Calls for an investigation intensify as the Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) directs the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to delve into allegations surrounding Nestle’s baby products. The trigger for this scrutiny? A report by Swiss NGO Public Eye and the International Baby Food Action Network, alleging that Nestle has been distributing baby products with elevated sugar levels in countries like India, among others.
Nidhi Khare, the Consumer Affairs Secretary and head of CCPA, affirmed the move, stating, “We have written to the FSSAI to take cognizance of the report on Nestle’s baby product,” in an interview with PTI. Concurrently, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has joined the fray, issuing a notice to the FSSAI in response to the report’s findings.
According to the investigation by Public Eye and IBFAN, Nestle’s sales strategy appears to vary significantly between regions. Specifically, baby products in less developed nations such as India, Africa, and Latin America contain noticeably higher sugar content compared to their European counterparts.
In response to these allegations, Nestle India issued a statement asserting its commitment to compliance and quality. The company spokesperson emphasized, “Reduction of added sugars is a priority for Nestle India. Over the past 5 years, we have already reduced added sugars up to 30 per cent, depending on the variant.” Furthermore, they stressed Nestle’s adherence to CODEX standards and local regulations, ensuring full compliance with nutritional requirements, including sugar content specifications.
The report singled out Nestle’s Cerelac, a wheat-based product targeted at six-month-old babies, for scrutiny. While the UK and Germany versions boast no added sugars, the Indian variant was found to contain an average of 2.7 grams of added sugar per serving across 15 samples. Notably, this sugar content was disclosed on the packaging, adhering to local regulations.
However, the situation appears more alarming in other regions. In Thailand, the highest sugar content recorded was 6 grams per serving, while in the Philippines, five out of eight samples contained a staggering 7.3 grams of sugar, with no indication on the packaging.
As the controversy brews, the focus shifts to the FSSAI’s response and subsequent actions. Will the investigation uncover discrepancies in Nestle’s baby products, as alleged by the report? Or will Nestle’s assurances of compliance and quality prevail in the face of these accusations?
Consumer advocacy groups and concerned parents await the outcome, hoping for transparency, accountability, and most importantly, the protection of infant health. For now, the spotlight remains on Nestle, as regulatory bodies work to ensure the safety and integrity of baby products in the market.
