This was posted 3 years 9 months 15 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

½ Price Nestle Milo 30% Less Added Sugar or Plant Based Milo 395g $3.50 @ Woolworths

210
½ Price Nestle Milo 30% Less Added Sugar or Plant Based Milo 395g $3.50 @ Woolworths
Go to Deal
Cashback
Trishool on 01/02/2021 - 13:15 woolworths.com.au (160 clicks)
Last edited 01/02/2021 - 13:17 by 1 other user

Not sure if this is in store or online only, however I checked various post codes for AU wide and showing as "in stock".

Also available for 1/2 price:

Groceries Nestlé

Related Stores

Woolworths
Woolworths

closed Comments

  • RichardL on 01/02/2021 - 13:18
    +2

    Not sure if this is in store or online only

    Should nationwide and available in store (On page 6 of the catalogue)

  • life is suffering on 01/02/2021 - 13:18
    +2

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/business/hershe… read before you buy Nestle products

    • Trishool on 01/02/2021 - 13:29
      +1

      Thanks for the link. I had a tin of Milo at home and checked it says:

      UTZ Certified
      By buying UTZ certified cocoa, Nestle supports sustainable cocoa farming. UTZ certified farmers have been trained to implement better farming practices, with respect for people and planet. UTZ is a program and label for sustainable farming worldwide.

      So I did a bit of research on UTZ certification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTZ_Certified

      If you go down to the Code of Conduct section, under Social and Living Conditions, one of the criteria for UTZ certification is No forced labor or child labour.

      Is there anything contrary to this that you believe Nestle is supporting child labour by sourcing cocoa in another way?

      • MasterScythe on 01/02/2021 - 14:14
        +6

        It's an interesting read, and the truth is that it's so multi tiered you'll never know;
        The answer being "It most likely is".
        Problem with articles like that, is that they have an agenda, they want to make westerners feel bad because an emotional story sells well.

        If you read that article with a bias alarm switched on in your brain, the entire point is missed.
        Kids are sent there by their parents to 'find money'.
        They lie about their age, just to work.
        They want to go to school, but 'cant' (money probably).

        Also, the article points out they make roughly "Only $5 per day"; it's a US article, and if you've seen (even in a simple documentary) what $5 USD can do in those areas? That's "actual money", and there's a reason the workers stay on (I'm sure for some it's 'no option', but logic suggests there's more).
        That particular article even has one kid 'clearing a space for his own farm'.

        I'm not suggesting this is OK or good at all;
        far bloody from, but I've been involved in setting up call centers in poor countries in the past, and a "middle class" wage (for an area) is actually hugely beneficial to the local economy. You just have to hope like hell, that's whats happening. Not just the boss taking a 95% cut.
        You can't control that :( Wish we could; it would solve a lot (it's the one area where communism or socialism might work, if human corruption didn't exist; but it does, so it won't)

        You won't find an article in the west that's not bias.
        "Poor Africans" is good selling news, and "We'd never do that" is good company PR; nobody has an interest in showing the reality.
        You just have to apply some personal filtering if you've ever visited a 'poor country' or one that has a true slum-class.

        Child labour is bad. Very bad.
        No education is bad, Very bad.
        But what is likely worse, is losing your job in a town where the only key industry big enough to hire anyone is forced to downsize.

        I believe parents are parents; no matter where you go, or where you come from.
        For a parent to send their 10yo kid to "find money" is (hopefully) a last resort.

        Your best chances to actually help people, are NOT to attack their only income stream, but to try and find local (to them) charities to donate to, see if you can find (or start?) a group that will push governments to force a minimum wage, or punish exploitation of working age (as it's already illegal).

        But they're capitalist, and nobody's going to force these multinationals (who trade publicly) to sacrifice their revenue at multiple tiers, in order to trickle the pay backward.

        Hell, you have a hard time telling well-off Australians the medicare contribution is going up by a few decimal points; imagine trying to do that on the billion dollar scale, with investors wound in?

        That article really only does one thing; proves the 'rainforest alliance' is on the ground in that area; perobably a good place to start supporting the area if you feel the need, and trust THEIR donation stream is legitimate; half the western charities "pay well"….

        • modded on 01/02/2021 - 23:32

          Good write-up! You should post this somewhere else too, I fear it will get lost on this site

    • MasterScythe on 01/02/2021 - 13:29
      +4

      Good to be aware;
      Yet also make sure that other employment, or even better, unemployment\pensions exist before avoiding any company.
      If that doesn't exist yet, then keep buying, and start pushing for those services, in their country.

      'broken homes' are more common in poorer countries due to sickness, and a great deal of those kids are likely sole income earners for a family.

      We saw it when Bangladesh' textile industry was semi-boycotted;
      big spike in starvation and crime; most of the workers were 'single income' and had no alternate industry.

      I've said it before: Same goal, just a lot of people who think they're doing good boycotting a multinational are often fighting for the rights, in the wrong order.

    • Lizard Spock on 01/02/2021 - 13:44
      +2

      Life is suffering

    • Clear on 01/02/2021 - 13:54

      Read it. I recommend avoiding the canned instant Milo drinks sold as it's artificial/gross and nothing like what you get in SE Asia. Buy the tins and make it yourself.

    • Sleuth on 01/02/2021 - 13:59

      Two more to read (PDF)

  • Sleuth on 01/02/2021 - 13:42
    +7

    I wish the default for reduced sugar varieties wasn't to replace with artificial sweeteners.
    Just give me a less sweet Milo.

    • MasterScythe on 01/02/2021 - 13:48

      You're in luck with this product then :)
      While it's true that Stevia Glycosides are just one part of the plant, extracted and concentrated; nothing is artificially made about it.
      It is a naturally occurring sweet thing (that we can eat, and taste in the plant); it's just not in that strength.

      I'm really upset Coke Life and Pepsi Next (which used the same thing) didn't catch on.

      • Sleuth on 01/02/2021 - 14:10
        +1

        While I appreciate the use of natural alternatives, there is evidence Stevia has its own set of complications (change of composition and communication in microbiome).
        Source 1
        Source 2
        Source 3

        • MasterScythe on 01/02/2021 - 14:26
          +1

          Sure; but you only commented you wanted to avoid artificial sweeteners.
          I was only replying to your comment, not making a statement on my beliefs on sweeteners specifically.

          • Sleuth on 01/02/2021 - 14:47
            +1

            @MasterScythe: You're right, I shouldn't have specified artificial. Have a nice day.

    • boomramada on 01/02/2021 - 14:42

      This goes with any sugar free products out there, more sweeter, and the horrible after taste. I wish they just reduce the sugar level and make people get used it.

      • MasterScythe on 01/02/2021 - 17:56

        I agree. It's one of my favorite things about visiting Japan; lots of things are sugar monsters, but things with naturally strong flavours are just 'allowed' to be their own flavour. It's refreshing.

        Though, I don't mind this "less sugar" idea, so long as the sweetener they use is low enough.
        Stevia is the best for that; because it has it's own taste which you can get used to, and no after taste. I'm going to bet that between the lactose in the milk, and the sugar that remains, this is nothing but good news for most (assuming you're OK with stevia in general)

      • PukeyLuke on 01/02/2021 - 19:17

        Or for those that prefer it sweeter they can add sugar to taste.

  • Phoebus on 01/02/2021 - 15:36
    +2

    Vegan Milo? No thanks. I prefer pork in my Milo.

    • MasterScythe on 01/02/2021 - 19:11
      +1

      I tried porking my Milo; too gritty.

  • Oofy Doofy on 01/02/2021 - 20:14
    +2

    Plant based one tastes like garbage. The 30% reduced sugar one is okay. Maybe just use one less teaspoon of the normal stuff and achieve the same thing, lol.

  • toobzy on 02/02/2021 - 00:20

    The plant based one has less sugar than the reduced sugar one

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join