Currently browsing posts about: Nestlé

An investigative report from Public Eye and the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN): “How Nestlé gets children hooked on sugar in lower-income countries.”

Nestlé’s leading baby-food brands, promoted in low- and middle-income countries as healthy and key to supporting young children’s development, contain high levels of added sugar. In Switzerland, where Nestlé is headquartered, such products are sold with no added sugar. These are the main findings of a new investigation by Public Eye and the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), which shed light on Nestlé’s hypocrisy and the deceptive marketing strategies deployed by the Swiss food giant.

The report points out that Nestlé (no relation) “currently controls 20 percent of the baby-food market, valued at nearly $70 billion.”

Nestlé promotes Cerelac and Nido as brands whose aim is to help children “live healthier lives”. Fortified with vitamins, minerals and other micronutrients, these products are, according to the multinational, tailored to the needs of babies and young children and help to strengthen their growth, immune system and cognitive development….

Spoiler alert: Our investigation shows that, for Nestlé, not all babies are equal when it comes to added sugar. While in Switzerland, where the company is headquartered, the main infant cereals and formula brands sold by the multinational come without added sugar, most Cerelac and Nido products marketed in lower-income countries do contain added sugar, often at high levels.

For example, in Switzerland, Nestlé promotes its biscuit-flavoured cereals for babies aged from six months with the claim “no added sugar”, while in Senegal and South Africa, Cerelac cereals with the same flavour contain 6 grams of added sugar per serving….

Similarly, in Germany, France and the UK – Nestlé’s main European markets – all formulas for young children aged 12-36 months sold by the company contain no added sugar. And while some infant cereals for young children over one year old contain added sugar, cereals for babies aged six months do not.

Do small amounts of sugar like these make any difference to babies’ health?  After all, 6 gram is just a bit more than a teaspoon.

They might make a big difference:

• They get kids hooked on sugars.
• The sugars can add up quickly.

For sure, this report shows is that sugar is not really necessary.  It is there to encourage sales, not health.

The report is getting international publicity:

• The Guardian: Nestlé adds sugar to infant milk sold in poorer countries, report finds
• DE: https://stories.publiceye.ch/nestle-babyfood
• FR: https://stories.publiceye.ch/nestle-bebes
• SP: https://stories.publiceye.ch/nestle-ninos
• PO: https://stories.publiceye.ch/nestle-criancas

I always like writing about Nestlé, the huge multi-national food company based in Switzerland, because it gives me the opportunity to explain that no, I am not related to it (although colleagues have suggested that I claim to be the black sheep of the family).

Judith Evans, writing in the Financial Times, had a big story about the company (behind a paywall but can also be read at the Irish Times site).

Its headline: “Nestlé says majority of its food portfolio is unhealthy.”  She based her story on a leaked internal document.

Nestlé, has acknowledged in an internal document that more than 60 per cent of its mainstream food and drinks products do not meet a “recognised definition of health” and that “some of our categories and products will never be ‘healthy’ no matter how much we renovate”….Within its overall food and drink portfolio, some 70 per cent of Nestlé’s food products failed to meet that threshold [a rating above 3.5 under Australia’s health star rating system], the presentation said, along with 96 per cent of beverages – excluding pure coffee – and 99 per cent of Nestlé’s confectionery and ice cream portfolio.

Because infant formula, pet food, coffee, and the health sciences products were not counted in this analysis, the data apply to about half of Nestlé’s €84.35 billion ($102.6 billion) total annual revenues—Nestlé is indeed Big Food.

I was interviewed for this story, and quoted:

Marion Nestle (no relation), visiting professor of nutritional sciences at Cornell University, [*] said Nestlé and its rivals would struggle to make their portfolios healthy overall.

“Food companies’ job is to generate money for stockholders, and to generate it as quickly and in as large an amount as possible. They are going to sell products that reach a mass audience and are bought by as many people as possible, that people want to buy, and that’s junk food,” she said.

“Nestlé is a very smart company, at least from my meetings with people who are in their science [departments] . . . but they have a real problem . . . Scientists have been working for years to try to figure out how to reduce the salt and sugar content without changing the flavour profile and, guess what, it’s hard to do.”

[*]  Oops.  That should have been Professor Emerita at NYU.  I asked for a correction and thought I had gotten one, but maybe only in the Financial Times.

I was also interviewed by Margarita Raycheva at IHS Market Connect(formerly Food Chemical News, and also behind a paywall):

Marion Nestle says labeling systems fail to account for ultraprocessed foods

While Nestlé’s plans to improve nutritional profiles have sparked some hope in nutrition experts like Hercberg, at least one other leading expert remains skeptical. According to Marion Nestle, a leading nutrition expert and professor at New York University, successful efforts to improve nutrition would have to go beyond meeting thresholds set through label ratings.

“What is at issue in this discussion is whether a somewhat healthier option is a better choice or even a good choice,” Nestle told IHS Markit on Monday (June 1).

While label-rating systems may flag some nutrients of concern, they do little to reduce consumption of ultraprocessed foods, which have been linked to both obesity and chronic disease, Nestle noted.

“NutriScore gives points for less sugar and salt, even to foods that are still ultraprocessed, and so do other nutrient-based front-of-package labeling systems, making all of them gameable by taking off a gram or two,” she said.

“Calling for reduction of consumption of ultraprocessed foods is much simpler, but it would exclude most of Nestlé’s products, even with tweaks,” she added.

The Swiss food giant has confirmed it will update its nutrition and health strategy after British newspaper the Financial Times published leaked internal documents acknowledging that nearly 70% of its main food and drinks products, making up about half of Nestlé’s CHF92.6bn total annual sales, do not meet a “recognised definition of health” and that “some of our categories will never be healthy”…. Read more

No matter how much Big Food companies say that want to promote health and wellness, they can only do so if their products continue to make the same kids of profits as do ultra-processed junk foods.  The company knows this and got caught saying so in public.

As for the uncounted other half of this company’s revenues? I’m keeping an eye on pet food.  Pet Food Industry reports that Nestlé is investing 1 billion yuan in pet food manufacturing in China.

A few more items about what soft drink companies are up to these days.

1.  Pepsi is releasing spa kits to ease your home-bound stress (this one was sent to me by Nancy Fink, who is keeping track of this sort of thing for the Center for Science in the Public Interest).

The kits include an exfoliating cola-scented Pepsi sugar scrub, a Pepsi Blue face mask and a Pepsi cola-scented bath bomb, according to the company’s email. With its latest branded merchandise, Pepsi can tap into trends around self-care that have emerged during a chaotic year.

What do you have to do to get one?  You have to help market Pepsi, of course

The company launched a sweepstakes on Wednesday to let consumers enter for a chance to win a limited edition Pepsi Spa Kit. To participate, consumers must tweet #PepsiSpa and #Sweepstakes and tag one of their friends, the company said.

2.  Coca-Cola sought to shift blame for obesity by funding public health conferences, study reports

The Coca-Cola Company worked with its sponsored researchers on topics to present at major international public health conferences in order to shift blame for rising obesity and diet related diseases away from its products onto physical activity and individual choice, according to a new report.

Academics in Australia and the US worked with US Right to Know, which lobbies for transparency in the food industry, to obtain and analyse emails between Coke and public health figures about events run by the International Society for Physical Activity and Health (ISPAH).

They analysed 36 931 pages of documents to identify exchanges referencing Coke’s sponsorship of the International Congresses on Physical Activity and Public Health (ICPAPH) held in Sydney in 2012 and Rio de Janeiro in 2014 [The study is here].

3.  Coke and Pepsi join Nestlé (no relation) as “Plastic Polluters of the Year“

This is the third year in a row they have won this title from Break Free From Plastic. which demands corporate accountability for plastic pollution.  It’s always good to keep this in mind, along with soda companies opposition to bottle recycling laws.

Simón Barquera of the Mexican Institute for Public Health in Cuernavaca sent me this gem.
This gives me a chance to point out that Nestlé, the largest food company in the world, is not a relative, fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it.

The key phrases here:

“Together we can nourish our lives.”

“For each can of formula, Farmacias YZA, FEMSA [the Coca-Cola bottler in Mexico], and Nestlé will donate 3 more cans.”

“In tough times, we support those who need it most.”

Why is pushing infant formula a problem?  See tomorrow’s post.

Last year, Nestlé, the largest food company in the world (to which I am not related), announced that it would make its supply chain transparent.

Nestlé today announced that it would disclose the list of suppliers alongside a variety of data of its 15 priority commodities, the first disclosure of its kind in the industry. This will accelerate the company’s journey to reach full supply chain transparency. These commodities cover 95 percent of the company’s annual sourcing of raw materials.

It began listing its suppliers and recently updated the list.

• Nestlé Supply Chain Disclosure Soya (pdf, 500 Kb)
• Nestlé Supply Chain Disclosure Meat Tier 1 (pdf, 500 Kb)
• Nestlé Supply Chain Disclosure Meat Upstream (pdf, 650 Kb)
• Nestlé Supply Chain Disclosure Palm Oil (pdf, 500 Kb)
• Nestlé Supply Chain Disclosure Pulp & Paper Tier 1 (pdf, 400 Kb)
• Nestlé Supply Chain Disclosure Pulp & Paper Mills (pdf, 350 Kb)
• Nestlé Supply Chain Disclosure Hazelnuts (pdf, 350 Kb)
• Nestlé Supply Chain Disclosure Vanilla (pdf, 500 Kb)

It says there are more to come.

Global companies have global suppliers, apparently.  But the vanilla all comes from Madagascar.

I was interested to read FoodNavigator-Asia’s account of food industry comments on what to do about obesity is Australia.

By all reports, two-thirds of Australian adults meet definitions of overweight or obesity, along with a quarter of all children.  A Senate committee is collecting ideas about what to do about this, including those from the food industry.

Food-Navigator-Asia has taken a look at some of the submitted comments, particularly in light of comments from medical groups encouraging social, environmental, regulatory and medical interventions, and arguing that food companies should be kept out of formulating policies due to their inherent conflicts of interest.

The article quotes three companies.

Coca-Cola Amatil says taxes would be counterproductive because it is already reducing the sugar in its products.

Fonterra (a dairy company) says obesity is not the problem; instead, underconsumption of dairy products is the problem.

Nestlé [no relation] blames consumers; it is trying to reduce salt and sugar in its products but the public isn’t buying them.  It also blames government, which it says should do a better job of educating the public about diet and health.

Obesity poses a formidable problem for food companies making junk foods.  They have stockholders to please.  They cannot be expected to voluntarily act in the interest of public health if doing so affects profits.

That is why food companies should have no role whatsoever in developing policies to prevent or treat obesity.

Danone North America, Mars Inc, Nestlé USA (no relation), and Unilever US have left the Grocery Manufacturers Association to form a new organization, the Sustainable Food Policy Alliance.

Its stated purpose (as explained in the press release):

• Consumer Transparency: Improving the quality and accessibility of information available to consumers about the food they purchase for themselves and their families.
• Environment: Advocating for innovative, science-based solutions to take action against the costly impacts of climate change, build more resilient communities, promote renewable energy, and further develop sustainable agriculture systems.
• Food Safety: Ensuring the quality and safety of food products and the global supply chain.
• Nutrition: Developing and advocating for policies that help people make better-informed food choices that contribute to healthy eating while supporting sustainable environmental practices.
• People and Communities: Advancing policies that promote a strong, diverse, and healthy workplace and support the supply chain, including rural economies.

The Alliance says it intends to:

• Urge policymakers to ensure the Farm Bill and other farm policies emphasize water quality and conservation issues, improved soil health, and renewable energy (particularly wind and solar).
• Explore the economics of sustainability, including financial incentives to reduce emissions and transition to low-carbon alternatives and to create value for farmers, ranchers, and others.
• Advocate on behalf of environmental policies at the state, national, and international levels, including the Paris Climate Agreement and Clean Power Plan.

Sounds good, no?

As I told the Washington Post, I would like

to see how the four companies address more inconvenient environmental and public health policies, such as limits on bottling water from national forests or mandated, front-of-package nutrition labeling. Those policies could potentially threaten their bottom lines — an issue Danone’s Lozano said his company did not face with its current efforts around sustainability.

Let’s give them credit for going after the low-hanging fruit first…But the real questions are what they will really do, and when.

Forbes has published a ranking of the top 2000 global companies (all kinds, not just food) by a composite score of revenue, profit, assets, and market value.

Forbes summarizes some of the information for food processing companies.  By its measure, Anheuser Busch, Nestlé, and PepsiCo are the top three.

Coca-Cola, however, ranks #209, a big drop from last year’s #86.  It did not have a good year last year.

You can sort the list by name or category.  I did that for four categories: Beverage, Food processing, Food retail, and Restaurants.

Walmart does not show up as a food retailer; Forbes considers it a Discount Store, even though food accounts for nearly half of Walmart’s revenues, nearly $200 billion a year.

Here are the food, beverage, retail, and restaurants that show up as among the top 250 companies, worldwide.  I only included sales and profits in this  table; you would have to add in assets and market value to understand the ranking system.

Food, beverage, retail, and restaurant companies among the biggest 250 companies worldwide.

*About 40% of sales are from food.

This is why Walmart is the elephant in the food-business room.