• LalSalaamComrade@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Can I sue Nestle and Johnson for milk and baby powder respectively? I am an Indian citizen, so I don’t know if I am entitled to the compensation for damages caused - my mother used their shitty products, and apparently, it killed babies in developing countries.

    • nekandro@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      5 months ago

      Unfortunately, Nestle and J&J have spent billions on lawyers and consultants, so even if you could sue it would go nowhere.

  • kureta@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    5 months ago

    But why? It is bad for babies OK, but what is the upside for Nestlé? Is it addiction?

      • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        28
        ·
        5 months ago

        Jesus Christ what misleading bullshit. Should we classify sugar as a schedule 3 drug then? Treat it like cocaine? No thats fucking stupid because it’s not. It can be addictive, like literally anything else. A baby is not going to get chemically dependant on sugar.

        Another example of having the right information but the wrong conclusion.

        • AlphaOmega@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23719144/#:~:text=Overall%2C this research has revealed,be more rewarding and attractive.

          “Eating too much sugar can lead to weight gain, which then increases the risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke and some cancers. But sugar also alters our mood and provides feelings of being rewarded and euphoria; hence the comparison to illegal drugs.” https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.ramsayhealth.co.uk/blog/lifestyle/is-sugar-more-addictive-than-cocaine&ved=2ahUKEwj-8KOjt8uFAxUT4skDHUPYBWAQFnoECEkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2ys5-XMhDhbu8-D39e9u4j

          Yeah it should be regulated as a highly addictive substance. It shouldn’t be in baby formula.

          I don’t know what you mean by “addictive as anything else”. We are talking about the relationship to how your brain reacts to these substances, using science. Based on that there’s only a handful of highly addictive substances out of millions of potentials.

          This isn’t psychological addiction, we are talking about physical addiction. And sugar is comparable to the 2nd most addictive substance in the world, cocaine.

          And you think that’s a good idea to give to infants?

          You think that it shouldn’t face regulation?

          Your argument is subjective and lacks substance. The facts are very clear here.

          • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            5 months ago

            This is why anyone outside the left laughs at us. You have people sincerely equating sugar to cocaine because a corporation decided to try and make tasteless gruel edible.

            Watch out, if you put sugar in your oatmeal you’re a drug addict. You’re taking truly the dumbest position possible because to admit there’s a middle ground doesn’t let you dig into the big bad Corp.

            Should it be regulated due to its overabundance? Yes. Should it be regulated like cocaine? Fuck no. What’s wrong with your brain? Too much sugar or cocaine?

            • AlphaOmega@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              I think you are missing the entire point. Nestle puts sugar in the baby formula because it’s a physically addictive substance. A mother who buys the formula but later tries to switch to different formula will end up with a baby going through sugar withdrawals. I think it’s safe to assume the baby may not even feed until it’s given the Nestle formula.

              This isn’t the first time Nestle has done something like this, they have a dark history. Some might even call them evil.

              Plus all the long term health issues associated with giving children sugar. “Added sugar intake at an early age may have adverse life-long health consequences, including overweight, obesity, cardiovascular diseases, asthma, and dental caries, as well as worse dietary habits” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8624134/

              And yes I think it should be regulated for children, based on the science it is a serious health issue.

              Also you keep mentioning the “left” like this is some political discussion. This has nothing to do with politics. **I think most people would agree that using a legal addictive substance to hook babies to your product is a real dick move and something should be done to prevent it from happening. **

              • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                5 months ago

                Lol the only reason you’re against this move is because sugar is vaguely tied to addiction and you want to demonize a corporation. Honey has sugar, are the bees trying to get us addicted too? These are the ramblings of the insane.

                Yes, Nestlé fucking sucks. Evil, even. But them farting in the wind is not them engaging in chemical warfare. Treating it like it is, is part of what I can’t fucking stand. This is an isolated event. Just because someone has a shit reputation doesn’t mean every single minor move is a nefarious conspiracy.

                You people are bored and hypocritical. The same people that would consider weed harmless but unironically compare sugar to cocaine. Sugar spurs on habitual addiction, not chemical dependancy. Not knowing the difference, pretending you understand addiction because you read the headline of a study and the parroted news articles, that’s how bullshit gets spread around.

              • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                5 months ago

                Fucking anything that derives pleasure can be habitually addictive, this shit means nothing. Literally nothing. Chemical dependancies are not the same fucking thing. Stop pretending they are so you can look smart. This circlejerk of dipshits is truly beyond my patience.

  • digdilem@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Obesity is increasingly a problem in low- and middle-income countries.

    Isn’t that always going to be the case, regardless of ingredient adjustment? It feels like people who have had very little food will tend towards over-compensating during times of glut - perhaps not so much the generation directly affected, but the care they give to next generations.

    As an example vaguely related but less extreme; I was born in 1970 in England to a lower middle-class family. My parents were wartime and post-war babies who had experienced rationing and as a result, I have very strong recollections of being made to “clear your plate” before I could leave the table. (Ironically given this topic, the “there are starving children in Africa who would like that” line was given quite often)

    Wasting food was the absolute highest sin I could commit and that’s stayed with me to this day.

  • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Corporation ignores guidelines in pursuit of profit. News at 11.

    Corporations will not ever self-regulate. If the “global south” can’t even govern their food suppliers at the inadequate and shitty level the US does, then what else can be said? This is a problem that is directly within those governments ability to solve, but they still won’t even do that.

    Unsolvable problems with the Nestle Corporation - They Exist and their executives weren’t guillotined in the 50’s.

    Solvable problem with the Nestle Corporation - They are legally allowed to sell products within the sovereign countries of the global south while complying with all local laws and regulations.

    If only something could be done…