Double Standards in Food Safety is very real

Are Multinational Corporations Compromising Health in Developing Countries with Substandard Products? Let’s uncover.

Food is important. In fact, it is essential to our identity and way of life. It shapes communities, affects health, and drives economies. But it does more than just that. It enriches our very existence and brings comfort, variety, and happiness. It is where we turn to, time and again for not just sustenance, but also celebrations.

It is critical therefore that the food we purchase upholds our core beliefs and meets certain specific standards. Because as customers, we have the right, irrespective of what part of the world we come from, to believe that the food we eat and feed our children, lives up to its claims and that we are shielded from anything potentially dangerous, fraudulent, or damaging.  Yet, if recent findings are to be considered, the right to safe food, which is a basic human right sanctioned by International law, seems to be reserved predominantly for the ‘First World Countries’.

Why is it so? Do multinational Companies who claim to be “committed to eradicating hunger, poverty, and malnutrition…..and help millions of people to access a healthy and nutritious diet.” not believe that people from poorer nations deserve to have the same quality of food that the first-world gets such easy and almost unquestionable access to? Lets uncover.

While discrepancy in regulatory standards between countries is a key factor in how these big companies get away with what they do, it also largely boils down to a great lack of accountability and disregard for human life.

The food additive regulations, for instance, differ significantly between the UK-first world country and India- a third world nation. The UK, aligned with stringent European standards, has rigorous approval processes for all packaged foods through the Food Standards Agency: generally allowing fewer additives per product and in lower quantities. There are also much stringent labeling requirements and robust enforcements to ensure food standards in the UK system. In contrast, India typically permits a wider range of additives, often in higher quantities, with a much lenient approval process. Some additives banned in the UK are still allowed in India.

Additionally, the use of titanium dioxide in food is banned by the European Food Safety Authority but in India, all complementary foods for infants are permitted up to 5000 mg of mono- and diglycerides per 100g of the product. This is significantly higher than typical allowances in the west, where the use of such additives would be much more restricted and subject to specific approval and quantity limits. 

These differences not only highlight the varying approaches to food safety and additive regulation between countries, influenced by local laws, safety assessments, and consumer protection priorities but also raise serious concerns about the long-term health effects on populations in developing countries.

Also other examples may include:

• The allowable pesticide residue levels : In the UK, the maximum permissible level is often around 0.01 ppm (parts per million), while in India, it can be as high as 0.1 ppm. This tenfold difference is suggestive of how consumers in India are consistently exposed to much higher levels of potentially harmful chemicals.
• Heavy metals : These are particularly hazardous as they can accumulate in the body over time, leading to serious health issues including cancer, kidney damage, and developmental problems in children. While in the UK, the acceptable level in food products remains as low as 0.001 ppm, while India allows a concentration that is 50 times higher.

In 2014, the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) in India, after testing 16 major brands sold in the market, found that several chocolate brands, including Mars, contained higher levels of heavy metals, specifically cadmium and lead, compared to similar products sold in Europe.

The investigation revealed that these chocolates exceeded the permissible limits set by international standards, such as those by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The levels of cadmium, a human carcinogen, and lead, which can cause severe neurological damage and other health issues, were significantly higher, raising concerns about the lack of stringent regulatory oversight in India. The report highlighted the need for harmonized global standards, stricter enforcement, transparency, and increased consumer awareness to ensure food safety across all markets.

The Big Nestlé Double-Standards

Did you know that the Multi-national conglomerate Nestlé hit the headlines in April of 2024, credits to another controversy being added to their list. This time, it was for the sugar content found in its baby food sold in developing countries. They were found to have included sugar and honey in infant milk and cereal products such as Cerelac, stated a Guardian report.

The investigation by Public Eye and IBFAN revealed that Nestlé adds sugar and honey to infant milk and cereal products sold in developing countries like Africa, Asia, and Latin America, focusing on Cerelac and Nodi brands, while offering sugar-free alternatives in Europe. All 15 Cerelac baby cereal products examined in India contained added sugar, averaging nearly 3 grams per serving. In contrast, identical products in Germany and the UK are sugar-free.

Findings from the report also stated Nestlé India’s milk products and nutrition portfolio reporting a sales of ₹6,815.73 crore in CY22. While the company claimed multiple reasons for this disparity, also noting how they have reduced added sugars by up to 30% in the infant cereal range over the past five years, as a follow up of the report, Nestlé India’s shares fell about 5% in a span of 24 hours.

Laurent Gaberell, Public Eye’s agriculture and nutrition expert, said :

“Nestlé must put an end to these dangerous double standards and stop adding sugar in all products for children under three years old, in every part of the world.”

The report also highlighted how obesity is a growing issue in low- and middle-income countries, with the number of overweight children under five in Africa increasing by nearly 23% since 2000, according to the WHO.

Globally, over 1 billion people have been found living with obesity. And identification of added sugars in food products can be a real challenge due to the varied labeling practices that group naturally occurring and added sugars together.

WHO guidelines for Europe recommend no added sugars in food for children under three, a guideline deemed relevant globally.The UK and US have similar recommendations for young children. And the report by Public Eye and the International Baby Food Action Network, citing Euromonitor International, revealed Cerelac’s global retail sales to exceed $1bn, with 40% of sales in Brazil and India.

Nestlé, however has reduced added sugars in its infant cereals by 11% globally over the past decade, stating its compliance with local and international regulations and continued efforts to reduce sugars further.

The Indian government has also taken cognizance of the issue after this report and launched further investigation. This controversy, the latest in a long line, has reignited concerns about Nestlé’s practices in different markets and their potential impact on child health.

In 2021, Nestlé faced criticism after an internal presentation published in a Hindustan Times report revealed that 60% of its mainstream food and beverages portfolio (excluding pet food, baby formula, and coffee) did not meet recognized health standards. The company in fact acknowledged that some products might never be considered healthy.

In response, Nestlé announced plans to update its nutrition and health strategy and review its entire product range to better align with nutritional requirements. The company also stated it had already reduced sodium and sugar content across its products by 14-15% over the previous seven years. While this disclosure highlighted the challenges faced by major food companies in balancing consumer preferences with growing demands for healthier options, prompting Nestlé to reassess its product offerings and nutritional strategies: it was very apparent that such challenges were largely dealt with negligence to health only in underdeveloped nations.

Because when a similar issue of food standards was discovered in the USA, it led to the Nestlé boycott, launched in 1977 and later spreading to Europe, which was sparked by accusations that the company discouraged breastfeeding to promote its baby formula. The boycott ended in 1984 when Nestlé agreed to follow the WHO’s international marketing code, leading to its official suspension in the US.

Nestlé’s water bottling practices have also faced significant criticism , particularly in drought-prone California. The company had been extracting water from the San Bernardino National Forest since 1988 using an expired permit and paying only a nominal fee. This practice continued despite California’s recurring droughts, with the water being used for Nestlé’s Arrowhead brand since 1984.

In October 2023, BlueTriton Brands (formerly Nestlé Waters North America) contested a state decision to halt water diversions from the San Bernardino Mountains. Additionally, Nestlé has been criticized for its plastic pollution contribution, with Greenpeace accusing the company of burning plastic waste despite Nestlé’s claim to aim for 95% recyclable packaging by 2025.

In Pakistan, Nestlé faced severe accusations of groundwater exploitation, with forensic audits revealing significant water wastage – 15% during reverse osmosis and an additional 28% unaccounted for – contradicting the company’s statements and raising concerns about water scarcity and contamination in the region.

In 2021, Nestlé faced a significant legal challenge when eight former alleged child slaves filed a lawsuit against the company and other major chocolate producers, including Hershey and Cargill. The plaintiffs accused these companies of “aiding and abetting the illegal enslavement of thousands of children on cocoa farms in their supply chains” in the Ivory Coast. This case highlighted ongoing concerns about child labor in the cocoa industry.

However, in June 2022, a U.S. District Court dismissed the lawsuit due to lack of standing. The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a “traceable connection” between the seven defendant companies and the specific plantations where they claimed to have worked. This dismissal underscores the legal challenges in holding multinational corporations accountable for labor abuses in complex global supply chains, despite ongoing concerns about child labor in cocoa production.

THE MAGGI FIASCO

Did you know that between June 5 and September 1, 2015, approximately 38,000 tonnes of Maggi Noodles were withdrawn from retail shelves across India and destroyed.

In fact, The Maggi noodles controversy in India impacted Nestlé severely, causing Maggi’s market share to plummet from 80% to zero and threatening 25% of Nestlé India’s revenues. The issue began in March 2014 when food inspector Sanjay Singh found Maggi packets labeled “no added MSG” and sent samples for testing. By April 2015, tests revealed the presence of MSG and lead levels exceeding Nestlé’s claims by over 1,000 times.

Despite Nestlé’s reassurances in May, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) ordered a recall of Maggi noodles on June 5, 2015, leading to a significant crisis for the company in India.

An article titled Maggi: Trash in India, treat in UK, shed much light on the murky situation of the Maggi noodle debacle.

Read more at:
https://brandequity.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/business-of-brands/maggi-trash-in-india-treat-in-uk/47967935

However, the Nestle CEO at the time refuted MSG allegations after getting a clean chit from the UK. Here’s his statement from the time.

Among other multinational companies which sell products with safer formulations in first-world countries while offering inferior versions in developing countries were Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Johnson & Johnson.These findings were clearly supported by lab tests and expert analyses, demonstrating the harmful effects of substandard food products.

Reports have proven that Coca-Cola beverages in some developing countries contain much higher levels of sugar and different artificial sweeteners compared to those sold in developed markets. In some cases, preservatives banned in Europe and North America were found in products sold in Africa and Asia.

Similar to Coca-Cola, PepsiCo has also been criticized for using different formulations for their soft drinks in developing countries. These versions often contain higher sugar content and potentially harmful additives not used in their products for developed countries. In fact, in 2006, local governments expanded a partial ban on Pepsi and Coca-Cola products following a report by the Center for Science and Environment, which claimed the sodas contained dangerously high levels of pesticides. The report reignited protests and demands for regulatory action, with India’s Supreme Court asking Coca-Cola to disclose its secret recipe for verification.

Both companies defended their products’ safety saying:

“pesticides were present in the ground water in India and did find their way into food products but compared with the permitted levels in tea and other food products, pesticide levels in soft drinks are negligible.

Read more on the many struggles of Pepsico after being  held up as symbols of Western cultural imperialism here.

Not just food, in 2016, the New York Times reported that Unilever’s skin-lightening creams sold in Asia and Africa contained higher levels of mercury, a harmful substance, compared to those sold in Europe and North America and in 2018, Johnson & Johnson faced lawsuits in the United States over their talcum-based baby powder allegedly containing asbestos, a known carcinogen. It was revealed that the same products were sold in underdeveloped countries with less stringent regulatory oversight.

My Final Thoughts!

The discrepancy in food quality standards between first-world and third-world countries reflects a significant public health issue and an utter disregard for the Right to Food, which is a fundamental human right recognized by international law, that ensures that everyone has the opportunity to access sufficient, safe, and nutritious food necessary for a healthy life.

The higher levels of harmful substances allowed in foods in developing countries indicate a neglectful attitude towards the well-being of their populations.

And addressing this issue requires stricter regulations, better enforcement of existing standards, and greater accountability for multinational corporations to ensure equitable food safety worldwide.