In high-income countries, Nestlé’s baby foods adhere to recommendations from health organizations and consumer pressure by excluding added sugars. However, in low- and middle-income countries, this same company adds sugar to its baby products, sometimes in significant quantities. This practice, according to a recent investigation by nonprofit organizations Public Eye and the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), establishes an “unjustifiable double standard” that contradicts expert advice.
Nestlé’s Cerelac and Nido products, which are their top-selling baby food brands in low- and middle-income countries and generate over $2.5 billion in revenue, were examined for their nutritional content by the two organizations. For instance, in countries like Thailand, Ethiopia, South Africa, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh, a Cerelac wheat cereal product contained up to 6 grams of added sugar. The same product contained no added sugars in the United Kingdom and Germany. With 7.3 grams of sugar, a Cerelac baby cereal product sold in the Philippines had the highest sugar content.
The investigation revealed that the added sugar content was not specified on Nestlé’s labeling in the Philippines, where the sugar content was the highest, as well as in other countries including Nigeria, Senegal, Vietnam, and Pakistan.
“There is a double standard here that can’t be justified,” said Nigel Rollins, a WHO scientist, to the nonprofit groups. He emphasized that the company does not add sugars to its baby products in Switzerland, where it is headquartered. As a result, he said, continuing to do so in settings with limited resources is “problematic both from a public health and ethical perspective.”
According to a WHO report from last month, as of 2022, 37 million children under the age of 5 worldwide were overweight. Additionally, over 390 million children ages 5 to 19 were overweight, and 160 million were obese. The prevalence of overweight in children 5 to 19 rose from 8 percent in 1990 to 20 percent in 2022, according to the United Nations agency. During the same time period, obesity rates in this age group increased from 2% to 8%.
Nestlé responded to the investigation by claiming that variations in sugar content “depend on several factors, including regulations and availability of local ingredients, which can result in offerings with lower or no-added sugars.” However, it maintained that these variations do not “compromise the nutritional value of our products for infants and young children.”
Nestlé, a multinational food and beverage behemoth, has a contentious past involving the sale of baby products in developing nations. The company came under intense international criticism in the 1970s and 1980s for aggressively marketing its infant formula to impoverished mothers. Health advocates accused Nestlé of misleading mothers into thinking that formula is superior to breast milk for their children, despite the fact that leading health organizations advise exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life whenever possible.
Nestlé faced criticism for providing free formula to maternity wards in hospitals, which caused new, impoverished mothers to switch to formula shortly after birth during the crucial window in which breast milk production would otherwise increase in response to breastfeeding a newborn. Mothers may have trouble lactating and become reliant on formula if they don’t nurse during that period. The powdered formula is no longer free outside the hospital and must be mixed in the right amounts and under sanitary conditions to ensure it is safe and satisfies the infant’s nutritional needs, which can be a challenge for impoverished households.
Despite ongoing boycotts in some nations, Nestlé currently asserts that it adheres to international rules for marketing breast-milk alternatives.
