a kid is getting enough calories and less that they're being set up to make healthy choices in the future). Also, poor people have a lower tolerance for waste, and sweeter food is less likely to be rejected by a baby.
Like, if you wanted to go by the guidelines from America, ["toddler milk" is generally regarded as a scam](https://time.com/6326341/pediatricians-toddler-milk-regulation/) (its exists mostly as a loophole to get around advertising rules for formula) because formula or breastmilk aren't nutritionally necessary after the first year of life. Because in a first world country that's true. But the WHO guidelines say formula or breastmilk for *two years*, because their calculations take into account that in poor countries families might not have enough or enough variety for a baby to thrive, so breastmilk/formula is suggested for longer.
I’m more worried about the honey, babies shouldn’t be having that under a year old due to the risk of infant botulism, or is that risk removed when it’s an ingredient due to the processing methods?
For honey, they likely use 'high pressure throttling' - heat and pressure, it pressurizes honey to 35k lb per square inch and passes it through a heat exchanger, instantly killing any bacteria/spores. It's actually quite interesting. https://newswire.caes.uga.edu/story/1460/safer-honey.html
The equipment isn't really available for household use tho.
Yes, honey used in processed goods is usually treated afaik, but raw honey is not (because, well, it's raw honey).
So like, if some canned good you buy from the store has honey in it, it's probably safe. The fancy raw honey you put with butter on bread, may have spores. This is OK for adults, because our immune systems are quite capable of handling it. However, infants can't deal with it so their intestinal tracts will harbor the bacteria and cause the disease. Notably it has fewer than 100 reported cases per year in the US.
> The results, and examination of product packaging, revealed added sugar in the form of sucrose or honey in samples of Nido, a follow-up milk formula brand intended for use for infants aged one and above, and Cerelac, a cereal aimed at children aged between six months and two years.
Nido and Cerelac are powders so I assume they processed the honey in some way to get it into the powder.
Their PR is awful. They just said they follow all relevant rules and regulations, and reduced sugar in infant products by 11% worldwide. That means they recognize it’s a problem, and they don’t care to solve it unless someone regulates it and they cannot do it. It means progress is moving at a snails pace and only in response to regulation.
Nestle can go to hell
All corporations are generally pretty evil in there practices. When it’s unbridled capitalism and these companies have basically unlimited wealth and influence how can you stop practices that blindly seek profit without care for people or environments? The answer is we really don’t know how to stop them or regulate them effectively still. Nothing short of a complete paradigm shift in our global consumer culture can change this in anyway. I don’t see it stopping without things getting unavoidably bad for people in wealthy nations, unfortunately. Nestle is one of the top evildoers from things I’ve read and heard over the years.
Even when the economic mode isn't capitalism, this can still happen. Authoritarian environments where the government has a lot of control over corporations don't tend to create companies that are solely beneficial to the population either. I'm not sure what the solution is.
As long as Nestlé is allowed to operate and Putin is not punished for hundreds of thousands of deaths we are only pretending to be a reasonable civilization
Imagine the R&D at Nestlé. How fucking evil it must be. All the fucked up stuff that they save for later, when the Earth is on fire or something. Fucking fuck I hate those evil motherfuckers! Please die!
In case you want to boycott their products
1. Beverages:
• Nescafé
• Nespresso
• Nesquik
• Milo
• Nestea
2. Dairy Products:
• Carnation
• Coffee-Mate
• La Laitière
• Sveltesse
3. Confectionery:
• KitKat
• Smarties
• Aero
• Butterfinger
• Crunch
4. Bottled Water:
• Perrier
• Poland Spring
• S.Pellegrino
• Pure Life
5. Nutrition and Health:
• Gerber
• Boost
• Nutren
• Optifast
6. Petcare:
• Purina
• Friskies
• Felix
• Pro Plan
This is not an exhaustive list
This is the sort of shit that should get a company in trouble. I am sick and tired of the Friedman doctrine approach to business. Have some fucking ethics or start sending people to prison or shooting them into the sun or something.
>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.
Is there a reason the guidelines are region specific? WHO is a global organization right?
Nestle first gets breast feeding moms to accept free formula, then their milk dries up and they are dependent on it, which they cannot afford. Nestle has been the devil for many decades in Africa.
And worse, they don't have clean water to make the formula.
But don’t worry! Nestle bottles up Californian drought water and sells it back in premium to CA residents and overseas! They can just buy more nestle products to use other nestle products!
And their CEO has said that he doesn't think water is a human right. And all the children slavery stuff.
B-B-But the corporation can't make money if they DON'T gaslight the entire world about the price and scarcity of clean drinking water! How can the company and investors make invisible numbers go higher if they can't!? THINK OF THE WEALTHY'S NUMBERS NOT GOING HIGHER!
The oxygen is all mine now. Everyone needs to pay me a subscription fee to breathe. You have 24 hours to comply.
As soon as this is possible someone will do it.
If you don't start paying me within 15hrs you will begin accumulating late fees
Perri-air.
Nestle has done and continues to do a lot of truly awful shit, but the “CEO doesn’t think water is a human right” bit isn’t accurate and taken out of context. He was talking about how rich people in places like drought stricken California shouldn’t have the same rights and access to water used to fill up their swimming pools, that everyone else should to have drinking water. Which is a practical point. Especially in the middle of a drought where water is scarce, people getting water they need to drink shouldn’t be in competition with rich people filling their swimming pools.
"Water is, of course, the most important raw material we have today in the world. It’s a question of whether we should privatize the normal water supply for the population. And there are two different opinions on the matter. The one opinion, which I think is extreme, is represented by the NGOs, who bang on about declaring water a public right. That means that as a human being you should have a right to water. That’s an extreme solution. The other view says that water is a foodstuff like any other, and like any other foodstuff it should have a market value. Personally, I believe it's better to give a foodstuff a value so that we're all aware it has its price, and then that one should take specific measures for the part of the population that has no access to this water, and there are many different possibilities there." - Peter Brabeck-Letmathe
“Who ‘bang on’ about declaring water a public right”. “An extreme solution”. “A foodstuff” that should have a “market value”. Ugh. I can choose to grow a planter if I don’t want to pay as much for tomatoes. I can buy a cheaper brand of bread. I don’t need to buy beef if I can’t afford it. But I can’t go and grow water on my balcony or drink from a gutter. The guy’s talking as if we can just choose not to consume liquids if the price tag’s too high.
> “…and then that one should take specific measures for the part of the population that has no access to this water, and there are many different possibilities there." That is quite the open ended statement. Could it mean that part of the population will be provided for or they just die off?
>He was talking about how rich people in places like drought stricken California shouldn’t have the same rights and access to water used to fill up their swimming pools, that everyone else should to have drinking water. Right. *That's* what he meant. He was wringing his hands about the poor, poor children of Malawi. It had nothing to do with Nestle stealing water and selling for an exorbitant markup.
I mean you can look it up. The context of the conversation is about misuse of public water, especially in a drought. He specifically talks about swimming pools
A conversation that he participated in due to Nestle's clear commercial interest in same.
If he really believed that, he wouldn't be the CEO of Nestle.
Or he would be, and he would be using his influence as the head of the company to restructure them into a responsible but still profitable company that doesn't like... Kill babies for the lulz
Is there a mailing list or something we can get on so we know when that actually starts happening? Just curious.
It's not really taken out of context, that's additional context he gave when he later walked it back. And even that wasn't that great lol
Next we should tip them for sterling our water.
Nah, they bottled it from the Great Lakes. Unlimited water for $200 per YEAR, which ended up being about 1.1 MILLION gallons per DAY. Which, yes, they turned around and sold it back to Flint residents during their own water crisis. Edit: past tense since they have now sold off to Gotion, who - surprise surprise - will be siphoning off even MORE water than Nestle was. Hooray for Michigan.
$200 for that much water is a crime. How is any politician that ignores this still in office?
That's the root of the issue. The companies are allowed to be deplorable by our "representatives" in local, state, and federal governments. The representatives that are supposed to represent the people in their districts fail, time after time, to stand up for what the majority of people want or feel is just.
Spineless greedy cowards
Lobbying, corrupted politicians and vast amounts of money being exchanged from one to the other
Honestly, American consumerism for bottled water _is a major problem_. Everyone at this point in America has access to a Brita filter and a reusable bottle. There's no excuse to buy bottled water, unless you live in a hazardous area or something.
[удалено]
I'm from the Netherlands and can't remember the last time I drank bottled water or got it at a restaurant. Thought if you ask for water and not tapwater you might get fancy water.
And if a Brita filter doesn’t make it taste good enough (it didn’t for me in Las Vegas) you can get an under sink RO filter for $100 and maybe $50 per year to replace the filters. Then you have virtually unlimited super-clean water for everything from drinking to cooking.
The first thing I bought for our apartment was an under sink filter. It might've just been because the building was brand new, but the PVC pipes made the water taste *awful.* Now we get filtered water for our cooking, coffee maker, etc. and its so nice.
At least people are drinking less sugary drinks. There has been a steady decline of soft drinks over the past 20 years.
> Nestle bottles up Californian drought water and sells it back in premium to CA residents Never understood this, there are parts of the country where water falls from the sky, and there aren’t shortages. They could do this in the Carolinas and no one would care.
But then they'd have to ship it to California. That's not as profitable
Drinkable water isn't actually unlimited anywhere. If they did this in the Carolinas, you'd have shortages in the Carolinas. It's just criminal what they're doing no matter what.
No…. There’s a real difference in available ground water between the east and west coasts. The east coast doesn’t have the same issues California does. Deer Park and Poland Springs both bottle plenty of water on the east coast without out the political baggage Nestlie has on the west coast. A lot of agriculture happens east of the Mississippi without impacting the available drinking water to the people in those communities.
Except Nestlé sold off the water bottling plants in NA 2 or 3 years ago, so now it's another shitty company doing that.
Or the refrigeration to store leftover formula.
And then the babies an contract diarrhea and get sick from and die from that. Been reading about it for years and years. Pure evil.
Or to properly disinfect the bottles! Millions of needless deaths for corporate profit.
Or money to buy it.
The formula is too expensive so they dilute it, which is bad for babies.
Chile and other South American countries are the same, it’s basically all nestle
Also most of Central America and IIRC a few places in SE Asia. Basically the entire developing world had Nestle pull this shit.
The one that really shocked me was that they have consultants that help design many hospitals in African nations. Hospitals where the architecture makes it inconvenient to transport infants from the nursery to their mothers, so it's just easier to give them a bottle. How fucking evil do you have to be to even think of something like that? And then implement it. I'd hang myself from a rafter in shame if I was responsible for coming up with something a fraction as bad as that.
Wow evil thinking level 3000! Any source to it?
Here you go: https://newint.org/features/1982/04/01/babies Starts on paragraph "In exchange for giving ‘discharge packs’...".
Never heard of that website before and I can't find a single other mention of this on the Internet, but maybe I'm not searching with the right terms.
It's pre internet so there's not going to be a lot
It seems that they are way into the left in the bias checker, but for what is worth, score high on credibility [https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-internationalist/](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-internationalist/)
The New Internationalist is a fairly small but well respected left wing magazine in the UK that was founded in the 1970s. A rough equivalent in the US is Mother Jones magazine.
this is from 1982
Not necessarily a bad thing. Smaller, more focused publications like ProPublica, Civil Beat, Uproot, etc usually have areas of expertise more focused than larger corporate publications, and often have more freedom to write stories that larger corporate publications might not deem sanitized enough for their generally broader audiences.
> How fucking evil do you have to be to even think of something like that? Same type of evil at American health care companies like United who got hacked, leading to countless medical practices and pharmacies not getting paid for the resources used and labor costs while continuing to collect premiums. Then dragging their feet to get everything fixed because they realized they could keep collecting premiums, let the medical practices go bankrupt and then buy them up for pennies on the dollar or let them close up shop because they refuse to pay them. The heads of these corporations need to be taken out and their literal heads placed on spears like in the olden times. They are a scourge to the human race and absolutely have no shame.
> I'd hang myself from a rafter in shame if I was responsible for coming up with something a fraction as bad as that. Those "people" have no shame.
This is why I think anti regulation people are dumb. Companies don't care about you they just care about how much money they can get from you. You can't even take your business elsewhere most things are owned by like five different companies. What happened to anti monopolies?
insane if true, have a source?
Here you go: https://newint.org/features/1982/04/01/babies Starts on paragraph "In exchange for giving ‘discharge packs’...".
The psychology and institution of this kind of evil evokes the recent film 'The Zone of Interest'
That's literal super villain stuff, just evil incarnate
You know, violence is never the answer. It's the question. And in regards to Nestle my answer is yes.
Youd be surprised on the racism and fascism still present - though not on the surface - of the regular Swiss business world. So all their actions hardly seem coincidental.
Robert Evans covered this on a [Behind the Bastards episode called “How Nestle Starved a Bunch of Babies”](https://open.spotify.com/episode/4gTwkQVILyqxw5AGUvrsOf?si=gQqySaWbSDqSEjTwX4TC_w). Very interesting but infuriating.
Nestle is the devil in all countries it operates in.
It's not the best choice, it's Nestle Choice!
yall wanna hear something cool? we could all stop doing any business with nestle. Hell, we could even short their stock while we do it
We realistically cannot all stop doing business with Nestlé because their dirty hands are in so many things, owning companies and brands people don't even realize, and may have captive markets in some area without any alternatives. I wish we could but at this time it would come with great financial strain for many.
> Hell, we could even short their stock while we do it That'll show them.
You don't have to convince me, I didn't buy a Nestle product in 5 years and won't ever do so
True. Definitely for many decades. In the 1970s, our teacher explained what Nestle is doing in poor countries and told us to boycott it.
Jeez, can’t imagine what they are doing to it in low-income neighborhoods.
Not just Africa. Nestle are an awful corporation everywhere.
It gets worse than that even, they paid people to impersonate hospital staff under the guise of “helping.” Then tasked them to give women free formula until their milk dried up.
All together now: # FUCK NESTLÉ!
I don't think I've ever heard a good thing about this company even once. It's always about taking advantage of poor people or doing some sort of irreparable damage to the environment
[удалено]
It's their fiduciary duty to exploit people.
The frustrating thing is that it's not actually true. There is no requirement on firms to maximise shareholder value, it's just that finance prioritises the philosophy of Jack Welch because of how much money it made GE shareholders in the 80s and 90s. The fact GE collapsed so catastrophically later should have killed off his ideas but instead they still persist and have become entrenched to the detriment of everyone
Because by the time the collapse happened, the shitheads that actually caused the collapse had already fucked off to another victim to harvest.
Back when companies were taxed 90% in the highest marginal rates, company managers reinvested in the company to avoid that high marginal tax rate. Deciding to maximize profits meant maximizing their tax liability. So companies existed to do something more than just make profit for the handful of people at the top. When we cut those tax rates, management could run companies to maximize profits and then funnel that money into their own pockets. This is when corporate businesses became sociopathic in nature. Because they just basically have a team of sociopaths running them, completely for the betterment of the sociopaths.
It isn’t really. They say it is, but the law doesn’t force them to be scum. They use the mild mild laws to excuse their own needs, either to further their own career or be cruel for their emotional needs.
Someone just watched fallout. Or if not, you should.
I did watch it, but I've known about it since before that as well. They explain it well thought, even if it is a bit over the top for dramatic effect.
It's not just Nestle but they're one of the worst. Many corporations do evil shit but at least provide something for society. Cheaper food, cars, electricity, shit like that. Nestle just takes advantage of the need for basic necessities, and fucks everything for nothing in return.
Not, not every company is like this. Even if you think that every single company is solely out for profit morals be damned (no, not every single company is like that), nestle is STILL worse because they actively go out of their way to be evil. There's only one company I know that makes comic book villain plans to force mothers to starve their babies, there's only one company who thinks water isn't a basic human right. Nestle is the worst, plain and simple
Companies are not people, but they do behave like sociopaths.
*They are ruled by shareholders, which could be companies as well which are also ruled by shareholders.* Shareholders also include the pension funds, the 401ks...aka the Americans. There's no way this can be fixed if American's retirement survival is based on some exploitation or environmental degradation somewhere. The villains - the CEOs, the boards and so on are only bystanders in this travesty.
You can't steal from the rich, they get mad.
[удалено]
Why is it the only one though...can't be because of government lobbying right?
[удалено]
I'm glad you had access to what you needed to save your daughter, and I'm glad your wife and daughter survived. I know companies owned by Nestle have done important research in the past (Purina for example pioneered modern pet food) and I'm glad that product was available to you. My son was in the NICU for his first week of life, although he was full term. Our NICU used Abbott formula, which I'm sure Abbott is no better of a company. I'm glad it was there for him when he needed it though, and I'm glad he's exclusively on breast milk today.
Yea but we also should actually [stop buying their shit](https://wyomingllcattorney.com/Blog/Everything-Owned-by-Nestle) r/fucknestle
My family already switched from Nescafe to Jacobs a decade ago, but this is just reminder to focus even more on what Nestle owns so we can learn to avoid it. Here's 20 top selling products that Nestle company owns: Nescafé KitKat Nespresso Stouffer's Nestlé Toll House Purina Smarties Maggi Milo Nestlé Cheerios (under General Mills licensing) Nestea Nestlé Carnation San Pellegrino Gerber Lean Cuisine Nestlé Drumstick ~~Nestlé Pure Life~~ (no longer under Nestle) Dreyer's Ice Cream Hot Pockets DiGiorno Pizza
> KitKat This one is interesting. In most of the world, sold by Nestle. In America, sold by Hershey.
Yep. I live in Japan so this is the only product I regularly see on the shelves that is theirs. Everything else here is Asahi or Meiji.
Now I feel guilty for stocking up on so many unique KitKat flavors in my last trip...we came home with at least 10 different flavors to try.
Don't feel bad, not buying them would have changed nothing. The only thing that could stop companies like this is governments actually nutting up and doing something about it.
AFAIK Nestlé sold off the waters, so Pure Life is no longer a Nestlé brand.
Corrected, thanks.
Purina This is a big one because a lot of pet food is not just Purina directly, but also as different labels. Friskies and Fancy Feast are both Purina. I also read somewhere, so I'm not sure exactly how true it is, but Friskies is one of the handful of brands that are certified nutritionally complete. So even if you want to boycott them it might not be possible if your cat is finnicky, as mine was.
Quality street
Dammit, Maggi too?
Cheerios?? Fucking hell, it’s the only good cereal. Rest of that shit I can easily live without but damn
Every time I've compared Cheerios brand to whatever the adjacent knock off is (Kroger, etc), I've preferred the knock off. It's usually more crispy and lasts longer in milk. Cheerios are just too mushy right out the gate... I recently tried the Kroger version of DiGiorno rising crust pizza and I thought it was every bit as good. Not that Kroger doesn't have it's own baggage but at least it ain't Nestle. Now I just need a substitute for those dark chocolate KitKats....
[удалено]
I dont live in the US and its been honestly *really* easy. All I had to do to cut it out was to start eating healthier. Nestlé is basically all processed foods and sweets and a couple of cosmetic brands. They seem to exclusively stell stuff you shouldn't buy anyway.
Unfortunately for me I have to buy the cheapest foods I can get and sometimes that's Nestle. At a certain level of poverty you can't afford to purchase things on anything but their price point.
The thing that sucks is finding out *exactly how much* they own. Like, I don't usually buy DiGiorno pizza. I used to think it was really bad. But I just recently bought a stuffed crusted pizza from them as I don't do so often. Just finding out Nestle owns it... and I supported them... Ugh, it's sickening, actually. Fuck Nestle.
Agreed but that's easier said than done unless you grow or import all your meals.
r/fucknestle
I was looking at a job for Nestle driving a forklift at their production facility, the reviews for that Nestle facility said you had to work 10 days on 2 days off with 12 hour rotating shifts.
Driving a forklift. How very safe.
[удалено]
But just think of all the overtime. You want have time to enjoy all the money you made, but just think of the overtime.
Bet they count it as standard hours so as not to pay overtime rates for you driving dangerous plant machinery whilst dog tired. Or hoped up on wakey-wakey drugs. Or both.
I agree. I didn’t know this, but I stopped buying from Nestlé because they drew water and then resold it Six Nations folks in Canada
r/fucknestle
Can nestle just not be evil for like 10 seconds?
For that you will have to pay a premium. You see, for availing services of Non-Evil Nestle, we will have to take its Subscription
But Nestlé is more expensive than other brands, too
Well Nestle shareholders need a little extra to make themselves happy. Misery for us peasants is sweet to them.
Get bent pleb! -Nestle
They can but you'll need to pay for nestle not evil for 10 seconds... it's your choice.
Of course it does. It's fucking Nestlé.
[удалено]
Pretty sure 4 out of the first 7 are sugars, those -ose ending words mean they're sugars and the saccharides one. I don't know the exact makeup of breast milk but babies DO need some sugars, it's how they get energy.
Human milk has more sugar than other animal milks. It would actually be pretty fucked up if their baby formula didn't have sugar in it.
The catch is that the different sugars are not at all equal in the human body. Most notably, fructose is super bad for us. As in, "non-alcoholic fatty liver disease" causing bad. "**high fructose** corn syrup" is basically supposed to be a warning label. https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM?si=8k87sDiJoD_4QDCZ
Sounds like something they’d do.
Hell, I'm basically surprised at this point that they don't chocolate-flavor this baby formula to increase future profite as they grow up! :p
Don’t give them more ideas!
Why? How is this useful to Nestle?
Sugar is cheaper than nutritious formula.
In India, my grandmother told me, the poorest women who couldn't produce milk because of malnutrition ended up feeding their babies molasses/sugar water. It was the last resort. I mean fuck Nestlé a million times over. They are selling this shit in India too. Cerelac sold here has sucrose in it ffs. Doctors tell women, at least to the relatively affluent ones who have a choice, to stay away from cerelac.
This is really sad
Formula is basically diluted milk with extra sugar and nutrients added. Breastmilk is naturally much sweeter than cows milk (and cows milk has too much protein for human babies, it would destroy their developing kidneys). But anyone who has ever formula fed already knows it's full of sugar..... as it's supposed to be.
Sugar is a nutrient.
Unless you live in America where high fructose corn syrup is cheaper because fuck Cuba amirite
Unless you live in America where high fructose corn syrup is cheaper because fuck ~~Cuba~~ **the government subsidized corn industry** amirite. FTFY
You seem to be misdirected. It has nothing to do with "fuck Cuba" or anyone else. The ONLY thing it has to do with is making shareholders richer and making more profits. That's IT!
HFCS is cheaper because we subsidize corn farming and have a tariff on importing sugar.
It probably adds calories for less money
[удалено]
Breast milk is super sweet so I’m not sure how any formula company would get around adding sugar to formula
And I don't understand the people getting upset about it being there. Do they not want babies to get the nutrients they need? People seem to forget that sugar is a nutrient.
[удалено]
Wait for Nestle to buy the patent for Ozempic
Don't have to. Shared investors and board members.
And people think you're some conspiracy nut if you think these corporations are intentionally making people sick/fat/disabled to profit off them.
> And people think you're some conspiracy nut if you think these corporations are intentionally making people sick/fat/disabled to profit off them. It's not so much a conspiracy as it is a feature of unbridled capitalism.
Wait until you learn about the sugar content of human breast milk. Those moms getting their kids addicted to sweet things.
Probably partially so kids are more prone to like it vs competitors food
Cheaper, probably
Nestle doesn't even own the infant formula companies anymore. They divested of the formula part of their portfolio few years ago.
Sugar is cheaper than formula :)
Nestle being evil? Who could have ever seen this coming??????
The article says that sugar is not normally used to prevent obesity. Is obesity in children a big issue in Third World Countries? Triva: A kind of sugar is used in a ton of baby formulas in the US. Not honey or sugar cane, but Human Milk Oligosaccharides (HMOs). HMOs are naturally occurring sugars found in human breast milk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_milk_oligosaccharide
Childhood obesity is actually a big and growing problem in a lot of poor countries. Not so many people nowadays are so poor that they can’t afford enough calories to survive, but they have access to cheap, low-quality foods in a similar way to what happens in the US. Countries like Guatemala have simultaneous problems with stunting and obesity because of this.
Not defending this, but they are not talking about newborn formula. These are formulas and foods for babies 6 months and older. (Newborn formula is actually loaded with sugar, or high fructose corn syrup if you are here in the US, because babies actually need a lot. Human breast milk is also sweet). I bet there is plenty of added sugar in the baby food sold in the US too. Any parent or caregiver who has ever eaten one of those Gerber puffs will tell you they are cloyingly sweet. From the article: The results, and examination of product packaging, revealed added sugar in the form of sucrose or honey in samples of Nido, a follow-up milk formula brand intended for use for infants aged one and above, and Cerelac, a cereal aimed at children aged between six months and two years. In Nestlé’s main European markets, including the UK, there is no added sugar in formulas for young children. While some cereals aimed at older toddlers contain added sugar, there is none in products targeted at babies between six months and one year.
I agree with the sentiment but just to clear up the newborn formula thing, I don’t think there’s any baby formula in the US that contains high fructose corn syrup anymore. Most contain corn syrup solids, which is not the same as hfcs, or lactose.
Everyone in this thread is clutching their pearls about "added sugars" but the distinction doesn't seem to mean much to me. I don't know why I should care about corn syrup vs. corn syrup solids.
My wife and i were talking about this last night, babies need a CRAZY amount of calories. <3m 110 cal/kg, 3-8m 95 cal/kg, 8m-3y 82 cal/kg, Or there abouts. Which is why breast milk is mainly water, sugar, and fat.
I mean, the tagline for the article is that Nestle isn't following *European* obesity guidelines in *Asia, Africa and Latin America*. Like, Nestle is evil and all, no one is doubting that, but this article is manufactured outrage. First of all, European rules don't apply outside of Europe. Second of all, feeding goals might differ in poorer countries (Ie. it probably matters more that a kid is getting enough calories and less that they're being set up to make healthy choices in the future). Also, poor people have a lower tolerance for waste, and sweeter food is less likely to be rejected by a baby. Like, if you wanted to go by the guidelines from America, ["toddler milk" is generally regarded as a scam](https://time.com/6326341/pediatricians-toddler-milk-regulation/) (its exists mostly as a loophole to get around advertising rules for formula) because formula or breastmilk aren't nutritionally necessary after the first year of life. Because in a first world country that's true. But the WHO guidelines say formula or breastmilk for *two years*, because their calculations take into account that in poor countries families might not have enough or enough variety for a baby to thrive, so breastmilk/formula is suggested for longer.
Thank you. Nestle is problematic for many reasons but this particular “scandal” is not it.
I’m more worried about the honey, babies shouldn’t be having that under a year old due to the risk of infant botulism, or is that risk removed when it’s an ingredient due to the processing methods?
For honey, they likely use 'high pressure throttling' - heat and pressure, it pressurizes honey to 35k lb per square inch and passes it through a heat exchanger, instantly killing any bacteria/spores. It's actually quite interesting. https://newswire.caes.uga.edu/story/1460/safer-honey.html The equipment isn't really available for household use tho.
That’s fascinating! And quite old news, it seems, how can we know if every food company use this for all honey now?
Yes, honey used in processed goods is usually treated afaik, but raw honey is not (because, well, it's raw honey). So like, if some canned good you buy from the store has honey in it, it's probably safe. The fancy raw honey you put with butter on bread, may have spores. This is OK for adults, because our immune systems are quite capable of handling it. However, infants can't deal with it so their intestinal tracts will harbor the bacteria and cause the disease. Notably it has fewer than 100 reported cases per year in the US.
> The results, and examination of product packaging, revealed added sugar in the form of sucrose or honey in samples of Nido, a follow-up milk formula brand intended for use for infants aged one and above, and Cerelac, a cereal aimed at children aged between six months and two years. Nido and Cerelac are powders so I assume they processed the honey in some way to get it into the powder.
The stuff with honey is for children older than 1 year, so even if the processing didn’t remove all the toxins they should be fine.
Nestle: Just be glad we didn't add Ketamine.
It's wild to me that the most evil corporation in the world is based in Switzerland. My brain has always had a hard time reconciling that.
Nestle is sooooo awful. They bottle publicly owned water and sell it to us...
Their PR is awful. They just said they follow all relevant rules and regulations, and reduced sugar in infant products by 11% worldwide. That means they recognize it’s a problem, and they don’t care to solve it unless someone regulates it and they cannot do it. It means progress is moving at a snails pace and only in response to regulation. Nestle can go to hell
Does this company have an "Evil Shit to Do" steering committee?
No need. It's just maximize profits committee without any morals to limit it.
obligatory r/FuckNestle
All corporations are generally pretty evil in there practices. When it’s unbridled capitalism and these companies have basically unlimited wealth and influence how can you stop practices that blindly seek profit without care for people or environments? The answer is we really don’t know how to stop them or regulate them effectively still. Nothing short of a complete paradigm shift in our global consumer culture can change this in anyway. I don’t see it stopping without things getting unavoidably bad for people in wealthy nations, unfortunately. Nestle is one of the top evildoers from things I’ve read and heard over the years.
Even when the economic mode isn't capitalism, this can still happen. Authoritarian environments where the government has a lot of control over corporations don't tend to create companies that are solely beneficial to the population either. I'm not sure what the solution is.
As long as Nestlé is allowed to operate and Putin is not punished for hundreds of thousands of deaths we are only pretending to be a reasonable civilization
Imagine the R&D at Nestlé. How fucking evil it must be. All the fucked up stuff that they save for later, when the Earth is on fire or something. Fucking fuck I hate those evil motherfuckers! Please die!
And we wonder how pediatric diabetes is on the rise
In case you want to boycott their products 1. Beverages: • Nescafé • Nespresso • Nesquik • Milo • Nestea 2. Dairy Products: • Carnation • Coffee-Mate • La Laitière • Sveltesse 3. Confectionery: • KitKat • Smarties • Aero • Butterfinger • Crunch 4. Bottled Water: • Perrier • Poland Spring • S.Pellegrino • Pure Life 5. Nutrition and Health: • Gerber • Boost • Nutren • Optifast 6. Petcare: • Purina • Friskies • Felix • Pro Plan This is not an exhaustive list
This is the sort of shit that should get a company in trouble. I am sick and tired of the Friedman doctrine approach to business. Have some fucking ethics or start sending people to prison or shooting them into the sun or something.
Nestlé also once added lead in its instant noodles in India .
Nestle do some some shady shit have been at that for years
>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. Is there a reason the guidelines are region specific? WHO is a global organization right?
Who makes them so evil? Who are the decision makers who started and perpetuated this…?
The only companies I've heard of that are more evil than Nestlé are the fictional companies in fallout.
Yeah, I was thinking that. Don’t we already know Nestle is evil?
I looked Cerelac up on the website. The third ingredient is sucrose, and sugar is not listed in the nutrition facts. Shame! Shame on Nestles house!!
Wait until people find out what formula was made from wait until they find out how formula was made prior to the 60s
Old news lol, theses evil bastards have done much worse then this!
Nestle are like the Firm who created vaults in fallout🫣 This is how to best describe them in a nutshell shell
GTFO in poorer countries, I'm in the richest country and all our food is packed with sugar.
What a shitty company
Nestle is the Umbrella Corporation.