5 Minutes Read
Nestle baby-food scandal | Why this health food maker has double standards in low-income countries
KV Prasad Jun 13, 2022, 06:35 AM IST (Published)
Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)
Summary
While large food companies, who take advantage of everyday life and challenges, such as schedule, climate change and economic limitations, lead adults to eat more unhealthy foods — they are nonetheless adults, and could have some degree of choice regarding their diet. However, that does not apply to children, and young babies — who are being fed high-sugar foods and formulas by their unsuspecting parents, cautions Medix Global founder and CEO Sigal Atzmon.
A rather alarming article came up on my LinkedIn feed this week. The article claimed that Nestle adds sugar to the company’s infant milk sold in poor nations, but not in Europe or the UK. According to the article, Nestlé’s Cerelac for six-months-old babies has 6 grams of sugar added per serving in Thailand, 5.2 in Ethiopia, 4 in South Africa, 2.7 in Pakistan and 2.2 in India – compared to 0 in the UK and Germany.
In somewhat of a disbelief, I researched the subject further, and what I discovered is enraging; In a nutshell, large scale food companies are selling ultra-processed and overly sweetened food products to poor and lower income countries – sometimes even advocating them as ‘good for the health’ – all while lowering the sale of such foods in western countries.
In an article published in The Guardian, it is stated that 55% of people surveyed around the world eat a meal consisting of snack foods at least once a week; this number rises to almost 2\3 in Asia. These snacks have become more common globally, as people are forced to eat in a rush — either on the way to work, or on the way to school.
When cooking or eating home-cooked meals becomes impossible due to schedule, factory-made, empty calorie, processed foods take over as a solution. According to the same article, sales of ultra-processed foods in developing countries have doubled between 2006-2019, after having saturated the market in richer countries (In the US, 57% of the dietary intake consists of ultra-processed foods). A research done in Australia showed that the total sales of ultra-processed foods in developing countries will be equivalent to those in rich countries by 2024.
This phenomenon can be attributed to several reasons. Firstly, developing nations present large food companies with a profitable market expansion opportunity — with a rapid growth of investment in local factories in middle-income countries. Secondly, lobbying and political interventions to delay or weaken regulations on such products’ marketing was found to be easier, and successful – in Colombia, for example, a soda (sugary) tax bill was delayed thanks to the works of some 90 lobbyists.
Such lobbying was also seen in countries like South Africa, Mexico, Thailand and Brazil. Thirdly, the west has seen a growing awareness of healthy food consumption — and the health risks linked to ultra-processed foods — leading to a decrease in sales. This, alongside the aforementioned issues, has led companies to expand their operations in lower-income countries.
This phenomenon has led many health organisations to call for bans on ultra-processed and high in sugar foods altogether — the WHO has already suggested such a ban in 2019. Calls to stop the flooding of the second and third world with such foods have also been raised, while warning of a global health crisis. Medical Research published in western countries has shown clearly that consumption of such foods is linked to the increase of diseases such as type 2 diabetes, obesity, and cancer, and more recent research done in developing countries shows similar results. In an article from 2019, the WHO pointed to a ‘new nutrition reality’ in low-income countries, where famine, malnutrition and food-quality-caused obesity represent equally significant problems.
I have personally engaged with projects targeting diabetes and obesity in India, and the numbers are harrowing; The National Family Health Survey of India (NFHS, 2019-2021) found that within the age group of 20-79, India had 74.9 million diabetics in 2021. The WHO estimates that nearly 77 million people above the age of 18 suffer from type 2 diabetes, 25 million are prediabetic, and over 50% are unaware of their diabetic status.
A 2023 study by Lancet estimated this number to be as high as 100 million. According to a Forbes article, obesity was seen in nearly a third of the Indian population. These trends of increased sickness are attributed, amongst other reasons, to the increase of high carbohydrate and processed foods in the populations’ diet, rural and urban alike.
Following the reveal in Nestle’s actions, India has begun seeking investigations into these allegations. Adding sugar to children’s diet combined with eating packed snacks is undoubtedly one of the reasons behind the high incidence and prevalence of diabetes in India. Unfortunately, the longer term outcomes and complications of such disease burden is yet to come.
Adding sugar to baby food is enraging three times over; while large food corporates, who take advantage of everyday life and challenges, such as schedule, climate change and economic limitations, lead adults to eat more unhealthy foods — they are nonetheless adults, and could have some degree of choice regarding their diet. However, that does not apply to children, and young babies — who are being fed high-sugar foods and formulas by their unsuspecting parents.
Moreover, we simply cannot and must not accept the companies’ hidden assumption that life in the west is worth more than life in developing countries — what is unhealthy and dangerous to people on one side of the globe, should be considered the same on the other side. The opposite should actually happen: lessons learned from developed countries should be implemented in developing countries so that future disease burden could be prevented.
This taking advantage of people living in poorer, often more corrupt countries is hypocritical at best, and cynically cruel at worst.
Allow me to end my column with a question — how far are food companies willing to go for profit? Have they not risked enough lives already?
—The author, Sigal Atzmon, is Founder and CEO of Medix Global, a multinational medical science & tech company, which pioneered in the concept of directing and monitoring the full potential of expertise, treatment & technology to people’s most critical health needs. The views expressed are personal.
Read her previous articles here.
Elon Musk forms several ‘X Holdings’ companies to fund potential Twitter buyout
3 Mins Read
Thursday’s filing dispelled some doubts, though Musk still has work to do. He and his advisers will spend the coming days vetting potential investors for the equity portion of his offer, according to people familiar with the matter
Daily Newsletter
