I would hazard to say that the analogy I've chosen aligns more closely with the stance of the article and the posters taking a condemnatory tone than your Yamaha analogy does.
The parent opinion is that Nestle is a large corporation and they are diversifying their revenue streams as every profit-seeking company is entitled to.
The other opinion elsewhere on this thread is that sugar is the enemy and therefore Nestle should be held accountable for first causing a problem then charging people for offering the solution.
It's probably going to be hard to reconcile either opinion given the subject of sugar in diets is already quite divisive, but is an attempt to illustrate the anti-sugar camp's perspective through an extreme but easily understood example not constructive?
To be sure, this isn't a natural right. The entitlement is entirely a creation of policy and legislation, both of which can be modified or rescinded.
Every company has to have a social responsability, I don't see it here. They are causing harm with their products and they also sell the 'cure'. (actually the best is not to eat any of their products, then you don't need anything they sell, just eat 'real', non processed, food).
About Yamaha, motorcycles shouldn't make that many noise, that is the main problem, not the headphones.
I question it.
There appears to be little-to-no scientific evidence that there are "bad" sugars and "good" sugars. From what I understand (I'm no doctor, just a person who reads a lot) the main problem is the volume of consumption, not "good" vs "bad" sugars. There's nothing wrong with a normal, healthy person having sugar in any of the forms Nestle sells, only with having too much of it.
Now, you could argue that they sell it in quantities that make it easy to have too much, but that's different from saying the sugar itself is bad.
Meaning a can of soda has a whacky amount of sugar to begin with, but also, if compared to say an orange, has no fiber/roughage (which helps the insulin spike supposedly, plus orange will have good micro-nutrients and antioxidants).
I think people should be much more mindful of these manufactured processed foods and drinks, and why sticking to whole foods just makes sense.
but not the sugar itself -- it's the same chemical. (There are those who believe certain types of sugar are processed differently in your body, which is actually not true, at least based on the large body of scientific evidence available thus far.)
* I have no proof of this. I'm making an uneducated guess that the insulin spikes aren't as steep or high with sweet fruits and vegetables compared with a spoon full of sugar.
Again, is Nestle's sugar somehow chemically different than ordinary sugar?
I dunno, I think sugar is pretty delicious. Not everything has to be about maximizing your lifespan, you know. A balanced life can include tasty stuff.
At the end it is all about balance as you say, but I really prefer to be balancing between meals that are too caloric than processed foods which we don't even know which ingredients contain.
I did not in any way say Nestle is not selling the cause and the solution, I was trying to make that point that this in itself is meaningless and in no sense immoral.
As kazinator brilliantly put it:
"Yamaha wants to sell you noise-canceling headphones, and a motorcycle."[1]
We can talk about a tax on sugars, we can talk about a different regulatory framework, but I see nothing wrong with what Nestle is doing here given the current legal and regulatory situation.
And people make their choices, if Nestle wouldn't sell product x, someone else would in some form, they are trying that you choose their product, that's all, that's called competition.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11659815