That was to make sure none of those babies would be head of the World Economic Forum. It's a jungle out there.
this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
340 points (98.9% liked)
Today I Learned
21439 readers
427 users here now
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
From the study summary: We combine birth record data from over 2.6 million infants across 38 countries in the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) with reconstructed historical data from annual investor reports on the timing of Nestlé entrance into infant formula country markets. Consistent with the hypothesis that formula mixed with unclean water could act as a disease vector, we find that infant mortality increased in households with unclean water sources by 19.4 per thousand births following Nestlé market entrance, but had no effect among other households. This rate is equivalent to a 27% increase in mortality in the population using unclean water and amounts to about 212,000 excess deaths per year at the peak of the Nestlé controversy in 1981. https://haas.berkeley.edu/ibsi/research/mortality-from-nestles-marketing-of-infant-formula-in-low-and-middle-income-countries/
Seems pretty damning to me, but will it have any consequences for Nestlé or any of the big honchos at Nestlé from that time? Probably not as usual, since corporations are apparently allowed to kill people as long as they do it in an obfuscated way.
but will it have any consequences for Nestlé or any of the big honchos at Nestlé from that time?
Probably a retirement bonus
"This is not speculation but econometric fact — the company’s market entry correlates directly with this surge in infant deaths. The data does not lie"
Okay I'm done here lmao someone skipped stats 101
Yeah. A rise in infant formula use and infant mortality are incredibly different things that couldn't possibly be linked in the data. Good take. /s
Yeah, but that needs to be proven beyond coincidence.
“Correlation means causation.”
Isn’t that the saying you learned?
The thing we learned is "correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation".
Was joking and left off the /s
I bought a jar of Nescafe recently, because my usual instant decaf coffee was out of stock. I wonder if people would hate me more for buying a Nestle product, or drinking instant decaf?
"Please hate both transgressions equally." ~ Gemma
Instant decaf. You want the coffee flavor, it's quicker and less hassle, and you're sensitive to or just don't want the caffeine. Am I right? Seems reasonable.
Coffee snobs are funny. I drink instant but I need that caffeine in my brain.
Dude I'm right there with you man
All of thankfully I've been able to get the new Folgers freeze-dried whatever. They don't advertise it is different than their instant coffee. But it mixes cold a lot better than the old stuff
So I'm Nestle free again
And you can be too! if you want. No judgment here the fucking brand is endemic and in so many products
I have to buy purina wet food because it's the only one my cat accepts and she can't be without wet food because she refuses to drink water. I've try to offer other brands from time to time but no, only this fucking thing
In online stores you can find extreme numbers of different brands.
My mom's cat ate Nestlé Purina until he stared vomiting too often. He had acquired allergies to the fillers in it and now has to eat hypoallergenic foods made of actual meat, or straight up meat. Read the ingredients and be appalled. It seems cheap, but there's very little cat-digestible food in it.
The unfortunate thing is the taste is unchanged no matter what nestle did. My wife told me not to buy Fair Life milk products because they abuse the animals. It felt so wrong, but tasted so much better to drink their chocolate milk. That being said, it isn't always better to save money and buy the cheaper brand, than give up some more money trying to support a small business. However, we never know whether that small business will be the next nestle. It's hard to pick these battles but separate the product from the ones who make it.
Well we can"t know wheter the little brand we choose will be the next Nestle, but this is a thing we shouldn't exactly worry too much about. Following this reasonment, I should kill every person I meet around, because you never know who they are going to be in the future... I think someone who knows the truth and still continues to buy from a certain brand because "it is better", though knowing there exist more ethical alternatives, that person is just a most horrible kind of creature, not even a human being, from a purely philosopical and psychological point of view. Don't take it personal, I don't know what your decisions has been finally.
Choosing not to give money to someone you do not know is not quite the same thing as murdering them.
No, my point was if it is cheaper to buy the name brand vs the small business that charges more, ethics is less the question and more about separating the product from the creators, just like I separate the artist from the art. There are terrible celebrities who have made good music, what changes about the music, what changes about the product, your knowledge of it. But the product itself is still as it was, your perception of [the creator] is just different. Would you stop paying for recycled plastic if you knew it was once someone's trash. Ethics is about treating people better. I don't sit there and think, at the store, let me see who I can support today. No, I buy my groceries like a normal person and look for the deal. I am trying to save money. But that being said, although I still bought fair life, I bought it less after knowing that fact, it still influenced my decision and it was a little more expensive, I liked the taste. But coming down on people for what they support is just as wrong as supporting the thing itself.
If an artist is an evil asshole, I don't support them anymore. I may still think their art is good, but I don't buy from them, because I don't want to support them financially and I also don't want to spread their twisted message and normalize their behaviour. I don't want to be connected with their evilness in any way. So separating art from the artist is possible for me only in some cases of artists that are long dead and that I think can do no more harm.
I agree with your point. it depends on what they did not what they support. I could care less what they support. If they did something that was horrible that is a different story. If a music artist committed a major crime, I wouldn't support them, but if they just support something I don't agree with, I still might support them knowing I like the music.
This is different for basic needs such as in corporations and needing cheap food such as Nestle which owns so many brands. I support many local and small businesses, I support many small artists.
It all depends on which priority is relied upon and in what circumstance. Is it taste or is it morality. Morality should be first and foremost but it depends on the severity of the behavior. I don't care if an artist lied to get out of a parking ticket but if they lied to get out of a DUI where they could have hurt someone or actually hurt someone, it is a different story. There are levels of "wrong". It isn't black and white, all or nothing thinking. There has to be a gray area to be fair.