WHAT YOU EARN IS WHAT YOU EAT?

A rather alarming article came up on my LinkedIn feed this week. The article claimed that Nestle adds sugar to the company's infant milk sold in poor nations, but not in Europe or the UK. According to the article, Nestlé’s Cerelac? for six-months-old babies has 6 grams of sugar added per serving in Thailand, 5.2 in Ethiopia, 4 in South Africa, 2.7 in Pakistan and 2.2 in India – compared to 0 in the UK and Germany.

In somewhat of a disbelief, I researched the subject further, and what I discovered is enraging. In a nutshell, large scale food companies are selling ultra-processed and overly sweetened food products to poor and lower income countries – sometimes even advocating them as 'good for the health' – all while lowering the sale of such foods in western countries.

In an article published in The Guardian, it is stated that 55% of people surveyed around the world eat a meal consisting of snack foods at least once a week; this number rises to almost 2\3 in Asia. These snacks have become more common globally, as people are forced to eat in a rush – either on the way to work, or on the way to school. And when cooking or eating home-cooked meals becomes impossible due to schedule, factory-made, empty calorie, processed foods take over as a solution. According to the same article, sales of ultra-processed foods in developing countries have doubled between 2006-2019, after having saturated the market in richer countries (In the US, 57% of the dietary intake consists of ultra-processed foods). Research done in Australia showed that the total sales of ultra-processed foods in developing countries will be equivalent to those in rich countries by 2024.

This phenomenon can be attributed to several reasons. Firstly, developing nations present large food companies with a profitable market expansion opportunity – with a rapid growth of investment in local factories in middle-income countries. Secondly, lobbying and political interventions to delay or weaken regulations on such products' marketing was found to be easier, and successful – in Colombia, for example, a soda (sugary) tax bill was delayed thanks to the works of some 90 lobbyists. Such lobbying was also seen in countries like South Africa, Mexico, Thailand and Brazil. Thirdly, the west has seen a growing awareness of healthy food consumption – and the health risks linked to ultra-processed foods – leading to a decrease in sales. This, alongside the aforementioned issues, has led companies to expand their operations in lower-income countries.

This phenomenon has led many health organizations to call for bans on ultra-processed and high in sugar foods altogether – the WHO has already suggested such a ban in 2019. Calls to stop the flooding of the second and third world with such foods have also been raised, while warning of a global health crisis. Medical Research published in western countries has shown clearly that consumption of such foods is linked to the increase of diseases such as type 2 diabetes, obesity, and cancer, and more recent research done in developing countries shows similar results. In an article from 2019, the WHO pointed to a 'new nutrition reality' in low-income countries, where? famine, malnutrition and food-quality-caused obesity represent equally significant problems.

Adding sugar to baby food is enraging three times over; while large food corporates, who take advantage of everyday life and challenges, such as schedule, climate change and economic limitations,? lead adults to eat more unhealthy foods – they are nonetheless adults, and could have some degree of choice regarding their diet. However, that does not apply to children, and young babies – who are being fed high-sugar foods and formulas by their unsuspecting parents. Moreover, we simply cannot and must not accept the companies' hidden assumption that life in the west is worth more than life in developing countries – what is unhealthy and dangerous to people on one side of the globe, should be considered the same on the other side. The opposite should actually happen: lessons learned from developed countries should be implemented in developing countries so that future disease burden could be prevented.?

This taking advantage of people living in poorer, often more corrupt countries is hypocritical at best, and cynically cruel at worst.

Allow me to end my newsletter with a question – how far are food companies willing to go for profit? Have they not risked enough lives already?