Nestle ‘Reinvents’ Sugar, Set To Hit Shelves Next Year

Nestle the largest food company in the world, has reformulated sugar. This allows 40% less to be used in candy. It tastes the same and dissolves faster and stimulates the taste buds faster too.
All this from a company who has used child slave labor, and has been under international scrutiny of exploitation of fresh water resources.

The world’s largest food company recently announced that it had reformulated sugar with the hopes of using 40% less sweetener in its candy and sweets, but there’s a catch.

Nestlé, the world’s largest food company, has been the focus of international scrutiny for its exploitation of freshwater resources, use of child slave labor, and severe environmental violations.

However, the corporate behemoth, which manages over 8,000 different brands, is making headlines for a different reason this week after announcing that they have “reformulated” sugar.

This could allow 40% less sugar in some products once Nestle introduces this in 2018. This product, sugar lite, for some reason can only be used in candy, not soda.Hardly any info has been let out.

This “breakthrough” could allow them – and other food companies – to significantly reduce the amount of sugar in their products. Nestlé has said that they will be cutting sugar content by as much as 40% in some products once they begin introducing the new sweetener in 2018.

The “reinvented” sugar – dubbed “sugar lite” by the New York Times – would be used chiefly in candy products as, for still unknown reasons, it cannot be used to sweeten soda or other beverages.

However, Nestlé has released hardly any information about their discovery and how it was achieved.

wearechange.org...

Nestle has had some disregard for the safety of products in the past. They sold lead contaminated food in India and the question is can they be trusted in a new process that modifies sugar.
But the still need to go through the regulatory process, but other sweeteners that are suspect have been allowed to be put into the market.

To those who are wise to Nestlé’s past disregard for the safety of their products, this “explanation” clearly seems like smokes and mirrors as it essentially says nothing except that the structure of the new sugar is different.

Should the same company that knowingly sold lead-contaminated food in India be trusted to sell a modified sugar, especially if the process of its manufacture is a complete mystery?

I got a feeling alot of people are going to have or be claiming thyroid problems.

a reply to: muSSang

Why thyroid?

...We fear change...

a reply to: Jefferton

I fear change that is profit driven.

Color me suspicious!!!!!!!!
Something that cannot be added to liquids..that normally can...makes me wonder just what the heck they did to the sugar molecule to change it.

They're not talking about calories or carbs here....and since it's not patented....well, they are not talking.

How does the process work? Well, Nestle isn’t letting the world take a gander at the wizard behind the curtain just yet because the company is currently pursuing patents for it. The company would have preferred to wait to make the announcement until it had secured those patents, but the word was already on the street, so the company felt it had no choice.

naturalsociety.com...

Also, if I want something less sweet when I bake and cook....I just add less sugar!!!!!!!
Nope, not trusting this new product. Sounds like Frankenfoods to me.

www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: seasonal
Just take the CEO of Nestles idea that water is not a Human Right and should be Privatized by people like him. Or back in the 60's with there Nursing Formulas in third World Countries. Nestle is scum.

I bet it's some kind of MSG formula.

Man that's gonna give us sooo much cancer...

Usually these fake sugars turn out to be worse for you the the good old fashioned full fat version

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

With other sweeteners being OK'ed then an after thought of caution, I wonder what will be the bad in all this good.

a reply to: ColaTesla

And the food pyramid from the 1970's was all wrong. Turns out fat is good wheat is bad and rice and potatoes suck too. Who knew?

dp

On the surface sounds like a great idea, underneath as with all sugar and substitutes, they just aren't good for you. People, similarly with low and no fat/calorie foods, will eat more of the product under the assumption it's alright.

a reply to: ColaTesla

They're not using fake sugar.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

Something that cannot be added to liquids..that normally can...makes me wonder just what the heck they did to the sugar molecule to change it.

If you had read how they've made it, you might understand why it wouldn't work in liquids..

“It is sugar, but it is assembled differently so it can disassemble easily in your mouth with less going into your gastrointestinal tract,”

Dr. Catsicas compared a normal crystal of sugar to a shoe box, where the box is made of sugar and everything inside it is also made of sugar. The new sugar, he said, will be processed to have the same sugar exterior — though it may be a globe instead of a box — to dissolve in the mouth.

www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: seasonal

Yeah, but most of the sweeteners out there have problems.

The ones that are "sugar-free"....well, most have some issue or another.
That includes sugar substitutes.
Some ---sugar alcohols---can cause major stomach distress in large quantities.
Some cause other medical issues.

Best thing to do is eat less sugar.....not rely on whatever the companies come up with to keep the addiction going.

If we must use sweeteners, we use xylitol and stevia mixed.

a reply to: Chadwickus

Yeah, I read that.....

Sounds like they reinvented the sugar molecule to me.
So, it's not really sugar anymore.....they can call it sugar lite.....but it really isn't sugar.

the more they mess with out food trying to make it more healthy, the less healthy the people become..
sorry, I will just stick to the old fashioned sugar thank you!!

a reply to: ugmold

I saw that privatize water bit that CEO wants. Of course he does, and I think he has lost his mind. That would be a huge mistake.

Lot's of cities privatize certain aspects of the city and find out that is isn't so chummy. Things cost money to run, govt is EXPENSIVE, it is expensive everywhere. Do you like roads? Fire Dept? Schools? Water? Sewage? Buses? and the list goes on and on.
These can all be privatized, but the question is should they be?