Scandal ! Shock and horror!

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Last night , I was shocked. Utterly amazed, even.

I found myself mentioning the Nestle Boycott to someone and they said "yeah , I know about the Nestle Boycott"
But someone else said
Companies can and should be able to provide this option without being accused of just being money-grubbing.
So, lets look at what Nestle is actually doing in poor, developing countries. Ok, corporations should be able to offer goods and services - I agree. But, is Nestle offering an ethical service, or are they indeed 'money grubbing'?

For the record, I am not anti capitalism per se, but when a company like Nestle goes into the developing world, the poorer nations, or whatever we used to call the Third World this week and agressively promotes their product to women who don' really need and really can't afford their products - I call this corporate vandalism, if not manslaughter.

Seriously, my wife and I won't have a product made by Nestle or any of its subsidiaries in the house or the shopping basket until they quit the aggressive and high pressurised marketing of their products in the poorer nations.

I mean like ~everyone~ who cares about what happens to women, or their children in poorer nations ought to be on the Nestle boycott, and ought to be writing to the company and saying why they are on it.

You might well tell me that "You have been doing this for decades, and the problem is still here". Ok, but it is the principle. Economic boycotts worked against Iceland, and will work against Nestle if enough people know and get on board and tell the company why they did it.

So, have a link. Yes, I am using Wiki.
Any challenges against Wiki will be met with the sources they cite against this company.
Lets have it out. if anyone thinks that Nestle is being badly treated by Wiki or anyone else, step up please, and make your case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott

I also looked for tags on Nestle, Boycott and stuff like that. We don't do them it seems. Scandalous!

Comments

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

To hell with the baby milk, Nestlé had close ties to Nazi Germany, Mugabe's Zimbabwe and North Korea.

Nazi or not, I do love me some Hot Pockets™.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Nazi Germany was defeated.
nestle is still killing babies indirectly by selling stuff that poor women don't need, can't afford, and isn't as good for baby as breast milk is.

[midsummerskies.livejournal.com]

I'm sure Nestle is in it just for the money, however that comment was a valid one, some women can't breastfeed. what do you propose happens in these cases?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

I think that the clinics, the health workers and anyone else that the mother has recourse to should have access to baby milk formula, and be given the info they need so they can pass this on to the mother, who is then in a position to make an informed choice on what is best for her and her baby.

Now, instead of this, Nestle and its subsidiaries are handing out free samples to mothers in hospitals and clinics, and guess what?
When the mothers leave hospital , the free samples run out and the process of bottle feeding interferes with normal lactation , so mother does not produce enough milk now - she is locked into the Nestle supply system and the free samples are no longer available.

Now, Nestle tried to run an ad in Britian and tried to say that they were all ethical and above board in these countries that this community still tags as ' The Third World'.

The problem is that in the UK, you can make an ad as long as you can substantiate any claims made. The ad was challenged and the verdict was that the advertisement did not meet the criteria - in other words, the claim that Nestle were acting in an unethical manner was upheld by an independent advertising watchdog.

For that reason , I consider it unethical to buy or endorse Nestle products and am boycotting this company and its subsidiaries, who are often used as a false front for Nestle in the Developing World.

Iif people want to claim that Nestle have now cleaned up their act, or were wrongly accused to begin with , well I invite them to make their case.

[omnot.livejournal.com]

Think about this for a moment, and you will see that unsuccessful breast feeding cases are not a valid excuse for Nestle to be in third world countries marketing their breast-milk replacements as a lifestyle option or a healthier choice. Imagine what would happen if no baby-formula marketing were being done there at all?

In cases where breast-feeding is not possible and where formula-feeding is not an affordable/feasible lifestyle option, breast-milk replacement formula can and should be provided in a similar manner to medical treatments. Care organisations are all about meeting those kinds of needs.

The free market is not going to confine itself to fulfilling a need, it's about creating a market (like Big Tobacco cultivating a market for their products in Asian countries), and that's what is harmful in this case, and that is what people are objecting to when they boycott Nestle.

[brockulfsen.livejournal.com]

I Australia almost all our production is owned by evil multinationals.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

As I was completely formula-fed (I don't know if it was Nestle formula though) and I [almost] never get sick and I have an IQ over 120 (over 140 on some tests), I don't see a significant problem. According to the wiki page, Nestle says that they are in compliance with the WHO Code, and the Code seems reasonable.

There's always issues with marketing products in foreign markets and I see no reason to ascribe evil intent to such endeavors without evidence of such.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The problem is formula requires clean water, in rather short supply in the Third World relative to population.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Well, formula feeding does have its place, and people are right to point out that in 'Third World' countries, there are still mothers who must use formula feeding as a substitute or as a supplement to breastfeeding. However, when Nestle tried to appeal to a complaint against an ad they ran in the UK, they fought and lost the appeal. The company was trying to say that they behaved ethically in their marketing and promotion of baby milk formula in the developing world, and an independent advertising watchdog ruled that a complaint against them was upheld.

Yes, Wiki does say that Nestle claimed they were compliant with the WHO Code. however, an independent body ruled that they were not.

From the Wiki article:
in 1981, the 34th World Health Assembly (WHA) adopted Resolution WHA34.22 which includes the International Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes. The Code covers infant formula and other milk products, foods and beverages, when marketed or otherwise represented to be suitable as a partial or total replacement of breast milk. It bans the promotion of breast milk substitutes and gives health workers the responsibility for advising parents. It limits manufacturing companies to the provision of scientific and factual information to health workers and sets forth labeling requirements.[21]
In 1984, boycott coordinators met with Nestlé, which agreed to implement the code, and the boycott was officially suspended. In 1988 IBFAN alleged that formula companies were flooding health facilities in the developing world with free and low-cost supplies, and the boycott was relaunched the following year[4]
In May 1999 a ruling against Nestlé was issued by the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). Nestlé claimed in an anti-boycott advertisement that it markets infant formula “ethically and responsibly”. The ASA found that Nestlé could not support this nor other claims in the face of evidence provided by the campaigning group Baby Milk Action.[22]
In November 2000 the European Parliament invited IBFAN, UNICEF, and Nestlé to present evidence to a Public Hearing before the Development and Cooperation Committee. Evidence was presented by the IBFAN group from Pakistan and UNICEF's legal officer commented on Nestlé's failure to bring its policies into line with the World Health Assembly Resolutions. Nestlé declined an invitation to attend, claiming scheduling conflicts, although it sent a representative of the auditing company it had commissioned to produce a report on its Pakistan operation.[23][24][25]
note that footnotes appear in the original. If people want citations, there a plenty to go to.


Note also, that the boycott was lifted when Nestle made the declaration that it would cease its unethical practices. What happened in fact was that nestle bought up subsidiaries and used these to trade under a new name, but these companies were repeating the unethical practices of their parent company. Again , I would say that this duplicity on the part of nestle was morally wrong and should make us wary of any claims that the company makes. they have acted in bad faith.

The Boycott is still on at present and will only be lifted when we see genuine compliance from Nestle.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

But isn't the WHO a tool of the evil NWO, a UN (read: irrelevant) organization which wants to mandate things on entire nations and cut their sovereignty?

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

A single case is not really all that representative, though. While formula won't kill you, it's widely recognized that breastfeeding is optimal (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-feeding/FL00133), notably not for reasons connected all that closely to adult immunity and intelligence. It's more about proper nutritional balance/hydration, and early-life immune boosting. Did you have a decent diet growing up? Because most of these kids will struggle to get enough nutrition their entire lives, and breastmilk proves a more complete source. How clean was your environment? Because breastfeeding boosts the immune system in ways that formula cannot, and I wager poor kids in Africa are exposed to more contagions in a day than the average Westerner in a week. They will likely have an easier time if their development and immune system gets the boost from breastfeeding that it will not get from formula.

[foreverbeach.livejournal.com]

Here's what I will never understand as long as I live. If you're dirt fucking poor, living in a hut (if you're lucky) that looks like a cub scout built a campfire and forgot to light it, underfed and malnourished -- basically going hungry daily -- with flies landing on your eyeballs and genitalia (we've all seen the images), how in the hell are you reproducing? I mean it's not just that you're having kids -- you're fucking horny? You're looking over at a woman with a distended belly squatting in the sand next to a pot of diseased water with flies on her face and crotch and you're thinking ooOO (Oh yeah! I got to get me some of that!)? What the hell is going on here?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Ask your Medieval ancestors about that. When life is a Crapsack world children *are* your welfare system and are expected to look after you in old age.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

To be honest, the problem is that you have a very poor understanding of what is really going on.

Ok, I have never been to these places myself, but I have met people like my niece, and volunteers from my church, from the WDM, War on Want and other organisations who have actually been there to South America and sub Saharan Africa and built schools, drilled wells and done stuff like that in the villages where the world's poorest people actually live.

I mean, I saw pictures taken by the people themselves, and had the images narrated to me. What emerges is not the picture of famine - that is what the news cameras generally head for.

What is happening in Famine is that the harvest fails and there is no food at all.
What most of the world's poor people live under is not famine, but poverty. Poverty that we have not known in britain since the Victorian era. Yes, families lived back the n with no water and a very inadequate sewage system. They lived on a pittance with their kids working alongside them in the mills and the mines or on the land working the fields.

Most kids back then died in infancy, they rarely grew to be as tall as modern day children do these days. They might be poor, they may be struggling to get by on a few dollars a day, but they somehow manage to live - even as my grandparents did.

But we in the UK today do not have homes without electricity or hot and cold running water. Families in the UK do not usually run to eight or nine children. that's because Britain has a Welfare State. In Japan , the living standard is equally high - the Japanese corporations have a paternalistic attitude to their people, and Japanese people believe that is how it should be.

In America, there are vast resources that can be brought to places devastated by hurricanes or other natural disasters, and a government that is responsible and has planes and trucks it can deploy to disaster zones.

Iin the Developing world, there is not. no welfare State, no paternalistic corporation , not even a wealthy government to care for its citizens.

people there are not starving , they are poor. And come the next bad harvest or natural disaster, they will be pushed closer to the margin of survival.

for a mother who is already poor,breast milk is a free resource that does not require clean water to make, or use up fuel to heat. It should be explained to her that breastfeeding is best for her and her baby, and that the nestle formula is a substitute or a supplement if she finds breastfeeding difficult.

[prog-expat.livejournal.com]

What you're describing is famine, which is not the everyday condition (if it were, the region would be depopulated within a generation). Under those conditions, no, you're not reproducing, because even if you try the most likely outcome is miscarriage.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

The children were conceived obviously when times were better. Women can not even ovulate if their body weight gets too low.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

Actually I said nothing about Nestlé. I said baby formula needs to remain an option as not all women can breastfeed. And I said this in specific response to a comment of yours that said "Why else [but money] would baby milk be sold in developing countries.". I resent the implication, FROM A MAN, who will never face the heartache of being physically imcapable of breastfeeding their child, that there is no need for formula.

I expanded on my thoughts in response to midsummerskies that it was wrong to push it at new mothers as a replacement for breast feeding, of course that would be the best option, but it is needed so whether this is why Nestlé is doing it or not, money is not the only reason formula should be available there. I would say I'm shocked and amazed that you would base a post off of this, but I am used to your MO. Tell me, just in case I need to take t_p off my watchlist for a week or so, how many posts on this subject can we expect to see?

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

Also, show me where I defended or debated Nestlé's business practices or amend your post please. I am getting rather tired of you assigning views to me and others that we did not take, this is hardly the first time it's happened.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Ok, I think we can reach a 'common ground' here.
I think that Nestle is unethical. Even so, if it wants to provide Baby Milk Formula to people who want it and need it, then they can and should. The problem is that they don't.

Ok, I take your point that there are other reasons- but I don't see Nestle doing it for charity, or legitimately and ethically supplying BMF to meet a genuine need.

Instead I see them offering gifts and incentives to people in the health professions to promote their products - like we see similar incentives being given by drug companies to the GPs in the UK.

We also see 'free samples', and other examples of unethical practice by Nestle and its subsidiaries. So, while I can accept that there is a genuine need for BMF, I call foul on Nestle for trying to create a market that does not exist and exploiting innocent and very needy people in the process.

Me, I have never heard you say 'It isn't my job to educate you' - and I give you credit for that. However, I disagree with this approach . If you are an activist, it is your job to flag up issues, at least by pointing people to the right links.

I don't intend to kick off another debate about Nestle any time soon. I have had a comment from someone that showed that they knew nothing about The Silent Emergency , though.

So, I intend to do an OP about that. The Silent Emergency has changed its nature, but is still with us.
I would also say that I will be saying a lot of the things I have said before - that women own 1% of the world's property and earn a mere 10% of its income, and that a big factor in dealing with the Silent Emergency is actually about raising the status of women around the world, both in the developing countries and in the industrialised nations of the West.

I hope you will agree that this is something that I, as a man, should be concerned about and won't take the view it's something that women can and should exclude men from.

I will do the next post straight away, so you can see what you think of it.

I don't really want to defend Nestle in this case but...

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

[W]hen a company like Nestle goes into the developing world, the poorer nations, or whatever we used to call the Third World this week and agressively promotes their product to women who don't really need and really can't afford their products - I call this corporate vandalism, if not manslaughter.

Vandalism and manslaughter are rights violating acts against unwilling victims. By definintion, "promoting a product" is a voluntary process to the extent that actual fraud is not involved. To the extent that Nestle is not using governments to force people to patronize them or to confiscate wealth from them and transfer it to themselves, or to the extent that they are not violating rights and committing theft and fraud themselves directly, they are justified in offering their goods and services to people.

That said, I too, disagree with Nestle's approach and with their marketing ambitions. I support the actions of those who advocate withdrawing their support and patronage from the company, although I personally would rather contribute directly with the efforts to educate the potential customer base to which Nestle is marketing than waste time and resources looking for ways to harm Nestle's business.

Re: I don't really want to defend Nestle in this case but...

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

So, so long as someone is swindled, rather than mugged, you don't mind ?

oh, this is not what you said, for sure. but this is where the logic leads. Nestle is taking advantage of the ignorance of certain people, and it is commendable that you are not rushing to defend them like certain people online and in real life that i have come across.

But, swindling is unethical behaviour in my book. I will do anything to make people aware of it and do what I can to put a swindler out of business. but this is my stand, and I leave it to you to make your own.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Something doesn't fit with this whole thing. Nestle is marketing to the third world (developing nations), but comparisons are made to effects on the fourth world (impoverished nations), but the third world is not impoverished. A large percentage of the population of the third world is middle class and has money, which is their market. Why would a corporation like Nestle waste funds on a market with no money to spend?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

As I understand it, there was the Western World, the Communist Bloc and the unaligned nations - and most of these were poor places that were niether one nor the other , but client states to both. And this was back in the 80s, when i was a keen , young activist.

now , we still have the tag in this community "Third World",, but the third world has improved slightly since the 1980s. most people in the developing nations are no longer living with regular famines - the complete and total collapse of the food supply. most people do get enough to stay alive, but don't eat enough - their children are undersized and lighter in weight than the kids of the same age living in Europe and North America.

And, as far as I know, people living in Africa and South America, as well as Asia do have some money to spend, and corporations are getting round our stringent regulations on things like baby milk and tobacco and pushing the hard sell at people in poorer nations simply to make a fast buck. if you know something different , please send me a link.

[yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com]

Exactly, in this case? Dressing marketing representatives as nurses and sending them into poverty-stricken villages to tell mothers that formula is better for babies. Sending free samples of formula to hospitals and urging the staff there to distribute them in order to undermine breastfeeding initiation so that mothers will subsequently "need" formula. Aggressive TV, billboard, and newspaper marketing making false claims about the supposed health benefits of formula feeding. Showering health care professionals with branded gifts in order to dispose them favorably towards recommending formula to mothers.

It is worth noting that Nestle does a lot of this stuff in the "developed" world/Global North too; it's just that here, it's not quite as much of a life and death proposition. And clearly their marketing tactics work, which isn't surprising given how much time, effort, and money they pour into them.

[prog-expat.livejournal.com]

This might explain why so many middle class Argentines that I know don't breastfeed, come to think of it.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

For middle class women , the hassle of having to breastfeed in public and the actual problems of finding time and the space for privacy when nursing do tend to make women reach for the formula. Much as it does in the UK. And , nestle are also like a lot of other drug companies - hitting on the health professionals with 'incentives' if they offer company products to their patients...

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Hasn't the Nestle boycott been going on since the 1970s?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

as it said in the link, it was started in the 70, and lifeted when Nestle pulled out of using agressivea nd unethical selling. however, they sent in subsidiary companies to do the dirty work in their name , so we are now back to boycotting nestle and all their subsidiary companies.

[thies.livejournal.com]

to be perfectly honest, I'm too busy with first world white people problems to give a shit about people dying in africa.