Nestle discovers ethics

[freediver]

A bit of a turnaround for the company that once convinced mothers that breast milk was bad for babies and they should all switch to Nestle's exhorbitantly priced powdered swill. Let's hope this amounts to more than spin.

kids food deceptively labelled 'healthy'

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl? ... 9657/30#30

Food giant Nestle takes sugar hit to sweeten image

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 01,00.html

THE world's largest food manufacturer has reduced sugar levels of some of its top-selling kids' foods - such as Milo cereal and chocolate milk - and will stop advertising non-nutritious products under a plan to improve its image worldwide.

Nestle will unveil the global marketing initiative in Switzerland later today in response to growing concerns about the role of food manufacturers and their marketing practices in rising obesity rates.

The new "global marketing to children principles" will be underpinned by a nutritional profile system that will define which foods will be allowed to be marketed and which will need to be reformulated to meet marketing guidelines.

Products that will have advertising stopped because they don't meet guidelines include Country Cup Noodlers Alphabet Chicken Soup, Uncle Toby's Fruit Roll Ups, Nestle Stars In-cred-i Bites and Wonka Bertie Beetle.

The global shift in marketing practices by the company, which has annual global sales of $US120billion, has been largely driven by Nestle's Australian operations in response to rising community concerns about food marketing.

The responsible marketing guidelines will be enforced in every market where Nestle operates by the end of the year, with marketing required to encourage healthy, active lifestyles, not undermine parental authority and for no advertising to be directed to children under six.

Advertising aimed at children aged six to 12 will be allowed for foods helping them achieve a healthy, balanced diet.

"Nestle believes this system is the most comprehensive of any company globally as it spans all 27 food and beverage categories in which it has products and covers all consumer groups from children to adults," the company will announce.

"The system is based on scientific research and public health recommendations of the World Health Organisation and US Medical Institute. It is a dynamic approach which will be reviewed and updated based on the latest developments in research and consumer concerns.

"This nutritional profiling system will form the core of Nestle's policy on marketing communications to children and will further drive its renovation and innovation programs against these exacting criteria." Nestle said it would cease advertising of products that did not meet the requirements of the nutritional profiling system - highlighting the Roll Ups brand as one example of a product needing reformulation. "Nestle's Roll Ups product does not meet the nutritional criteria so the product will be reformulated to meet the nutritional profiling system and until then will not be advertised," the company said.

Ian Alwill, marketing director of Nestle Australia and one of the prime movers behind the adoption of the global strategy, said that to be true to its position as "the world's leading nutrition, health and wellness company" it needed to act.

Mr Alwill admitted that some products would not be capable of being altered to meet the guidelines because "they could just taste awful", but said evaluation of products would be ongoing.

But children's advocacy groups have greeted Nestle's move with scepticism.

Boyd Swinburn, a spokesman for The Parents Jury and professor of population health at Deakin University, said he feared the move had been driven by PR concerns.

"I would call it a small baby step, but I think the health of children in Australia and the world warrant some bigger steps, such as a blanket ban on TV advertising of unhealthy food until 9.30 at night," Professor Swinburn said.

Kate Carnell, chief executive of the Australian Food and Grocery Council, described Nestle's move as a huge step.

"I think it shows industry is taking the issue of overweight children, obesity and nutrition very, very seriously and understands it has to be part of the solution," she said.

[Jovial Monk]

Will never trust these pricks!

[boxy]

Not trusting multinational corporations... now there's an idea

[TomB]

Nestlé has a far bigger issue than sugar content on their hands and so far have not shown 'ethics' in the matter.

Nestlé baby formula is responsible for death and malnutrition of babies in third world countries because:-
1. The mother's often don't understand or don't have the facilities to mix the product with clean, sterile water.
2. The mother's often try to make the formula stretch a lot further than the minimum requirements of the babies because they are poor.
3. Formulas have not been proven to be as wholesome for a human baby as human breastmilk.





n.b. - Human baby formula is suitable for raising orphaned flying foxes and I have been using a non Nestlé product for this purpose for the reasons stated above.

[mantra.]

.

b. - Human baby formula is suitable for raising orphaned flying foxes and I have been using a non Nestlé product for this purpose for the reasons stated above.

That says a lot. Not good enough for baby animals - but women have been feeding it to their human babies for years. No wonder this generation of children has become obese and is addicted to sugar.

Nestlé baby formula is responsible for death and malnutrition of babies in third world countries because:-
1. The mother's often don't understand or don't have the facilities to mix the product with clean, sterile water.
2. The mother's often try to make the formula stretch a lot further than the minimum requirements of the babies because they are poor.
3. Formulas have not been proven to be as wholesome for a human baby as human breastmilk.

It has also had to recall some of its milk powder products from China. Apart from the sugar content - they've also overdosed babies with iodine. It's about time the multinationals became responsible for their careless and irresponsible behaviour.

Swiss food giant Nestle has stepped up its marketing in China to win back customers after its recall of milk powder products earlier this year.

In an interview with Bloomberg, chief executive Peter Brabeck said that the firm is spending more on marketing, such as in-store promotions and sampling, and is introducing herbal mineral water to tap local demand for health products.

Nestle recalled two of its milk powders in June after authorities found high levels of iodine in the products. The recall has had an impact on the group's sales in the region.

Sales growth in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan slowed to 7.5 per cent in the first half from 13 per cent last year, following the withdrawal of Neslac.

[freediver]

Suppose in the future they come up with a formula that is as good as, or better than breast milk. Would people change their approach to bottle feeding?

[mantra.]

Suppose in the future they come up with a formula that is as good as, or better than breast milk. Would people change their approach to bottle feeding?

Maybe. Those who breastfeed do it because they can - and they like it for many reasons. A lot of women who bottle feed their babies don't have a choice, although others do, but don't like the perceived damage to their bodies. I would have thought most women in third world countries would breast feed and it surprises me so many of them use formula. They must be so malnourished through poverty, that buying formula to feed their children is cheaper than feeding themselves.

[freediver]

I doubt it. Babies can literally suck their mothers dry. The mother's body is sacrificed for the health of the baby. Buying potatos in Africa is a lot cheaper than powdered formula, and a woman's body is a pretty cheap milk factory. They can even filter the pathogens out of the water.

[crazychemist]

Nestlé has a far bigger issue than sugar content on their hands and so far have not shown 'ethics' in the matter.

Nestlé baby formula is responsible for death and malnutrition of babies in third world countries because:-
1. The mother's often don't understand or don't have the facilities to mix the product with clean, sterile water.
2. The mother's often try to make the formula stretch a lot further than the minimum requirements of the babies because they are poor.
3. Formulas have not been proven to be as wholesome for a human baby as human breastmilk.

I can add a 4. They used to give any new mother, a free can of milk.. and claim that its better than breast milk.. The mother's believe it and with good intentions favour the powdered milk over her breastmilk. They brain washed entire generations with this bullshit.. I hope the financial crisis bites them back in the form of karma!!

[Auzgurl]

I doubt it. Babies can literally suck their mothers dry. The mother's body is sacrificed for the health of the baby. Buying potatos in Africa is a lot cheaper than powdered formula, and a woman's body is a pretty cheap milk factory. They can even filter the pathogens out of the water.

And how are your poor breastfeeding boobies FD?

Can a baby suck their mothers dry? No not really for at a certain point there is simply not enough to suck if a mother is too malnourished.

A child cannot flourish in spite of a poorly nourished mother. Formula would be used for this reason, poor health=no milk or bad quality milk. Formula would be mainly used for this reason...health of the baby.