Home » Misc » Cases of baby food

Cases of baby food


Shop for Baby Food Variety Packs

Filter

Filter

Puree Type

Milestones

  1. Pregnancy
  2. Newborn
  3. Supported Sitter 2items
  4. Sitter 5items
  5. Crawler 4items
  6. Toddler 3items
  7. Preschooler

Ingredients

  1. Apple 6items
  2. Apricot
  3. Avocado 1item
  4. Banana 4items
  5. Beef
  6. Blueberry 3items
  7. Carrot 3items
  8. Cereal
  9. Chicken
  10. Corn
  11. Green Bean 1item
  12. Ham
  13. Kale 1item
  14. Mango 3items
  15. Oatmeal
  16. Pea
  17. Peach 4items
  18. Pear 3items
  19. Pineapple
  20. Pumpkin
  21. Raspberry 2items
  22. Rice
  23. Spinach 2items
  24. Squash
  25. Strawberry 5items
  26. Sweet Potato 2items
  27. Turkey
  28. Zucchini 1item

Needs

  1. Colic
  2. Crying
  3. Fussiness
  4. Gas
  5. Mild Spit-Up
  6. Uncomfortable Poops
  7. Teething
  8. Vitamin D
  9. On the Go 6items
  10. Iron
  11. Starting Solids 3items
  12. Expanding Textures
  13. Probiotics
  14. DHA
  15. Prebiotics/2’-FL HMO

CLEAR ALL

Price - Low to High Price - High to Low Newest On Sale Top Sellers

Baby Food Autism Lawsuit |November 2022 Update

Our lawyers are handling baby food autism lawsuits for families who have a child that has autism as a result of baby foods that contain toxic heavy metals. Our law firm is handling these toxic baby food lawsuits in all 50 states. 

This page gives you an update on these suits in November 2022 and offers predictions of the settlement amounts victims can expect if these baby food austim claims are successful. 

Several major brands of baby food contain dangerously high levels of toxic heavy metals such as arsenic, lead, and mercury. These toxic substances are known to cause neurologic and other health problems in developing children. Consumption of these toxic baby foods may be linked to the development of conditions such as ADHD and autism.

Our autism baby food attorneys are currently accepting new autism lawsuits for children and families who suffered neurological injuries from the consumption of these toxic baby foods. If you fed Gerber brand baby food, or “Earth’s Best” brand baby food to your child and they were subsequently diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD or ADHD), autism, or another type of neurologic disorder, call our toxic baby food lawyers at 800-553-8082.  You may be entitled to significant financial compensation.

  • New 2022 Litigation: NEC baby formula lawsuits
  • New 2022 Litigation: Tylenol autism lawsuit - this is a claim many who suspect baby food caused their child's autism should also consider if applicable

UPDATES: Toxic Baby Food Autism Lawsuits

  • November 2022: One of the consumer class action cases involving heavy metals in baby foods against Plum was dismissed last month for failure to state a claim. In dismissing the case, a federal judge in New Jersey held that the plaintiffs did not have viable consumer fraud claims because they couldn’t show that they suffered financial harm. The plaintiffs claimed that they were defrauded because they purchased baby food thinking it was safe when it contained toxic heavy metals. According to the judge, however, the plaintiffs had not claimed because they could not show that the baby food was valueless. We would like to see these cases succeed but they have nothing to do with the merits of how baby food autism claims are being pursued.
  • October 2022: Toxic baby food lawsuits have been pushed aside a bit with the effort to seek a Tylenol autism class action lawsuit. But there are now over 100 lawsuits pending against baby food manufacturers claiming that they failed to warn about the presence of toxic heavy metals in their products. Recently, baby food companies such as Beech-Nut have filed motions seeking to dismiss many of these cases. The arguments made in these motions give us a good summary of what the defense strategy is going to be in these cases. First, the baby food companies are going to argue that there is not adequate scientific evidence showing that their products cause autism or are otherwise unsafe. Second, the baby food companies are going to assert a preemption defense based on the fact that the FDA has confirmed that their products are safe and that the tort claims conflict with the FDA’s authority to regulate heavy metals in baby foods. 
  • July 2022: We have been keeping a watchful eye on all the new toxic baby food lawsuits being filed in federal courts recently. In the previous 6 months, 14 new lawsuits have been filed against baby food manufacturers alleging that toxic metals in their products caused children to develop autism spectrum disorder. Nurture, Inc., the manufacturer of HappyBaby Organics products sold at Walmart, has been the most frequently named defendant with 7 new cases against it. Gerber is the second most common defendant with 4 cases. Hain Celestial and Sprout Foods are tied for third with 3 cases each.
  • May 2022: This month, a judge in California denied a motion by a group of baby food manufacturers that sought to exclude expert testimony suggesting that there may be a causal link between heavy metals in baby foods and the development of autism and ADHD. This is the biggest development in the history of this litigation.  The ruling in this baby food autism lawsuit - NC v. Han Celestial, et al. (Superior Ct. of Cal., Los Angeles County – means a jury will get to decide the merits of these lawsuits.  In this case, the family's lawsuit alleges their son's autism was caused by the ingestion of heavy metals in baby foods. To establish the necessary causation evidence, the plaintiff retained four expert witnesses (who we list below) who testified that lead, arsenic, and/or mercury are capable of being a major factor in causing autism and ADHD.   The defendants sought to prevent the case from moving forward by seeking the dismissal of all four experts because their opinions were scientifically flawed and undermined by “analytical gaps.” In a lengthy 61-page opinion, the judge denied this motion and allowed the case to move forward. This ruling could be very significant for the viability of toxic baby food lawsuits moving forward.  

Baby Foods Found to be Contaminated with Toxic Heavy Metals

In February 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Economic and Consumer Policy released a bombshell report which revealed that several major brands of baby food contain dangerously high levels of toxins. The shocking findings in the Subcommittee Report were the result of a long-term investigation into the safety of certain brands of baby food sold in the U. S.

The Subcommittee Report found that many top baby food brands (including Gerber and Earth’s Best) were found to be tainted with unsafe levels of very dangerous heavy metals including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury. Consumption of these metals, even in small amounts, is very hazardous to a developing child's brain.

Both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have warned about the dangers of these toxic elements. According to the FDA, research studies show that consumption or even just exposure to these heavy metals can be particularly hazardous for babies and young children. Specifically, these toxic elements cause neurologic damage and interfere with brain development in children.

The Subcommittee Report also found that the food manufacturers were aware that their baby food contained these high levels of known toxins. According to the report, Gerber and other baby food manufacturers chose to set their standards for what are “safe” levels for these elements in their products. Moreover, the investigation found that food makers routinely ignore their own already high standards, despite internal testing showing excessive levels of these heavy metals in baby food. 

Tainted Baby Foods Can Cause Brain Damage and Neurologic Disorders

The symptoms of toxic heavy metal poisoning and the symptoms of autism are very similar.  This is why many doctors believe early neurotoxic poisoning from these heavy metals in baby food, such as lead, cadmium, and mercury, are a potential cause or contributing factor in a child's autism.

So if your child consumed Gerber, Earth’s Best, or other baby food brands that contained high levels of heavy metals, they may have suffered neurologic and developmental delays from the metals in those foods.  Studies have shown that exposure to these heavy metals in childhood can cause brain damage, resulting in reduced intelligence and behavioral problems. 

Medical studies have long linked consumption of these metals in childhood to a substantial decrease in adult IQ and a reduced lifetime earning capacity.

Arsenic & Lead Levels in Contaminated Baby Food

Arsenic is an extremely toxic substance that is often used as a poison. The Subcommittee Report found some levels of inorganic arsenic in all baby food brands that were tested. There were two brands, however, that high extremely high levels that are considered unsafe by the FDA: Gerber and Earth’s Best.

The FDA has set the maximum safe level of arsenic in food or water at 10 parts per billion (“ppb”). Testing found that Earth’s Best brand of baby food (manufactured by Hain Celestial Group, Inc.) contained arsenic at 129 ppb – 13 times the level considered safe by the FDA. Testing of Gerber brand baby foods found arsenic at 90 ppb.

Unsafe levels of lead were also found in the same two baby food brands. Earth’s Best baby food was found to contain 352 ppb of lead and Gerber brand food contained 48 ppb. By comparison, the FDA has set maximum safe levels of lead for bottled water at 5 ppb. This means the tainted baby food contained 70 times the maximum safe level of lead.

(This makes the Earth's Best particularly offensive, right?  In a work awash with chemicals in our food, parents are drawn to the Earth's Best label. It certainly does not sound like baby food that has 70 times the safe level of heavy metals.) 

  • So many people ask how this could happen in 2022.  This April Politico article does a good job of explaining how we still allow toxic metals in children's food

Lead in Baby Food Causes Autism and Other Brain Injuries

Lead is a toxic heavy metal our lawyers are well familiar with from lead paint lawsuits.  It is a neurotoxin and carcinogen. Lead resembles other metals that a child needs. So it is easily absorbed into body tissue. Lead has a depressing ability to damage and kill cells in the body. This toxic metal also has an extended half-live, which gives it time to do even greater damage. The half-life of leads lasts for up to 30 years - 30 years! - in the child's bones. 

What is a safe level of lead for a baby?  The FDA, CDC, WHO, EPA, AMA, and AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) have told us that there is no safe level of lead for children.

Cadmium in Baby Food Causes Autism and Other Brain Injuries

While less well known than lead, cadmium is also a toxic heavy metal for babies and a known neurotoxin and carcinogen. It is one of only six hazardous substances banned from use in Europe in electrical and electronic equipment because of the risks to humans. 

Also like lead, Cadmium has a low rate of excretion from the body, especially in the kidneys and liver. Cadmium exposure also has been shown to adversely affect kidneys and bones and increase the risk of cancer. Just as concerning, Cadmium also functions as an endocrine disruptor which can impact a baby's neurodevelopment.

Mercury in Baby Food Causes Autism and Other Brain Injuries

Mercury is a neurotoxin that causes a baby to suffer brain damage.  This chemical attacks the nervous system and, like cadmium, has a particular impact on the kidneys and liver. Mercury has been shown to cause brain injuries, tremors, vision or hearing loss, and memory and other cognitive problems. There is also an association between autism and mercury levels.  Autistic children have higher serum levels of blood mercury.  

Arsenic in Baby Food Causes Autism and Other Brain Injuries

Inorganic arsenic is #1 on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's priority list of hazardous substances.  The body absorbs arsenic mostly via the digestive tract and the respiratory system.

Even in trace amounts, arsenic can cause brain injuries, including autism.  There is no question that arsenic can cause deficits in cognitive function and behavioral performance in children.

Example of a Baby Food Autism Lawsuit

Shortly after the release of the Congressional Report detailing the extent of heavy metal contamination in various major baby food brands, baby food autism lawsuits were filed around the country. These product liability lawsuits asserted that the baby food manufacturers knowingly products contaminated with toxic heavy metals and that the plaintiffs (or their children) developed autism as a result of consuming these tainted baby food foods.

A good example of one of these toxic baby food autism lawsuits is the case of Ibert v. Plum, et al., 4:21-cv-02066 (N.D. Cal.), which was filed in federal court in California last year. The 53-page complaint in Ibert lays out a detailed narrative of the discovery of dangerous levels of heavy metals in baby foods, beginning with the HBBF report and the subsequent congressional investigation. The complaint also details the numerous published studies identifying the link between autism and exposure to arsenic, mercury, lead, and other heavy metals during infancy.

In the “Plaintiff-Specific Allegations” section, this toxic baby food lawsuit states that the plaintiff (a minor bringing the case through his mother) regularly consumed baby food products manufactured by the defendant manufacturers (Hain Celestial, Plum, Beech-Nut, Gerber, and Sprout). The lawsuit asserts that these foods were contaminated with various heavy metals and that “prevailing scientific evidence” consumption of these metals in the food caused the plaintiff to develop autism.

The complaint goes on to plead seven separate product liability causes of action. The causes of action included strict liability claims for failure to warn, design defect, and manufacturing defect. The four negligence claims in this baby food autism lawsuit were based on the same three theories, plus an additional claim for negligent misrepresentation.   But the core of it is that these baby foods are tainted with toxic heavy metals that caused autism. 

Lawsuits Against Manufacturers of Toxic Baby Food

The Subcommittee Report revealing the contamination levels of Gerber and Earth’s Best baby food brands led to an immediate round of product liability lawsuits. So far, around 20 separate heavy metal autism lawsuits have been filed across the country against Geber, Hain Celestial, and other manufacturers.

Hundreds, possibly thousands more baby food autism lawsuits claiming a link between heavy metals and autism will likely be filed in the coming months. Plaintiffs in pending baby food lawsuits have already filed a motion asking the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate all toxic baby food cases into a new MDL in the Southern District of New York. If granted, this could set the stage for a new class action involving contaminated baby food.

The lawsuits are being filed by parents who fed the contaminated baby foods to children who were later diagnosed with various neurologic and/or cognitive disorders, or developmental/behavioral conditions. Based largely on the findings in the Subcommittee Report, the lawsuits allege that the baby food manufacturers knew that their baby food products contained dangerously high levels of toxic metals such as lead and arsenic. The claims assert that the manufacturers intentionally concealed and/or failed to disclose these contamination levels to consumers.

Is There a Baby Food Class Action Lawsuit for Autism? 

Right now, there is not an MDL baby food class action lawsuit that alleges these products cause autism or other neurological injuries.   These lawsuits are being pursued as individual autism lawsuits around the country.  As the number of filed lawsuits involving Geber, Earth's Best, and other toxic baby foods increases, you may see a baby food autism class action filed soon. 

A baby food class action lawsuit would be a mixed bag for victims. Yes, it makes it easier for plaintiffs who often get a settlement payout without much pre-suit discovery.  But the settlement amounts are sometimes higher with individual lawsuits because you have a better chance of getting a trial date (which facilitates larger settlement amounts and you have the possibility of going to trial and getting a verdict).

Consumer Baby Food Class Action Lawsuit

Thirteen plaintiffs filed a new consumer class-action lawsuit in February 2022 in California against a group of baby food manufacturers including Beech-Nut, Nuture Inc., Plum Inc., and Gerber. This class action lawsuit claims that the defendants violated various consumer protection laws by falsely marketing their baby food products as safe when they knew that the products contained toxic heavy metals.

The plaintiffs are all general consumers who purchased baby foods manufactured by the defendants. None of the plaintiffs claim that their children developed neurological damage or other adverse health effects from consuming the baby food. Rather, they are pursuing purely economic damages on behalf of themselves and other class members. 

The complaint contains a general fact allegation section which recites in detail the findings published in a U.S. Congressional Report last year revealing alarmingly high levels of toxic metals like arsenic and lead in various baby foods made by the defendants. The complaint sets forth 8 separate causes of action including 2 violations of California consumer protection statutes.

It is an all too common trope to dismiss these types of cases because only the lawyers make any money from them. But there is some truth to that charge with consumer class action lawsuits like this. 

What Settlement Amounts Can We Expect in the Autism Baby Food Lawsuits?

In most lawsuits like these baby food claims, any settlement amount the victims receive is proportionate to the injuries suffered.   The potential injuries in these lawsuits are catastrophic and the damages last a lifetime in terms of pain and suffering and lost earning potential of the victims.  

So the damages in baby food lawsuits can quickly get into the millions of dollars. This drives settlement compensation payout. Frankly, this is why you are seeing more baby food attorneys seeking new clients.  The settlement value of autism baby food lawsuits, if successful, will be substantial.  The average individual settlement amounts in successful cognitive injury class action could range between $500,000 and $1.5 million.  

Is There a Baby Food Class Action Lawsuit?

As our attorneys mention above, the baby food lawsuits have been mostly stand-alone.  But that may soon change. There is already a consumer baby food class action lawsuit.   In May 2022, a federal judge in California allowed plaintiffs to move forward with a proposed consumer class action against Walmart claiming it sold its “Parent’s Choice” brand baby food with dangerously high levels of toxic metals. Walmart was not one of the companies that cooperated with the Congressional Committee investigation. But an independent study by a non-profit organization tested Walmart brand food and confirmed that it contained high levels of heavy metals. 

This is often how these class action lawsuits develop, starting first with a consumer class action and evolving into an injury class action. So we might see that same evolution in the baby food autism lawsuits.  Plaintiffs once sought to bring an MDL class action. That effort was rejected by the MDL Panel which found that the claims were too fact-specific to each defendant. "The claims against each defendant thus are likely to rise or fall on facts specific to that defendant, such as the amount of heavy metals in its products, the results of its internal testing, if any, and its marketing strategies," the MDL Panel ruled.  

But in 2022 as these lawsuits continue to be filed at an accelerating pace, it might be feasible to have an MDL class action for each of the major defendants.    

Contact Our Lawyers About Filing a Toxic Baby Food Autism Lawsuit

Our lawyers are currently seeking new toxic baby food autism lawsuits from individuals who meet these criteria. If you fed Gebers or Earth’s Best brand baby food products to your children and they have subsequently been diagnosed with neurologic disorders, developmental delays, learning disabilities, or cognitive problems, call us today at 800-553-8082 for a free consultation. You can also get a free case review online.

Why is Nestlé baby food not finding adequate demand?

According to Euromonitor, in 2018, the largest growth in sales in the infant formula segment came from specially formulated foods for babies who have just transitioned from breastfeeding to formula. 123rf.com

Swiss food giant Nestlé is trying to diversify its baby food range and bring innovative products to market. The prospects here are promising. However, many critics are skeptical. And they have a reason to.

This content was published on January 10, 2020 - 11:00

Jessica Davis Pluss (Jessica Davis Pluss)

In the first weeks of life, baby Lindsay Beeson developed a rash, traces of blood on diapers, diarrhea and vomiting. Doctors diagnosed an allergy to cow's milk. Like many other mothers in her situation, Lindsey eliminated milk from her baby's diet and, in addition to breastfeeding, began to gradually introduce complementary foods with hypoallergenic infant formula. In the second year of his life, her son was switched to milk formulas specially designed for babies with allergies. “I knew that they contained a balance of proteins, fats and vitamins similar to the composition of cow's milk. And my son liked the taste,” she said in an interview with swissinfo.ch.

Show more

For global food concerns such as Nestlé, the development and launch of new formulas for infants up to one year of age, including those suffering from allergic reactions, requiring special dietary nutrition or simply picky eaters, is another and very important abroad in expanding the range of baby food.

Speaking to a group of journalists in Lausanne, Thierry Philardeau, Nestlé's Senior Vice President of Strategic Dairy Business Development, recently stated: all babies and their mothers." From a practical point of view, the concern's strategy is to fill the gaps that arise in the nutrition of mothers and their children, regardless of whether the children receive artificial feeding, natural breastfeeding or combination.

The Swiss concern continues to focus on the nutrition of premature babies and children with special medical conditions. And yet, in recent years, he has consistently increased investment in research and development in order to obtain new products for the nutrition of children after the age of six months of life, that is, for a particularly difficult period when breast milk alone is no longer enough to meet the nutritional needs of a child. , and a complete transition to artificial food has not yet taken place.

Artificial demand or valuable nutritional supplement?

Nestlé baby food has a direct impact on the health of millions of children around the world. More than 150 years have passed since Henri Nestlé (1814-1890) invented Farine Lactée, a baby porridge to support malnourished children. Today, Nestlé is the world's largest infant formula company. It has a fifth market share, followed by Danone in second place.

In recent years there has been a real boom in breastfeeding around the world. The profits of infant formula companies have fallen. Therefore, today these companies rely on "older babies" and on related products. According to EuromonitorExternal link , in 2018, the largest growth in sales in the infant formula segment was provided by specially formulated nutrition for children who have just switched from breastfeeding to artificial food.

External content

Today in supermarkets in almost every country in the world you can find the widest range of types of milk powder, dairy product concentrates and breast milk substitutes for children under one year old. It would seem great, but not everyone is satisfied with these products. Activists such as Patti Rundall are sounding the alarm. Since the 1980s, she has served as Director of Strategic Policy for Baby Milk ActionExternal link , an international network of baby food organizations. Since her filing, the world has experienced a number of very large litigations in connection with the production and sale of artificial nutrition from Nestlé Corporation.

Show more

What's the problem? It turns out that, according to her, the Nestlé and Danone concerns are the main initiators of the promotion of baby food for babies and milk formulas for children aged from 6 months to 3 years and further up to the age of nine. They use the same or very similar symbols (logos) as on infant formula, so parents, when they see the brand name, believe that they have a whole product line in front of them. However, new formulas for infant formula are just a marketing ploy.

“There is nothing new in them, so all milk formulas, starting with formulas “6 months+”, as well as formulas for children from 1 year to 3 years and older, are simply not needed, they are just a way to get more money out of parents’ pockets ”, P. Randall told swissinfo.ch. “This product should be removed from the market. But the market has become so huge that no one wants to do it, although everyone knows that they are dealing with violations of the provisions of the WHO Guidelines to stop inappropriate forms of promotion of foods for infants and young children.

More precisely, we are talking about the International Code on the Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, adopted by WHO in 1981. This document sets standards for ethically responsible marketing, including restrictions on advertising, sponsorship, and giving away free samples of infant formula. The default document proceeds from the fact that, anyway, only breastfeeding is the ideal nutrition for a healthy baby up to six months, which, in fact, Danone, Nestlé and their opponents agree with.

Pressure from the baby food industry

Controversy arises at the gray zone stage, when complementary foods with other foods and drinks can be introduced at about six months of age and older. You can enter, but is it necessary? And this is where the problem lies. Don't concerns create artificial demand, beneficial primarily to themselves? It is really difficult to understand this, the information received by parents from baby food manufacturers, doctors and staunch opponents of factory baby food is often contradictory.

Some scientific studies state that so-called “Third level milk formulas” for children aged one to three years are not needed, but they can help compensate for nutritional deficiencies, especially in cases of malnutrition or lack of certain nutrients substances in local foods”. So what's wrong with giving kids a better chance at delicious and most importantly healthy food?

Show more

Criticism of Nestlé has a long history. About forty years ago, breastfeeding activists first vociferously accused Nestlé of using an aggressive marketing strategy that resulted in mothers declining to breastfeed in favor of infant formula. The ensuing widespread boycott of Nestlé products led to major changes in the formation of marketing strategies.

However, Catherine Watt of the Geneva group La Leche LeagueExternal link , an international public private secular organization to support breastfeeding mothers, says that many women today stop breastfeeding earlier than they should. Why? “This is happening as a result of veiled pressure from the baby food industry, which has an arsenal of advertising in favor of various types of complementary foods and infant formula,” she said. “If there are doubts about whether the baby has enough breast milk, and there is some kind of milk formula in the closet, you just try to use it. And now you are already “under the hood” of the industry.”

Show more

In developing countries, the consequences of such a move can be most dramatic. CTO of the Breastfeeding Promotion Network of India BPNIExternal link JP Dadhich is particularly concerned about the high cost of these products, their negative environmental impact and potential risks of infection.

“We can't be sure about the quality of the water that these formulas are based on, which increases the risk of diarrhea. And this is in conditions when there is now enough milk of animal origin in India. After boiling, it is completely safe, in addition, it is quite acceptable here, taking into account the cultural traditions of the country. For children, it is better to use complementary foods from quality local products, continuing to breastfeed the child after 6 months.”

The World Health Organization (WHO) is also concerned that infant formula designed specifically for babies after one year of age can shorten the duration of breastfeeding by depriving the baby of important nutrients, especially if the products are labeled similarly and are promoted as more healthy alternative to breastfeeding due to the increased content of vitamins and minerals.

The devil is in the details

All this has caused and continues to cause heated debate between governments and food company lobbyists. “One of the challenges with regard to 'level 2' formula (after 6 months) is the need to understand whether foods for children aged 1 to 3 years should be considered specifically as 'substitutes' for breast milk, and if not, what should they be called.” Tom Heilandt of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, an international food standards group, tells us this.

Some governments would like to ban these formulas so as not to completely "kill" the motivation to breastfeed, while other countries want to leave the choice to consumers. India is a country with some of the most stringent regulations. Here, any products intended specifically for children under the age of two years are categorized as breast milk substitutes and thus fall under the international “Code of Regulations” of WHO. Group NestléExternal link says it has gone further than many other players in the industry by operating under European Union rules coming into effect in 2020.

Show more

At the same time, Nestlé opposes any additional regulation, arguing, based on studies already conducted in many countries, that any artificial nutrition alternative will still be less healthy than any mixture. “There is no point in restricting nutrition advertising for children under the age of one, especially when there are almost no restrictions on advertising Coca-Cola and other fast food anywhere,” says T. Filardo.

Always guilty?

Nestlé recognizes that it needs to proceed with caution given its history of high-profile scandals. “It’s not for you to sell chocolate, we have a huge responsibility. Every year we produce formula for 15 million children, which is equal to the population of the Netherlands,” says T. Filardo. At the same time, the company has already updated its marketing policy several times by creating a system for reporting violations and annually providing reports on compliance with its obligations.

Unlike the pre-1980s era, the company is very clear that "breastfeeding is the best feeding option." At the same time, she wants her food products for children to be almost in no way inferior in quality to breast milk. Critics say it's not enough to be "the lesser of the evils. " However, Nestlé argues that if the company is forced out of the baby food market, companies with more than a dubious reputation will take its place. This is especially true in countries with weak regulatory environments such as China, Russia, and the United States.

According to WHO, 58 countries around the world still do not have laws restricting the marketing of infant formula for children under one year of age. “I want to complete the story of Nestlé as a company that allegedly kills children,” says T. Filardo. “Let's move on without forgetting the past. We have drawn conclusions, we have changed. I want to look to the future, I don’t want to bear the stigma of the eternal guilty anymore, especially since someone, and our company, has done more in this area than many other companies.”

Show more

In accordance with JTI

standards

Show more: JTI certificate for SWI swissinfo.ch

Show more

Philips Avent baby food/milk storage boxes - Tallinn

10 €

€ 10. 00

On sale

Offer price

  • Added 07.11.2022 10:30
  • Condition New

Tallinn

Topsid ei olnud kasutuses, pakk on avatud. On olemas 15 säilituskarpi (8 x 180 ml, 7x 240 ml) ja 15 kaant.

Report

Thank you for your help!

Such appeals make oki doki better.

Similar ads