
Nestlé Wants to Sell You Both Sugary Snacks and Diabetes Pills - sergeant3
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-05-05/nestl-s-sugar-empire-is-on-a-health-kick
======
shawn-furyan
The offerings of humongous multinational conglomerations are not coherent. You
could generate stories of this type all day, because the offerings of the
likes of Nestle, GE, J&J, P&G, Coca-Cola, et. al. are the results of the
efforts of hundreds of thousands of employees (for each conglomerate)
subdivided into thousands of business units [read sub-companies], each with
its own goals, challenges, and many existing within markets that are
essentially disjoint from those of other business units under the same parent
company.

This sort of story is pure narrative fallacy, because there is no person at
Nestle that decided to exacerbate diabetes and then sell diabetes drugs to
profit on the other end. Outside of that person existing, there's no story
here. If you take away the conflation of a conglomeration with an entity of
coherent offerings the premise crumbles.

~~~
anigbrowl
On one level I agree with you, but the whole point of a corporate structure is
to give a collective effort the legal identity of an individual so that
administrative efficiency and profit can be maximized. It's no coincidence
that virtually every stock-based corporation has a strictly hierarchical
governance structure culminating in the office of a chief executive,
notwithstanding the existence of boards and presidents. these chief executives
are paid staggering amounts of money in return for managing the wealth and
activities of the corporation productively.

Yet when we find examples of a large corporation creating a vicious circle
with easily observable negative externalities, suddenly a corporation is a
diffuse network of different products and market actors which is impossible to
control, manage, or monitor, and whose activities must not be interfered with
at the behest of regulators or the public itself, lest some intangible market
equilibrium be disturbed.

It seems to me that this is an example of investors wishing to have their cake
and eat it. Either they want the potential of high profits driven by a
singular business vision...and which incurs responsibility for outcomes
commensurate with the degree of executive authority available to the
management, or they want a maximally free market of atomistic competition that
is not subject to the whims of trusts, conglomerates and so on. Society cannot
afford both options.

~~~
ArkyBeagle
But these things exist because people put money into 401k accounts, IRAs, and
buy other "funds". That makes one sort of instrumentation of that corporation
work in a certain, sort of negative-externality-prone way. That cross ( as in
cross product ) the information-attenuating nature of hierarchy explains a
lot.

As a corollary of Brian Kernigan's "debugging is twice as hard as writing
programs", it should be clear that regulation is even harder - possibly many
orders of magnitude harder - than steering a massive conglomerate.

I don't know how you design a ... non-atomistic corporation - a corporation
that depends on governance principles other than those which align with
Liberal atomism. If I read the literature right, atomism is sort of an
inevitable consequence of Liberalism - as Hendrix said, "I'm the one that has
to die when it's my time to die." How do we handle the problem of agency?

And I'm really skeptical of "holism" in general these days. It does not notch
easily onto rigorous and empirical methods, and looks somewhat like a backdoor
for collectivism. I dunno - maybe collectivism has matured but I'm quite
skeptical of it.

------
cisstrd
Nestle is a very big company making all kinds of products, and since ever more
people are following the health and fitness craze, there are so many people
obsessed with health, they want to profit from it. They want to adjust their
company in order to guarantee future profits, that's actually (a) the most
normal thing in the world and (b) a form of following consumer's choice and
wishes.

I don't see how selling sugary products for those who buy them and selling
health products for those who prefer them is any kind of evil moral conflict.
No matter if "health product" means low-fat low-sugar foods or pharmaceutical
products.

Scepticism is good, control and regulation is good, blind condemnation is not,
not sure what the article is representing. For me it actually is healthy
scepticism, some of the comments here are more condemnation I presume.

~~~
AndrewUnmuted
First of all, diabetes pills are not really 'health products.' They are more
like 'you fucked up your health, now try not to die' products. Even Nestle's
low-fat and low-sugar "foods" are a far cry from "health products." You are
being disingenuous by conflating the two, or even for suggesting that Nestle
is in the business of selling "health products."

Beyond that, however, I see a pretty big flaw in your reasoning here. Given
your argument, can you not then extend your theory on guaranteeing future
profits to also include the strategy of selling both the problem and the
solution? This, too, is a very 'normal' thing for large, multi-national
manufacturers of consumer goods to be engaged in.

Nestle, along with Coca Cola and Kroger, is a well-known corporate supporter
of programs such as SNAP in the US, and is also one of the largest benefactors
from said programs. I am a full-on capitalist, but that does not mean that we
ought to give a pass to the morally-flawed existences of companies like
Nestle, which leverage its influence in the State to reap greater profits.

~~~
bduerst
How much of the cause of the diabetes endemic is Nestle though? Isn't lack of
nutritional education more to blame?

It's easy to come down hard on the smoking industry due to the chemically
addictive nature and serious health hazards of the product, but there are many
consumers who moderate their fat and sugar intake. And then there are
diabetics who don't consume any Nestle products - so why can't they be given
treatment manufactured from a conglomerate?

~~~
lloyddobbler
Agreed.

As someone with Type 1 diabetes (look up the difference if you don't know),
I'm always interested in this distinction. Sugary foods neither "give people"
nor cause Type 2 diabetes. _A person consistently consuming too many sugary
foods over a long period of time_ causes themselves to be at higher risk for
Type 2 diabetes.

Cigarettes are a different beast, due to the chemically-addictive nature of
them (although in this day and age, one could make the argument that people of
all ages should know better than to start smoking, and should thus bear
responsibility for the outcome - but that's another discussion for another
time).

Cigarettes != sugar. End of story.

~~~
jakubp
It is possible one day cigarettes will be considered a minor evil in
comparison with sugar. Just you wait.

~~~
bduerst
Only if second-hand sugaring becomes a trend and manages to beat out second-
hand smoke in the evil dept.

It's interesting how hyper-aware western and particularly U.S. cultures are of
sugar and fat. From the 1990's there's still the stigma that eating _any_
sugar and fat will make you fat.

------
jensen123
The other day I went to buy some canned refried beans. When I read the label,
I noticed that it contained refined sugar. WTF?!? There should be no need for
sugar in refried beans! After recovering from the shock, I went to another
grocery store, where I found refried beans without sugar.

Why does this happen? Obviously, sugar tastes good. That has to be why
companies add it to all sorts of things. However, if most people were like me,
they would read the label and refuse to buy anything that unnecessarily
contained sugar. The companies doing this would lose money, and soon stop
doing it. But the opposite has happened. Why?

There can only be one explanation: most consumers are dumb. However, when you
read about stuff like this in the mainstream media, it's always framed as if
"big evil corporations" is the whole problem. That "average Joe" has a low
intelligence is never mentioned. Of course, the media wants as many consumers
as possible, too, so calling most of their potential readers/viewers stupid is
probably a bad strategy, even though it's the truth.

~~~
noxToken
I don't know if dumb is the right word. Ignorant is probably most apt.

I want you to think about all of the food that's in your house. Eliminate
anything that you would consider intentionally sugary like candy, confection,
soda, etc. Now how much of a time consuming task would it be to scrutinize
every label for needlessly added sugar? Consider how many people would be
willing to do that to check for some extra sugar?

And that's why, I believe, companies can throw extra sugar in their products
without most of the public being none the wiser. Not only would you have to
check your current inventory, you'd have to stay abreast of the issue _every
time you went shopping_. If you went shopping for the entire month like me,
you'd spend an extra hour in the store reading labels to check for newly added
sugar.

~~~
MisterBastahrd
Time consuming? I read the label of every product I buy when I go to the
supermarket. If I do it often enough, I keep track of what's got added sugar
and I just don't buy those anymore. It isn't that hard.

------
kazinator
Yamaha wants to sell you noise-canceling headphones, and a motorcycle.

~~~
CaptainZapp
Although most people know Yamaha as a manufacturer of motor bikes and possibly
electronics its origins are in manufacturing music instruments.

From
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_Corporation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_Corporation)

"Yamaha was established in 1887 as a piano and reed organ manufacturer by
Torakusu Yamaha as Nippon Gakki Company, Limited (日本楽器製造株式会社 Nippon Gakki
Seizō Kabushiki Kaisha?) (literally Japan Musical Instrument Manufacturing
Corporation) in Hamamatsu, Shizuoka prefecture and was incorporated on October
12, 1897. The company's origins as a musical instrument manufacturer are still
reflected today in the group's logo—a trio of interlocking tuning forks"

Today it's the world's largest manufacturer of music instruments. The range
covers just about anything on which you can play a tune.

Branching into motorcycles and electronics happened only after WWII.

So, yeah, they probably know a thing or two about acoustics.

Edit : Better legibility

~~~
kazinator
Those instruments are consistently good. I wouldn't have any apprehensions
about picking up a Yamaha guitar.

Motor bikes can be musical instruments too. There is some yatsu in the Noda
city area in Chiba, Japan who likes to ride his motorcycle down the
Tsutsumidai road at wee hours in the morning, revving the throttle in neutral
to play rhythmic, somewhat tuneful patterns with the engine.

------
teamhappy
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ7oht6TD9c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ7oht6TD9c)

~~~
leaveyou
"let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories" Mickey Mouse

------
mhurron
Diabetes is not always a byproduct of over consuming sugar and a company
producing sugary snacks and diabetes pills does not force or even encourage
over consumption of sugar.

I don't see what the actual problem is.

~~~
jld89
"does not force or even encourage over consumption of sugar."

Actually they do encourage you to eat a lot of sugar. Specially children.
Their marketing campaigns are specially tailored to that objective. Just look
at the cereal advertisements, most of their cereal brands have a lot of sugar
in them.

If that is not encouraging over consumption of sugar I don't know what is...

~~~
jzwinck
Their marketing is designed to sell cereal. People unfortunately are happiest
(short term) to consume sugary cereal. They really are.

I met a breakfast food operative in the supermarket once. I told him I thought
his company should offer a low sugar version. He said everyone tells them to
do so, but once it's on the shelves it does not sell.

People want less sugar in the abstract. But they love sugar in their shopping
carts, in the mornings, and in their mouths.

~~~
mikeash
So they're not encouraging people to consume sugary stuff, they're encouraging
people to consume a category of food where people prefer sugary stuff?

This is about as sensible as saying that Krispy Kreme isn't pushing sugary
foods, people just happen to prefer donuts with lots of sugar in them.

~~~
jzwinck
What would you have Krispy Kreme do? Pivot to Kimchi Kombucha?

~~~
mikeash
I don't know. I just think that if we're going to talk about what companies
encourage customers to do through their marketing, we should be straight about
it.

------
cies
> Nestlé Wants to Sell You Both Sugary Snacks and Diabetes Pills

...and they want to "own" the water.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_pb6r8VNWk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_pb6r8VNWk)

~~~
piquadrat
Can we stop this "Nestlé thinks water isn't a human right" BS already?

[http://www.nestle.com/ask-nestle/human-
rights/answers/nestle...](http://www.nestle.com/ask-nestle/human-
rights/answers/nestle-chairman-peter-brabeck-letmathe-believes-water-is-a-
human-right)

I'm far from being a fan of Nestlé, but there are better arguments against
their conduct than a single quote from the CEO years ago, misquoted and out of
context.

~~~
gurkendoktor
That's fascinating. I've been boycotting Nestlé for many years based on
documentaries and articles in German-language media. I've just tried to dig up
some English articles for the first time, but they are _much_ harder to find.

Compare the German-language version of Nestlé criticism on water:

[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestlé#Trinkwasser](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestlé#Trinkwasser)

...to the English one:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestlé#Bottled_water](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestlé#Bottled_water)

There was even a documentary on German public TV recently, pretty cheesy
stuff, but starting at 32:49 the journalists are interviewing local
politicians in Mexico about a Nestlé selling water from local reserves:

[http://www.daserste.de/information/ratgeber-
service/montagsc...](http://www.daserste.de/information/ratgeber-
service/montagscheck/videos/der-nestl-check-1-100.html)

So while I can't translate all this content right now, the tl;dr is that in
practise, Nestlé does not seem to believe in water as a human right.
Otherwise, why sell water from areas where it is already scarce?

~~~
cynicalkane
> Nestlé does not seem to believe in water as a human right. Otherwise, why
> sell water from areas where it is already scarce?

Selling is often the best way to manage scarce resources, particularly in the
presence of a government that cannot be trusted to effectively ration them.

Most reasonable people don't object to companies selling food or clothing.

~~~
cousin_it
If by "manage" you mean "make sure the scarce resource goes to the highest
bidder". That's not the same as maximizing overall happiness, because
purchasing power ≠ capacity for happiness. In fact it's often the reverse. The
person who can get the most happiness from a glass of water might be the least
able to afford it.

------
hammock
It's the Wall-e Scenario. If we can find a way to continue to consume cheap,
shelf-stable, nutrient-dense food; while at the same time repairing our bodies
from the side effects, we can be fat blobs living and consuming and growing
the economy.

And whether that's unilaterally a bad thing may not be a settled question. The
top 5 drugs in the US[1] are remedies for problems caused by advanced society
- a statin, antacid, blood thinner, inhaler and antidepressant. They enable
many of the affordances we provide for ourselves.

[1][http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-
guides/news/20110420/the-10-mo...](http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-
guides/news/20110420/the-10-most-prescribed-drugs)

~~~
k-mcgrady
I'm curious how the final to drugs you've listed are for problems caused by
advanced society. I can sort of see where you may be coming from regarding
asthma but not antidepressants.

~~~
tremon
Regarding asthma: it is currently considered to be an auto-immune disorder.
The latest theory I read is that the lungs need to develop their own
resistance to infection; more specifically, developing lungs need exposure to
hazards to tune the immune system and prevent overreactions of the immune
system later [1].

Regarding antidepressants: there exist strong links between depression and
stress. Current society is arguably more hectic and stressful than what we've
had before, but I'm not sure if that is fixable (it is, however, one of the
reasons I use an ad-blocker).

[1]
[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140606091157.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140606091157.htm)

~~~
k-mcgrady
Interesting theory on asthma. I also wouldn't be surprised if it was one of
those things that just gets diagnosed a lot more than in the past. For example
I've been diagnosed since I was around 10 but despite it being quite bad when
I exercise I rarely use medication and have never had an attack. I get out of
breath much more easily than a regular person but I'm guessing in the past it
just wouldn't have been diagnosed as there was really no episode that led to
the diagnosis other than the doctor measuring the strength of my breath during
a routine visit I believe.

------
md224
> In a 2013 review of published research, scientists affiliated with France’s
> national scientific institute wrote that sugar and sweets “can not only
> substitute [for] addictive drugs, like cocaine, but can even be more
> rewarding and attractive.” Although sugar is “clearly not as behaviorally
> and psychologically toxic,” cravings for it can be just as intense, they
> said.

So... how do we measure behavioral and psychological toxicity? What does that
actually mean?

Feels like they're trying to escape cognitive dissonance with weasel words
here.

~~~
trhway
i see the following difference here:

craving - how long you can resist consuming the substance giving for example
$1K/per minute reward for every minute you resist :) It seems that they are
saying that cocaine and sweets are the same.

behavioral and psychological toxicity - the "bad" consequences, internal and
external, associated with the habit of consumption of the substance. We do
know that these consequences are different between cocaine and sweets.

~~~
md224
Thanks for the reply, but this still doesn't clarify anything... what is
"behavioral and psychological toxicity"? I was under the impression that the
"bad consequences" of these drugs was the risk of damage to the body, but the
phrasing implies that they're _not_ talking about physical/physiological
toxicity. So what's left? Does using cocaine turn you into an asshole or
something? What behavioral/psychological changes are there beyond those
associated with the regular consumption of _any_ addictive substance?

~~~
ddebernardy
> What behavioral/psychological changes are there beyond those associated with
> the regular consumption of any addictive substance?

Not many, and that's precisely the point: in terms of additivity, the neural
receptors involved are essentially the same as those involved in other drugs;
and in terms of toxicity, it's metabolized essentially the same as alcohol.
Give a fruit juice or a whisky to a 4-year old, and it's about the same (minus
the dizzy high of/c).

~~~
md224
I agree, which is why I was trying to point out that the authors were using
this BS idea of "behavioral/psychological toxicity" to try to explain why
sugar wasn't _really_ the same kind of thing as cocaine or other addictive
drugs.

I'm annoyed that they shied away from this equivalence, but not because I want
people to treat sugar like it's an addictive drug... I want people to
recognize that being addicted to something (like sugar or cocaine or alcohol
or coffee) is _not_ the great evil it's made out to be, and to realize that
our drug laws are completely incoherent. The authors use weasel words to avoid
equating sugar and cocaine because then people would wonder why one is
legal/normalized and the other is illegal/stigmatized. They have to find some
way to maintain the distinction.

------
chris_wot
_" On Oct 18 the US company Genzyme announced it had formalised an agreement
to acquire Cell Genesys for approximately US$350 million. This move follows an
agreement by the pharmaceutical division of Japan Tobacco, the world's third-
largest tobacco company, to purchase the rights to therapeutic and preventive
lung-cancer vaccines under development by Cell Genesys and another American
biotechnology company, Corixa. If the vaccines are approved, Japan Tobacco
will find itself in the unusual position of marketing products that cause,
prevent, and treat the same disease."_

Murray, S. (1999) Kill or cure, confused messages from Japan Tobacco. _The
Lancet_ , 354(9188), p.1456.

~~~
x5n1
Why not both? It's an arms race. Why not supply both sides?

~~~
chris_wot
What, let a company supply a substance to intentionally harm people so they
can sell them a cure?

I can see that going down well in other industries. The automobile industry
can engineer metal fatigue into their axle joints and sell you replacements.
Microsoft can build bugs into Windows and sell you critical updates to fix the
flaw. Chair makers can sell you chairs with legs attached by screws that are
slightly too short so they can sell you more screws of the correct size to
allow you to remain safely seated...

I guess it would stimulate the economy.

~~~
jerf
"What, let a company supply a substance to intentionally harm people so they
can sell them a cure?"

Let's not forget our history here, since it wasn't exactly all that long ago.
For decades, the consensus has been that the root cause of dietary issues is
excessive fat in the diet, not sugar. Sugar was on the top of the food pyramid
not because it was "bad" for you, but merely because it displaced other better
things. I've been flame-roasted on HN in the last few years for being on the
anti-sugar side, because consensus science and official government positions
were strongly against the idea. It still isn't even the consensus today that
sugar is the problem.

(My read on the current situation is that the evidence strongly indicates that
sugar is a major problem, though probably not the only one, and that the
government is moving as quickly as it can to adjust its recommendations while
_never having to admit they were in any way wrong_ , which is a process that
takes many, many years of little slight tweaks so that at every point they
have cover to claim this is what they were saying all along. Such moral
cowardice where they'd rather let millions of people continue hurting and
dying rather than take even a hint of responsibility is why I don't take my
scientific cues from the government and recommend against anyone else doing it
either.)

Trying to show that Nestle is "deliberately harming" people would require
basically claiming that they should have _known_ all nutrition science and
government position was wrong and to some extent _is_ wrong, since treating
"Sugar is bad" as consensus is still premature!

(The mercy is that nobody has ever said it's _good_ for you, unlike transfats,
so nobody really looks at you _too_ weirdly if you drop it out of your diet.)

~~~
Evgeny
_the root cause of dietary issues is excessive fat in the diet, not sugar._

Anything excessive in the diet will lead to gaining weight and eventually to
obesity.

I can not say which will lead to diabetes faster, consuming extra 1000
calories daily in fat or in sugar, but in terms of fat gain results will be
similar.

The government recommendations are most unfortunate, as they concentrate on
macronutrients. So when *fat is bad" people will start eating sugary snacks,
and when eventually it changes to "sugar is bad", fat will be added to
everything instead of sugar.

It would be more positive to suggest eating more whole, unprocessed foods, but
I'm sure political issues will never allow that.

~~~
jerf
Do you think you're disagreeing with me somehow? My post was about history.
Giving me an example of someone concretely stating some modern opinion doesn't
change history. Even if you are totally correct, which I do not stipulate,
you're opinions are still _recent_.

Having made sure to stay focused on my core point, I'm going to point out that
you're basically begging the question. The model of diabetes as unrelated to
the form of incoming calories is the standard model, and that is specifically
what is being questioned. Basically just reiterating the standard model isn't
really an argument. And it's not that hard to imagine that sugar really is
related when we are discussing _the mechanism the body uses to regulate
sugar_. Specifically _sugar_ , the pancreas is not responsible for regulating
some sort of ontological "generic obesity particles".

~~~
Evgeny
_Do you think you 're disagreeing with me somehow?_

Probably. I think the following is still controversial:

 _My read on the current situation is that the evidence strongly indicates
that sugar is a major problem_

There are multiple possible causes, or a combination of any number of such
causes

\- Excessive sugar

\- Excessive fat

\- Combination of fat and sugar

\- Excessive calories

What is the root cause? I currently tend to think that the problem started to
really accelerate when a lot of processed foods manufactured to be extremely
palatable by hitting just the right combination of fat and sugar, entered the
market.

For references, see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bliss_point_(food)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bliss_point_\(food\))
and the book "Salt, Sugar, Fat" by Michael Moss.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moss](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moss)

------
mheiler
Nestle is trying to avoid the trap Coke and McDonalds fell into: Only offering
unhealthy food choices and loosing the young generation of health-conscious
consumers. They can't go the Wholefoods way since organic is inherently more
expensive and harder to scale. Nestle is a food-tech company that wants to
feed the globe. Now they try to do it in a more healthy way. I don't know why
Bloomberg is so negative about that.

------
amelius
One of the supplements shown in the article is Deplin, which contains
L-methylfolate, and supposedly helps with depression.

Any ideas on how this supplement works? And how many people would benefit from
it?

~~~
jamble
The supplement works best for those with an MTHFR gene defect, where the body
does not create enough 5-MTHF (L-methylfolate). I have c677t heterozygous type
mutation and I take 5mg of a generic brand. It helps with methylation process
which is very complicated, so I won't try to paraphrase. There is a decent
amount of information online you could read up on, though. I would not suggest
5-MTHF for people who do not have the genetic defect, though I imagine a very
small dose per day may be helpful, but then again I am no doctor.

------
0xmohit
This is analogous to cigarette companies selling nicotine gums. The largest
cigarette company in India --
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITC_%28company%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITC_%28company%29)
\-- sells nicotine gums[1] too!

[1] [http://www.kwiknic.in/](http://www.kwiknic.in/)

------
qaq
Nestle is generating a ton of money, and periodically invests in unrelated
industries sometimes very successfully like with Alcon.

------
powera
What if the article were "Walmart Wants to Sell You Both Sugary Snacks and
Diabetes Pills"? Because, I mean, Walmart does sell both of those in their
stores.

------
z3t4
People simply do not have time to read the ingredients on every product they
buy. Maybe force producers to show amount of sugar lumps on the label.

------
etaty
I think it's time to go either buy simple fresh product or go buy soylent
joylent Huel and others. The food industries is only making us fat!

------
thisjustinm
There's a lot of discussion on here about stupid consumers vs evil
corporations, etc. As is often the case, the blame lies with just about
everyone involved to some extent. The US government choose to promote a low
fat diet with it's original nutrition guidelines in the 70s [4] which led the
public to demand the food companies to produce low fat everything in the 80s
and into the 90s. It's now emerged that there was little evidence to support
the health benefits of a low fat diet.

When you remove fat from food it becomes unpalatable unless.... you add sugar.
Thus the increase in added sugar in just about everything which has helped to
contribute to the rise of obesity and metabolic syndrome and all the diseases
that come with it from diabetes to fatty livers, heart disease, etc.

So who's to "blame"?

The government in some ways, even though they seemingly meant well when
recommending low fat diets (they're just now beginning to recommend reduced
sugar and ease up on fat warnings).

Food companies in some ways who seem to have known about sugar's addictive
properties and engineered their food to keep you coming back for more rather
than keeping you healthy [3].

Consumers in some ways for not reading labels, exercising more, reducing
portions, etc. But who could blame you when the government and the food
companies were trying to convince you that what you were eating was good for
you? (unless you had time to dive into the research yourself but let's face
it, that's not an option for 99% of people)

One of the best explanations I've read of not just why sugar (fructose to be
specific) is bad for you (in the quantities Americans but also most of the
world eats it at) is the book "Fat Chance" by Robert Lustig [1]. You can also
get a glimpse into his arguments via his youtube lectures [2].

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Fat-Chance-Beating-Against-
Processed/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Fat-Chance-Beating-Against-
Processed/dp/0142180432/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1462804311&sr=8-1&keywords=fat+chance)

[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM)

[3] [http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/food-cravings-engineered-by-
in...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/food-cravings-engineered-by-
industry-1.1395225)

[4] [http://time.com/3702058/dietary-guidelines-fat-
wrong/](http://time.com/3702058/dietary-guidelines-fat-wrong/)

------
jamesrcole
Any company that sells sugary snacks does its best to get people to consume as
many of them as possible, right?

------
tcskeptic
So does almost every pharmacy in the US. (CVS, Walgreens, Walmart, Target, my
local independent, etc.)

Who cares?

------
askafriend
They're just closing the loop, like an good entrepreneur would do.

------
devy
While Nestlé's each subsidiaries and brands might have their own business
motives to sell / market their own products (a lot of them have long been
well-known consumer brands with a long history), the title does sound more
troubling than it appears.

------
Amir6
A fantastic example of create a problem, solve it, make billions!

------
marmaduke
This what they mean by "vertical integration" right?

------
option_greek
One is for current users. Other is for future users :)

------
beyondcompute
The nature of unbounded capitalism in one sentence.

~~~
neumann
precisely. Capitalism has no moral compass.

------
Havoc
Seems like a sound strategy.

------
jamble
The article was an interesting read until I hit the picture showing Deplin. I
want to share my story about this drug. After having a DNA test done and
finding out I had an MTHFR gene mutation, my psychiatrist prescribed me that
orange pill. She had lots of samples, too, which I was grateful for as it was
extraordinarily expensive. i.e. not covered by insurance since it's
technically a "medical food". I paid for it anyways, because she sold it to me
as "a magical cure" of sorts and I won't lie, that seemed appealing to me.
Something new? After all this struggle? Sure, fuck it, let's try it. I will
leave out my backstory and detail about my condition for the sake of brevity
(something I'm not very good at).

5-MTHF did work for me, albeit at a MUCH lower dose of 5mg. Some people even
get relief from 1mg. But... Deplin comes in 7mg and 15mg doses. My new doctors
in Seattle (Naturopaths, not psychiatrists) have advised me that even 7mg is
quite a bit of extra 5-MTHF. I don't know the scientific details behind this,
but I know from experience, 15mg was entirely way too much for my body and I
experienced excruciating periods of "overmethlyation" (extremely high anxiety,
all sorts of sensory hallucinations, very uncomfortable!).

The doctor that did the DNA test advised 15mg. Not my psychiatrist. It was
just a note scribbled on the front of the DNA results packet. I didn't know
anything about 5-MTHF at the time so I did not argue and began on the 15mg.
Psych didn't say anything, either: i was only her 3rd patient trying Deplin.

I was completely unstable until I titrated the dose 8 months later: I'd been
mistaking most of the symptoms for benzodiazapine withdrawal and didn't think
to blame the Deplin for being uncomfortable. I was too unstable to properly
judge my mental state. at the time, I had subconsciously thought: why would I
question the Deplin? My psychiatrist told me that it was made for people like
me (who have the genetic defect). No way it could be hurting me.

I wonder how many other mental health patients are being tortured by a similar
conundrum right now? (Tortured may seem a bit harsh, but overmethlyation is
something I would not wish on my enemies...) Further, I wonder how many people
are being suggested Deplin as they were Prozac, in a case where a doctor
doesn't know anything about MTHFR gene and thinks it's just a fancy new drug
to try out?

I wish there was more information about the supplement's effects and its
dosages available for psychiatrists. About a year later, I began ordering
5-MTHF (the main component of the 'drug') from Amazon for 1/3 of the price.
You can also get it made at compounding pharmacies for cheaper.

I feel terrible thinking about other people who may think they are locked into
paying for Deplin because their psychiatrist does not know any better. I think
what Nestle is doing may be good for profits, by making an illusion of a
'unique solution', but at the same time it makes my stomach turn. Thanks for
reading.

------
wahsd
I wonder if it will ever hit the mainstream that Nestle put plastic filler in
jar baby food in order to drive sales as babies would need to eat more baby
food because they would simply pass the plastics. If anyone's interested in
pursuing the story, they funded research into how much plastic could be added
without causing health problems.

~~~
vonmoltke
Sounds like conspiracy bait to me.

------
jlebrech
And don't forget Milk based products [http://www.diabetes.co.uk/causes-of-
type1-diabetes.html#milk](http://www.diabetes.co.uk/causes-of-
type1-diabetes.html#milk)

------
bunkydoo
This is the same company whose CEO said water is not a human right... Would we
honestly expect anything less from these guys?

------
x5n1
Would it make you feel better if they had a subsidiary do it under a different
name and you didn't know. Or even a different company do it? It's all the same
economy stupid. You have a problem with the basic assumptions and ethics of
the economy, nothing more.

The economy is sort of a blind watchmaker, it is optimized to produce profit
for the Capitalist class and jobs for the worker class. Everything else does
not matter to it. Whether it pollutes the planet, makes fatties, limits the
chances of human survival. It knows nothing but to do the two above things.
Everything else is someone else's problem.

And at the same time governments in the so-called free world have been
advocating to help it do this more freely without any constraints from the
would-be control mechanisms like pesky governments which would control this
sort of behavior.

------
boost_
ITT: fat people making all sorts of excuse for Nestle

is this reddit?

------
Omarrjo
if you have pre-diabetes, type 2 diabetes Or you know someone with this
conditions, You need to see this Video
[http://www.diabeteszone.info/](http://www.diabeteszone.info/)

