&quot;What, let a company supply a substance to intentionally harm people so they can sell them a cure?&quot;<p>Let&#x27;s not forget our history here, since it wasn&#x27;t exactly all that long ago. For decades, the consensus has been that the root cause of dietary issues is excessive fat in the diet, not sugar. Sugar was on the top of the food pyramid not because it was &quot;bad&quot; for you, but merely because it displaced other better things. I&#x27;ve been flame-roasted on HN in the last few years for being on the anti-sugar side, because consensus science and official government positions were strongly against the idea. It still isn&#x27;t even the consensus today that sugar is the problem.<p>(My read on the current situation is that the evidence strongly indicates that sugar is a major problem, though probably not the only one, and that the government is moving as quickly as it can to adjust its recommendations while <i>never having to admit they were in any way wrong</i>, which is a process that takes many, many years of little slight tweaks so that at every point they have cover to claim this is what they were saying all along. Such moral cowardice where they&#x27;d rather let millions of people continue hurting and dying rather than take even a hint of responsibility is why I don&#x27;t take my scientific cues from the government and recommend against anyone else doing it either.)<p>Trying to show that Nestle is &quot;deliberately harming&quot; people would require basically claiming that they should have <i>known</i> all nutrition science and government position was wrong and to some extent <i>is</i> wrong, since treating &quot;Sugar is bad&quot; as consensus is still premature!<p>(The mercy is that nobody has ever said it&#x27;s <i>good</i> for you, unlike transfats, so nobody really looks at you <i>too</i> weirdly if you drop it out of your diet.)