this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2024
167 points (97.7% liked)

World News

39034 readers
2743 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Mango@lemmy.world 31 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm not even reading the article. It's gonna be Nestle.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 31 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"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.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 2 points 1 week ago

Sugar is not needed for survival.

[–] i_stole_ur_taco@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Selling cheaper food to places that have less money? It cannot be!

Alternative title: Capitalists accused of doing capitalism.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago

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.