Nestle forced to reveal the shocking truth about Milo
Milo is a part of growing up for millions of Australians, but a shocking investigation from consumer advocacy group CHOICE has forced Nestle to reveal the truth about the drink – and it’s not pretty.
The investigation, which has prompted Nestle to drop Milo’s 4.5 Health Star Rating, found that previous estimates of the health benefits of the chocolate and malt benefit were incredibly misleading.
Milo’s previous health rating was based on someone making a cup with just three teaspoons and a glass of skim milk, which CHOICE contends is not the way most people consume the drink.
WIN! Following CHOICE's campaign, #Nestlé #Milo has agreed to remove their 4.5 health star rating from pack until the Government's review of the system is complete. https://t.co/qJsHRfRZM9 pic.twitter.com/QUYV21ItR8
— CHOICE (@choiceaustralia) February 28, 2018
Public health experts agree with the consumer group and believe Milo should receive a more accurate 1.5 star health rating.
“Most Aussies don’t consume Milo with skim milk alone,” Choice’s head of campaigns and policy, Katinka Day told News.com.au.
“To claim a health star rating by adding nutritionally superior ingredients of another product is not helpful, especially for people who eat their Milo with full cream milk, or even straight out of the can or on ice-cream,” Ms Day said.
“It’s a move that smacks of marketing trickery rather than a genuine attempt to help consumers make an informed choice.”
Ms Day believers the rating should be replaced with a more accurate description.
“While we welcome Nestle’s decision to ditch its dishonest star rating, it doesn’t go far enough. Milo needs to display a 1.5 star rating which reflects the product’s actual ingredients,” she said.
Nestle spokeswoman Margaret Stuart responded to the investigation, but said the rating would only be dropped by the powder and would be retained any additional Milo-branded products.
“It’s encouraging to see a growing body of evidence showing that the HSR is delivering on its key objectives,” Ms Stuart said in a statement.
“Crucially, it’s guiding shoppers who are comparing packaged foods within a category in store, and encouraging packaged food manufacturers to improve the nutritional content of their products, resulting in broader improvements across the food industry,” Ms Stuart said.
“The system, which was developed with the input of many stakeholders, is fundamentally sound, scientifically robust and compares well with front of pack labelling systems in other countries.”
What are your thoughts? Do you think Nestle has a case to answer for? Or are people blowing this one out of proportion?