Nestlé adds sugar to infant milk sold in poorer countries, report finds

2 years ago by MicroWave to c/world

Swiss food firm’s infant formula and cereal sold in global south ignore WHO anti-obesity guidelines for Europe, says Public Eye

Nestlé, the world’s largest consumer goods company, adds sugar and honey to infant milk and cereal products sold in many poorer countries, contrary to international guidelines aimed at preventing obesity and chronic diseases, a report has found.

Campaigners from Public Eye, a Swiss investigative organisation, sent samples of the Swiss multinational’s baby-food products sold in Asia, Africa and Latin America to a Belgian laboratory for testing.

The results, and examination of product packaging, revealed added sugar in the form of sucrose or honey in samples of Nido, a follow-up milk formula brand intended for use for infants aged one and above, and Cerelac, a cereal aimed at children aged between six months and two years.

In Nestlé’s main European markets, including the UK, there is no added sugar in formulas for young children. While some cereals aimed at older toddlers contain added sugar, there is none in products targeted at babies between six months and one year.

Buffalox 223 points 2 years ago

Nestle is a notorious scumbag company, personally I have avoided anything Nestle all my life, since when I grew up, there were already news about illegally bad quality/harmful formula food. I have NEVER heard a good thing about that company.

path: 0 9460810, hotness: undefined, score: 223, children: 16

disguy_ovahea 120 points 2 years ago

That’s surprisingly hard to do. Nestlé produces 35% of the products in a North American grocery store.

path: 0 9460810 9461974, hotness: undefined, score: 120, children: 13

Sweetpeaches69 54 points 2 years ago

I felt so betrayed the other day when I looked at my San Pellegrino and saw it was a Nestlé company.

path: 0 9460810 9461974 9462108, hotness: undefined, score: 54, children: 9

Dohnuthut 24 points 2 years ago

As of now, the only product I have to buy to support this atrocious company is Fancy Feast because it's the only food my picky senior cat will eat.

path: 0 9460810 9461974 9462108 9462866, hotness: undefined, score: 24, children: 5

EssentialCoffee 11 points 2 years ago

I was so happy I could get my cat off of Purina.

path: 0 9460810 9461974 9462108 9462866 9463608, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 0

jpeps 8 points 2 years ago

Ugh their firm grip on the pet food market endlessly pisses me off. I paid for a fancy B Corp certified cat food brand for years before realising it had been bought out by Nestlé

path: 0 9460810 9461974 9462108 9462866 9468341, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 0

Jessica 6 points 2 years ago

You're feeding your cat the equivalent of potato chips. No shit it's all they want to eat lol

Edit: I can't read. See below

path: 0 9460810 9461974 9462108 9462866 9473097, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 2

kautau 17 points 2 years ago

And Perrier, because why have one competing brand when you could have all of them

path: 0 9460810 9461974 9462108 9464915, hotness: undefined, score: 17, children: 1

disguy_ovahea 9 points 2 years ago

Perrier bought San Pelegrino, then Nestle bought Perrier. Perrier Group of America owned several water brands in the ‘90s and early ‘00s.

path: 0 9460810 9461974 9462108 9464915 9469456, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 0

Landless2029 5 points 2 years ago

I switched to Gerolsteiner and never looked back. It's amazing.

path: 0 9460810 9461974 9462108 9472634, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 0

Bishma 36 points 2 years ago

It looks hard, in practice it is not. I haven't knowingly purchased a Nestle product in over decade. Mistakes happen now and again, but when they do I add that brand to my mental list and move on.

Where it gets confusing is international brand ownership differences. For example, Cheerios is still made and distributed by General Mills in North America, but by Nestle in most of the rest of the world.

path: 0 9460810 9461974 9463446, hotness: undefined, score: 36, children: 1

JokklMaster 10 points 2 years ago

Operative word being: knowingly.

path: 0 9460810 9461974 9463446 9473884, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 0

otp 4 points 2 years ago

No...not Maggi!!

path: 0 9460810 9461974 9469358, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0

Cheradenine 29 points 2 years ago

They have been doing things like this since at least the '70's .

path: 0 9460810 9461731, hotness: undefined, score: 29, children: 1

Buffalox 12 points 2 years ago

Yes I'm 61, and that's what I remember. But what's worse is that they continue to do it, so there are regular scandals about it. That's why I've never forgiven the company, because when it could have been time, there's a new scandal.

path: 0 9460810 9461731 9467599, hotness: undefined, score: 12, children: 0

nutsack 188 points 2 years ago

they also tell doctors in these poor countries to give the stupid products to new mothers with perfectly normal milk production. they tell them it's better than natural milk. It's an American product, and they buy into it because they want their kid to be smart like an American. Nestle is an awful company.

path: 0 9464105, hotness: undefined, score: 188, children: 11

affiliate 72 points 2 years ago

it’s worth mentioning that very rarely is baby formula better than breast milk. the contents of breast milk change depending on the what the child needs at the moment. it’s really sick that some companies market it as a better option than breast milk

path: 0 9464105 9466903, hotness: undefined, score: 72, children: 2

A_Random_Idiot 42 points 2 years ago

whats really sick is the fact that nestle gave free formula to women in poor companies, telling them that it was better, just long enough for their breast milk to dry up, before starting to charge them insane prices for it.

path: 0 9464105 9466903 9473338, hotness: undefined, score: 42, children: 0

TheFriar 3 points 2 years ago

Well, capitalism sees a vacuum where there’s no need and artificially creates need.

Of course there are a percentage of women who can’t breastfeed or babies who won’t, but as you said, they wedged the shitheel of companies into a space with limited need and lied to people, making babies less healthy and less developed. For money.

But it’s the best system there is, right? “Effective” and “best” don’t mean the same thing. But here we are. Led by greedy fuckers, tricking idiots, buying people up the information chain, to fool literally everyone.

Dog food is another great example. Did you know that iams/purina/science diet fund a ton of veterinary schools? They basically own the schools and inject their own “lessons” into the nutrition curriculum. Not to mention they turn vets into even higher priced retail food sales by calling it “prescription” food. That food is dog shit. Not dog food. But hey, capitalism “innovated” this type of shit into existence. And, this is just my opinion, but the fact that the food is so shitty I think might be calculated too. Get the dogs to have worse health, bring them back to the vet, more opportunities to sell a super cheaply made food at incredibly inflated prices.

Fuck capitalism. That’s all I have to say. Fuck it straight to hell.

path: 0 9464105 9466903 9498454, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0

BenchpressMuyDebil 50 points 2 years ago

Smart like an American?

path: 0 9464105 9465020, hotness: undefined, score: 50, children: 2

TropicalDingdong 18 points 2 years ago

smort

path: 0 9464105 9465020 9465202, hotness: undefined, score: 18, children: 1

csm10495 15 points 2 years ago

S m r t

path: 0 9464105 9465020 9465202 9466004, hotness: undefined, score: 15, children: 0

TheMusicalFruit 39 points 2 years ago

Nestle is a Swiss company.

path: 0 9464105 9464396, hotness: undefined, score: 39, children: 2

nutsack -1 points 2 years ago

GET OIT OF MY ROOM, DAD

path: 0 9464105 9464396 9466071, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 1

aidan 4 points 2 years ago

It even says that in the first line of the post

path: 0 9464105 9464396 9466071 9474355, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0

T156 29 points 2 years ago

The babies going on formula means that the mother's milk supply dries up when the baby isn't having any, and that they're then dependent on it, since it is quite difficult to start producing milk again after.

path: 0 9464105 9466884, hotness: undefined, score: 29, children: 0

tacosplease 6 points 2 years ago

They also used to send their sales reps dressed like doctors

path: 0 9464105 9496685, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 0

EdibleFriend 109 points 2 years ago

If there was a profit in dropkicking the babies Nestle would be doing it in a heartbeat

path: 0 9461994, hotness: undefined, score: 109, children: 2

Bishma 39 points 2 years ago

Obligatory !fucknestle@lemmy.world

path: 0 9461994 9463490, hotness: undefined, score: 39, children: 0

someguy3 22 points 2 years ago

Economics says anything that turns a profit is morally right and good! (not sarcasm, many people think this.)

path: 0 9461994 9462778, hotness: undefined, score: 22, children: 0

AccurstDemon 53 points 2 years ago

!fucknestle@lemmy.world

path: 0 9463651, hotness: undefined, score: 53, children: 0

Ensign_Crab 45 points 2 years ago

Sugar and honey? Aren't you not supposed to give honey to infants?

path: 0 9460745, hotness: undefined, score: 45, children: 7

Fiivemacs 35 points 2 years ago

They don't care, it's about forming that early addiction to sugar. Thats all they want. More sugar consumption and addiction.

path: 0 9460745 9463068, hotness: undefined, score: 35, children: 0

QualifiedKitten 33 points 2 years ago

added sugar in the form of sucrose or honey in samples of Nido, a follow-up milk formula brand intended for use for infants aged one and above,

I hate that it sounds as if I'm defending them, but the only specific mention of honey does say it was in a product targeted at children over 1 year old. I believe the recommendation I've heard is that honey is dangerous for children under 1 year old. But fuck, if unsweetened products are good enough for infants in wealthy countries, WTF are they doing adding it to products aimed at infants in poorer countries??

path: 0 9460745 9461034, hotness: undefined, score: 33, children: 1

Passerby6497 41 points 2 years ago

if unsweetened products are good enough for infants in wealthy countries, WTF are they doing adding it to products aimed at infants in poorer countries??

Getting their customers addicted early.

path: 0 9460745 9461034 9461813, hotness: undefined, score: 41, children: 0

mp3 24 points 2 years ago

You can't give them honey because it can cause botulism. The risk is greater with unpasteurized honey, but it seems pasteurized honey can also carry the bacteria and their weak immune system might not be able protect them.

https://www.canada.ca/...

path: 0 9460745 9461062, hotness: undefined, score: 24, children: 1

sik0fewl 27 points 2 years ago

It's not the immune system, but rather their stomachs are not acidic enough to neutralize the bacteria.

They could still heat the honey enough in an industrial setting (beyond just pasteurization) to kill the bacteria as well, so I doubt that's a real concern.

path: 0 9460745 9461062 9461660, hotness: undefined, score: 27, children: 0

Toes 12 points 2 years ago

You aren't because it can contain harmful stuff but I suspect it's so ultra processed by this stage it won't matter.

path: 0 9460745 9460852, hotness: undefined, score: 12, children: 0

Imgonnatrythis 10 points 2 years ago

Come closer son, and let me just tell you a little secret about Nestlé corporation...

path: 0 9460745 9465078, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 0

chemicalprophet 32 points 2 years ago

Nestle is comically evil, but it's just not funny.

path: 0 9491594, hotness: undefined, score: 32, children: 0

FlyingSquid 26 points 2 years ago

Maybe I missed it in the article, but isn't it more expensive for Nestlé to add the sugar than to not use it? I don't understand their motivation here. I mean, I assume it's evil considering what company this is, I just don't understand it.

path: 0 9461060, hotness: undefined, score: 26, children: 21

Pogogunner 81 points 2 years ago

Sugar is psychologically addictive

path: 0 9461060 9461167, hotness: undefined, score: 81, children: 6

ours 18 points 2 years ago

And super cheap.

path: 0 9461060 9461167 9462191, hotness: undefined, score: 18, children: 0

FlyingSquid -16 points 2 years ago

I agree, but kids will be addicted to sugar pretty quickly regardless. Maybe that's the reason, but it seems like an awfully big expense when all they have to do is sell chocolate and the kids come running.

path: 0 9461060 9461167 9461189, hotness: undefined, score: -16, children: 4

RootBeerGuy 48 points 2 years ago

Yeah, but this is milk. For small babies that don't eat solid food. This is basically training them to crave sugar as early as possible.

path: 0 9461060 9461167 9461189 9461572, hotness: undefined, score: 48, children: 1

AmidFuror 8 points 2 years ago

It's in a follow-up milk for kids over 1 and in a cereal.

path: 0 9461060 9461167 9461189 9461572 9461898, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 0

cley_faye 23 points 2 years ago

Kids don't get addicted to sugar much if there isn't much sugar intake occasion. I'm sure they checked the market and found that they could sell more sugar-based product later with this initial push.

path: 0 9461060 9461167 9461189 9461425, hotness: undefined, score: 23, children: 0

otp 4 points 2 years ago

In poorer countries, they might not buy non-essentials like sweets and chocolate as much as in the West. This ensures the sugar addiction starts early!

path: 0 9461060 9461167 9461189 9469446, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0

treefrog 42 points 2 years ago

path: 0 9461060 9461235, hotness: undefined, score: 42, children: 4

xhieron 6 points 2 years ago

I can't ever think about Coke marketing anymore without being reminded of the most evil thing I've ever seen committed to film.

https://screenmusings.org/...

path: 0 9461060 9461235 9461777, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 3

glimse 15 points 2 years ago

Remind me how that guy/scene relates to coke? I haven't seen that movie since it came out

(Not arguing! I just need a refresher to get the reference)

path: 0 9461060 9461235 9461777 9461989, hotness: undefined, score: 15, children: 2

xhieron 10 points 2 years ago

He meets the kids and hands them each a Coke as a way of presenting himself as friendly and generous--and it looks like a marketing money shot; I wish I could find a gif of it. Those Cokes look like ambrosia from heaven.

And then a few scenes later he's putting out kids' eyes to make them more effective beggars.

path: 0 9461060 9461235 9461777 9461989 9462885, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 1

Anamana 27 points 2 years ago

Their motivation might be to get the kids hooked on the stuff early on. Sugar works like a drug in some ways by releasing dopamine in the brain and if you train your brain early on it will affect it longterm. Plus it will influence their future taste preferences. Everything else, besides Nestle's oversugared snacks will taste bland in comparison. Leading to kids crying at supermarket checkouts to get their favourite snacks :D

path: 0 9461060 9461269, hotness: undefined, score: 27, children: 2

Pretzilla 8 points 2 years ago

Some brain and a bunch of gut biome I suspect.

Once the sugar eating biome get established they rule the roost.

path: 0 9461060 9461269 9462043, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 1

Anamana 3 points 2 years ago

Also social factors come to play, like influencing purchasing behavior, cooking, food at restaurants etc

path: 0 9461060 9461269 9462043 9462384, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0

jol 27 points 2 years ago

I'm pretty sure sugar is cheaper than the rest of the formula by weight. They are essencial ly cutting formula with a cheaper more readily available product.

path: 0 9461060 9461503, hotness: undefined, score: 27, children: 1

wintermute_oregon 0 points 2 years ago

path: 0 9461060 9461503 9465153, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0

Annoyed_Crabby 15 points 2 years ago

Babies like sugary thing, adding it in formula make sure babies refuse healthier alternative other than product made by Nestle for at least 3 years.

path: 0 9461060 9461482, hotness: undefined, score: 15, children: 0

someguy3 9 points 2 years ago

I assume they then dilute it back down so it's the same calories per 100 ml. Sugar is cheap.

path: 0 9461060 9462849, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 0

KISSmyOSFeddit 6 points 2 years ago

1kg formula/sugar-mix is cheaper than 1kg pure formula

path: 0 9461060 9465177, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 0

wintermute_oregon 2 points 2 years ago

path: 0 9461060 9465149, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

TokenBoomer 13 points 2 years ago

Cut it with Ozempic to even it out.

path: 0 9474694, hotness: undefined, score: 13, children: 0

SomeGuy69 13 points 2 years ago

As if we needed any more reasons to hate Nestlé. If they ever find a sugar that's as addictive as heroin, they'd sell it to the world without telling anyone.

path: 0 9464312, hotness: undefined, score: 13, children: 0

Nougat 9 points 2 years ago

Nestlé, the world’s largest consumer goods company, adds sugar and honey to infant milk and cereal products sold in many poorer countries, ...

Isn't honey verboten for infants because of the possibility of severe allergic reaction?

path: 0 9464954, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 3

Bgugi 8 points 2 years ago

Not allergies, botulism

path: 0 9464954 9468215, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 0

CptEnder 4 points 2 years ago

Correct

path: 0 9464954 9465714, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 1

Kage520 6 points 2 years ago

I think that's incorrect. Not against the honey, but the reasoning. I think it can harbor anaerobic bacteria which the child's immune system is not ready to handle.

path: 0 9464954 9465714 9467411, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 0

UltraMagnus0001 7 points 2 years ago

Ahhh, liver damage from a young age

path: 0 9466678, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 2

Dkarma 4 points 2 years ago

It goes way beyond that:

https://www.psypost.org/...

path: 0 9466678 9467900, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 1

UltraMagnus0001 3 points 2 years ago

emmmm, saturated fats and preservatives. Merica!

path: 0 9466678 9467900 9468549, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0

jet 6 points 2 years ago

I see they are trying to start metabolic syndrome very early indeed.

path: 0 9462028, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 0

cordlesslamp 5 points 2 years ago

Johnson & Johnson: Finally, our battle will be LEGENDARY!

path: 0 9463182, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 0

maniel 2 points 2 years ago

Why in poor countries? Why not in more developed markets? Is lack of regulations the main reason?

path: 0 9462489, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 2

someguy3 8 points 2 years ago

Lower purchasing power. Companies do the same for products shipped to eastern Europe.

path: 0 9462489 9462832, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 0

Blackmist 1 point 2 years ago

Sugar tax maybe?

path: 0 9462489 9463810, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

MonkderDritte 2 points 2 years ago

path: 0 9467126, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

sirico 2 points 2 years ago

As its always beenStand up from about 20 years ago

path: 0 9489924, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 1

PipedLinkBot 1 point 2 years ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

Stand up from about 20 years ago

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

path: 0 9489924 9489935, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

autotldr 1 point 2 years ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Nestlé, the world’s largest consumer goods company, adds sugar and honey to infant milk and cereal products sold in many poorer countries, contrary to international guidelines aimed at preventing obesity and chronic diseases, a report has found.

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.”

It is not always easy for consumers in any country to tell whether a product contains added sugar, and how much is present, based on nutritional information printed on packaging alone.

The UK recommends that children under four avoid food with added sugars because of risks including weight gain and tooth decay.

Biscuit-flavoured cereals for babies aged six months and older contained 6g of added sugar for every serving in Senegal and South Africa, researchers found.

A Nestlé spokesperson said: “We believe in the nutritional quality of our products for early childhood and prioritise using high-quality ingredients adapted to the growth and development of children.”

The original article contains 774 words, the summary contains 180 words. Saved 77%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

path: 0 9460594, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

coolteathatisgreen 1 point 2 years ago

Maybe they are trying to cut cost to able to sell cheap in poor country

path: 0 11206975, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

jellyhuemul -1 points 2 years ago

Until recently in my country, baby formula for babies from 0 to 6 months had to be prepared with 3 grams of sugar or maltodextrin (and 2 ml of vegetal oil) every 100 ml (we had to add it manually along the formula powder). Because it was not enough. It changed because now we have access to formula that doesnt need to be modified to meet babies needs. Maybe the "per serving" in the article is misleading, and I didnt find a direct comparison between the exact product for the same age in the article. And, I don't defend Nestlé either but I think the information given is very incomplete and only creates worry. English is not my first language.

path: 0 9486808, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 0

Burgomaestre_paris -2 points 2 years ago

path: 0 9461437, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 0

MonkderDritte -6 points 2 years ago

path: 0 9466955, hotness: undefined, score: -6, children: 3

whoreticulture 11 points 2 years ago

WHO guidelines for the European region say no added sugars or sweetening agents should be permitted in any food for children under three. While no guidance has been specifically produced for other regions, researchers say the European document remains equally relevant to other parts of the world.

I don't know what motivates you to simp for Nestle of all companies lmao

path: 0 9466955 9467216, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 2

MonkderDritte -6 points 2 years ago

And in African region?

I don't know what motivates you to simp for Nestle of all companies lmao

Sometimes there"s baseless ragebait. I never said Nestle is not evil.

path: 0 9466955 9467216 9467328, hotness: undefined, score: -6, children: 1

whoreticulture 1 point 2 years ago

Read the second sentence of what I quoted.

path: 0 9466955 9467216 9467328 9496270, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

tortillaPeanuts -10 points 2 years ago

2 to 6.8 grams of sugar is less than 2 teaspoons, it's not much sugar. The US guidelines recommend substituting no-calorie sweeteners instead, so it's probably just a manufacturing issue not some evil corporate plot. Also the honey is in a product for kids 1 year and older which is safe.

path: 0 9468546, hotness: undefined, score: -10, children: 2

Sentrovasi 7 points 2 years ago

Just a small but very important correction: the article says 6 grams per serving. Giving them two extra teaspoons with the small amount that babies take is much more significant.

EDIT: A quick search said that one serving of baby food tends to be around 75g? That means that that's 8% of it being pure sugar.

path: 0 9468546 9476625, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 0

SoleInvictus 3 points 2 years ago

That's a decent amount for a small child, about half the maximum daily intake for a one year old. The recommended amount for children up to four (at least in the UK) is none.

path: 0 9468546 9473876, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0

IonAddis -19 points 2 years ago

path: 0 9461331, hotness: undefined, score: -19, children: 2

Contingencyfork 23 points 2 years ago

Yes babies are supposed to be fat. But not from sugar. To the best of my knowledge , when they are older and able to consume solid foods, things like actual fat or butter are fine ( the stuff that clogs arteries etc) but there is no point in a baby's development that requires sugar as a necessity.

So it's not really that the article is based on guidelines for adults and applying it to babies. It's simply that the guideline for babies is that sugar is not necessary and can actually be more harmful than a multitude of other alternatives that can fulfill the same energy requirements of a baby subsistent wholly on milk.

path: 0 9461331 9461985, hotness: undefined, score: 23, children: 0

SlippiHUD 22 points 2 years ago

If you read the whole article it also explains that it's European version of the same product doesn't contain added sugar.

The auto summary missed some key points in the article.

path: 0 9461331 9461512, hotness: undefined, score: 22, children: 0

world

@lemmy.world

login for more options

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/...

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

go to feed...

world

@lemmy.world

login for more options

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/...

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

go to feed...