The world’s biggest food and beverage companies on average sell products in low-income countries that are less healthy than what they sell in high-income countries, according to a new report.
Products sold by companies including Nestle, Pepsico and Unilever were assessed as part of a global index published by the Access to Nutrition Initiative (ATNI), its first since 2021.
The non-profit group found that across 30 companies, the products sold in low-income countries scored lower on a star rating system developed in Australia and New Zealand than those sold in high-income countries.
In the Health Star Rating system, products are ranked out of 5 on their healthiness, with 5 the best, and a score above 3.5 considered to be a healthier choice.
In low-income countries, the multinationals’ portfolios rated 1.8 on the system. In high-income countries, where more products were tested, they were 2.3.
“It’s a very clear picture that what these companies are selling in the poorest countries in the world, where they are more and more active, are not healthy products,” said Mark Wijne, research director at ATNI, in an interview with Reuters.
“It’s a wake-up call for governments in these countries to be vigilant,” he added.
It is the first time the index has split the assessment into low and high-income countries.
ATNI said the index was important as packaged foods are increasingly playing a part in the obesity crisis that is now a global phenomenon. More than one billion people worldwide are living with obesity, according to the World Health Organization. The World Bank estimates that 70% of people who are overweight or obese live in low-and-middle-income countries.
"We have committed to grow our sales of more nutritious foods, as well as guiding people towards more balanced diets," a Nestle spokesperson said by email, adding that Nestle also fortifies products to help close nutrient gaps in developing countries.
A PepsiCo spokesperson declined to comment. The company last year set new goals to lower sodium in its potato chips and add ingredients like whole grains into its foods.
© Thomson Reuters 2024.
10 Comments
Login to comment
falseflagsteve
What do you expect, it’s all about profits first. These companies have to run in a psychopathic manner to increase profits constantly to please shareholders. It’s the modern way and won’t end unless we change everything and that won’t happens because money talks and money equates to power and control.
TaiwanIsNotChina
Unhealthy food is also extremely long lasting. Bacteria literally don't know what to do with sugar water and fat.
Pukey2
TaiwanChina:
Try eating a lot of sugar and then see what happens to your teeth if you stop brushing them every day.
Eyes rolling.
Zaphod
I can not imagine any version of the products described that are healthy in the first place, so "less healthy" is a pretty meaningless term.
wallace
The same applies to pharmaceutical drugs that are banned in the West and then sold in third-world countries.
Zaphod
wallace
There are also drugs that routinely used in Africa, are safe and effective (but with little profit margin), but are vilified in the West for political reasons. So the picture is not always that clear. Also, does that brownish soda concoction in Mexico not contain real sugare, while in the US it contains the much worse corn fructose?
dobre vam zajebava
its capitalism in its purest form.
all is about greed and profit.
no science behind.
TaiwanIsNotChina
Different concentration
Indeed
BertieWooster
"Less healthy" is being unnecessarily polite. "Yet more poisonous" would be nearer the truth!
kibousha
Article doesn't say why, so here's one reason.
Poor countries, usually have politicians that are easy to bribe, resulting in less restrictive additives control. Food companies are free to replace as much ingredients with cheap alternatives short of directly killing people outright. In some countries, they even hire thugs to silence protesters.
Colonization didn't go away, they just changed into "adopt free market capitalism or we incite coup in your country".