I’m not even reading the article. It’s gonna be Nestle.
Nestle, PepsiCo, Unilever, and maybe others (they used the term “including”)
Nestle was the only company to comment, saying how they planned to increase their sales of more nutritious food. Always gonna spin it to fit whatever narrative they want to sell to their consumers and shareholders.
Funny how companies are always “planning” to do the right thing when the media notices them doing the wrong thing for a long time and asking about it.
“More nutritious” also does a lot of heavy lifting for what they might actually do.
1% more protein would technically be “more nutritious” even if there was also 10% more sugar.
Fat, sugar, and salt are also “nutritious,” insomuch as they are components needed for survival. Too nutritious is probably a better way of looking at it. It’s a meaningless buzzword.
Sugar is not needed for survival.
Selling cheaper food to places that have less money? It cannot be!
Alternative title: Capitalists accused of doing capitalism.
Is it not “poorer countries are buying worse food?” It’s not like any of these companies wouldn’t sell the more expensive food to them.
