Boycott Nestle!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Christian4life
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Christian4life

Guest
Hooray for boycotting! Boycotting is fun! I do it all the time. In fact the list of name brand products I allow myself to buy is shorter than the boycotting list! Generic brands are better anyway. And what is with people that they feel like they need so MUCH STUFF ANYWAY!!

Top o’ the list:

Nestle, for killin babies. I am not even talking about abortion here people, they really have some wicked marketing schemes. This company gives out thier baby formula for free to new moms in 3rd world countries, just enough so that thier breastmilk dries up, and then the women have to buy it.

Well, duh, they know most of these women are too poor to afford formula!!! So guess what happens
  1. the poor families end up selling practically everything they have just to buy formula to try to feed the babies, and Nestle gets rich
  2. they dillute what formula they have and the babies become malnourished
  3. many of the poor babies eventually starve to death
Nestle was boycotted in the 80s for doing this, and they did stop, but now they are at it again! This time they are pushing thier formula at the hospitals where the babies are born.

So I say boycott the lil devils!! For more info, click here:

breastfeeding.com/advocacy/advocacy_boycott.html
 
Wow, providing free food to starving children. A horror that surely must be fueled by an evil conspiracy to dry up milk ducts.

Have you ever considered the possibility that starving children are likely the product of starving/malnourished parents? Have you further considered that a starving mother is perhaps not capable of providing complete nutrition to her infant and that supplementing or completely nourishing her infant with formula may in fact be the smartest, most loving thing a parent could do?!?!
Nah…you’re proably right…just evil run amok.
 
The problem with Nestle is not the supposed scheme to dry up the breast milk of 3rd-world women (huh?) but rather that the formula is being marketed in areas where safe drinking water does not exist. Infants are dying not primarily of malnutrition but from contaminated water mixed with the milk powder or concentrate. Because Nestle campaigns glorify formula feeding over breast feeding, many women are tragically eschewing the safest and most nutritious way to feed their children and replacing it with a costly and danger-fraught alternative.
 
Island,

I sit here and shake my head at your reply. Pardon me for being this way, but you MUST be a man. Even if a woman is eating minimally, the more she breastfeeds, the more milk comes in for her baby. If she does not breastfeed, she dries up. Its nature. For a company to send over JUST ENOUGH for the baby to eat until the mom can’t produce milk anymore is sickening. Even though I wanted to breastfeed, I signed up for Enfamil Family Beginnnings Enfamil makes formula. The sent me four half-sizes of formula and two four packs of ready to drink formula. I gave 75% of it to an inner-city church’s pregnancy center. Have the sent me anymore? Nah. Coupons for $1.00 off their product, though. WOO-HOO. So its not an “urban legend”~~these things really happen. Its all about the almighty dollar, not because they “care”.

MommyLeah
 
Island Oak,

You need to read the whole post. Nestle is accused of giving away just enough formula to discourage breast feeding, therefore making the family dependant on formula which it can’t afford to buy. They aren’t feeding starving children, they are creating formula dependant children.

This is exactly why cigarette companies in the US aren’t allowed to give free samples.

In most hospitals in the US, if a mother indicates she will be breast feeding, the hospital won’t even give her the free formula samples.

When I was in college in the 70s, we successfully lobied the dorm cafeteria system to use alternate products to Nestles for this same problem. Sad to hear they are back to their old ways. 😦
 
40.png
maendem:
The problem with Nestle, from what I understand, is not the supposed scheme to dry up the breast milk of 3rd-world women (huh?) but rather that the formula is being marketed in areas where safe drinking water does not exist. Infants are dying not primarily of malnutrition but from contaminated milk.
Click to expand...
I am aware of this criticism and the fact that it has been the crux of *most *attacks on Nestle. However, I am hard-pressed to assume that Nestle is donating baby formula WITH THE INTENT that it either supplant breast feeding or that it be mixed with contaminated water. I think the latter unfortunate occurance, while not unforseeable, is preventable with a minimal amount of education. Moreover, donating the formula seems far superior to allowing starving infants and their mothers to fend for themselves.
 
40.png
kmktexas:
Island Oak,

You need to read the whole post. Nestle is accused of giving away just enough formula to discourage breast feeding, therefore making the family dependant on formula which it can’t afford to buy. They aren’t feeding starving children, they are creating formula dependant children.

This is exactly why cigarette companies in the US aren’t allowed to give free samples.

In most hospitals in the US, if a mother indicates she will be breast feeding, the hospital won’t even give her the free formula samples.

When I was in college in the 70s, we successfully lobied the dorm cafeteria system to use alternate products to Nestles for this same problem. Sad to hear they are back to their old ways. 😦
Click to expand...
PLEASE explain to me the economic logic to a multi-national corporation, like Nestle, of creating “formula dependant children” in a market populated by destitute, staving, third world consumers who can’t pay for the formula they donate?!
 
They are not doing it to feed starving babies, if they were they would supply the mothers with enough formula for the baby’s entire infancy.
Instead they give them about 8 weeks worth, which is just enough to insure that the mother’s breastmilk supply will be non-existant, and the child will be dependant on formula.

If you actually read the article, you will note that Nestle has been in violation of several ethical terms which they agreed upon after the first boycott, and that’s why it’s back on.

I am very sad that I am unable to continue breastfeeding my baby due to an infection, because it is the best nutrition a baby can get. Almost every formula company out there sends you free formula for the first few months, and then after that the coupon amounts get smaller and smaller. They are really making a killing charging 12.99 for 12 ounces of powdered milk with a few pennies worth of vitamins thrown in.
 
Sorry to disappoint you MommyLeah. I am a mother of three, all successfully breast-fed. I must confess to a pet-peeve with ill-considered boycotts because I think they detract from the power and appeal of that tool of protest. I further find myself unable to agree with you and the your opinion on the power of breast milk when we are talking about starving people.
 
Sorry, comparing formula samples to cigarret samples is extreme.
Some people can’t or do not want to breastfeed.
 
Island,

Sorry for my pre-judgement. And I know we are talking about starving people…but are you missing the point that they are only sending enough for TWO MONTHS? And plus, not every mom is over there starving…if the baby did okay in their womb, and she was hungry throught her pregnancy…then why can’t she breastfeed and the baby be ok?
 
40.png
MommyLeah:
Island,

Sorry for my pre-judgement. And I know we are talking about starving people…but are you missing the point that they are only sending enough for TWO MONTHS? And plus, not every mom is over there starving…if the baby did okay in their womb, and she was hungry throught her pregnancy…then why can’t she breastfeed and the baby be ok?
Click to expand...
Let’s consider one more data-point before we pronounce final judgement on Nestle: the HIV plague in Africa that has exploded across the African continent since the '80s boycott. Johns Hopkins conducted a 3 year study on infants in Malawi breastfed by HIV positive mothers, the results of which were published in JAMA. Of 672 infants born free of the virus, 10% of the babies had contracted the virus. After 24 months of breastfeeding, 47% of the infants had become HIV positive. The study concluded in part that the “risk is highest in the early months of breastfeeding which should be considered in formulating breastfeeding policy recommendations.”

While I don’t insert this to transform this thread into a battle of studies and experts, I find it illustrates, in small part, the complexity of this issue. Nestle’s roll in this controversy may not be entirely altrusitic–I’m not oblivious to that possibility. However, in the grand scheme of things I don’t see evil here in helping feed these all too-often forgotten people.
 
40.png
alyssa:
Nestle owns Purina (Dogfood/Catfood)…
Click to expand...
hummm…

I boycotted that after I found out that Purina “accidentally” has dumped euthnized animals in their feed, (that means cows and chicken who have died of all sorts of diseases including cancer) especally their dog food…there is no link to this info, but there is a book wich sites Purina and two other companies for this disturbing practice.

:eek:

…needless to say I switched to another brand, (Diamond) and guess what? Witin two months I noticed that my little Jack russel had never been healther, she stopped constantly shedding and she’s satisfied with half the food, and therefore she poops less. She didn’t get bit up by mosquitos this summer like she did the first one, and the mostiques were twice as bad…

…one thing that the food didn’t do was make her brighter…she still chases bumblebees and chomps bull frogs… :rolleyes:
 
40.png
Lilyofthevalley:
Sorry, comparing formula samples to cigarret samples is extreme.
Some people can’t or do not want to breastfeed.
Click to expand...
I am sorry if I mislead. Both are examples of “baiting”.

In third world countries, inability to breastfeed is almost unheard of. That is a western phenomenon. Not wanting to is another matter. Why would a woman in a third world country, with a subsistance (if that) income, not want to breastfeed?

Island Oak,

As I indicated, this is the first I have heard of this in a long time. Back in the 70s when I was much more “up” on the issue, Nestles was selling large scale to government agencies who would distribute the formula. Some of those governments were corrupt or just incompetent and the mothers did not get enough actual formula to feed thier babies. Many diluted the formula with unsafe water to make it last longer and many babies died. Nestle made its money off the govenment sales. If I remember correctly, the agreement that Nestle finally agreed to included keeping the govenment sales contracts but (I think) they were supposed to support breastfeeding education and not discourage breastfeeding for the poor.

This is all from memory, 40 year old memories, but it was my first exposure to “activism” and made an impression.
 
Island Oak:
Let’s consider one more data-point before we pronounce final judgement on Nestle: the HIV plague in Africa that has exploded across the African continent since the '80s boycott. Johns Hopkins conducted a 3 year study on infants in Malawi breastfed by HIV positive mothers, the results of which were published in JAMA. Of 672 infants born free of the virus, 10% of the babies had contracted the virus. After 24 months of breastfeeding, 47% of the infants had become HIV positive. The study concluded in part that the “risk is highest in the early months of breastfeeding which should be considered in formulating breastfeeding policy recommendations.”

While I don’t insert this to transform this thread into a battle of studies and experts, I find it illustrates, in small part, the complexity of this issue. Nestle’s roll in this controversy may not be entirely altrusitic–I’m not oblivious to that possibility. However, in the grand scheme of things I don’t see evil here in helping feed these all too-often forgotten people.
Click to expand...
I know we’d like to think that the company is not so bad, but they admitted (the first time they were boycotted) that they had regular people dress up as nurses and hand out formula to poor women.

These are not STARVING women, they get by on what food they have. They are poor, but they are not dying, and they are able to breastfeed, just like thier mothers breastfed them. But as anyone who has a baby knows, babies have a limited diet to choose from, they can have breastmilk, or they can have formula. Period.

Once the breastmilk option is gone, the HAVE to have formula or they WILL DIE. Not many moms who haven’t been there realize exactly how much formula a baby goes through. My little one chugs down 2 1/2 12 ounce cans a week! That’s not a lot of money to someone like me, but for a poor person, it’s all they have! And once those free samples run out, and they will, quickly, they have to either sell everything they have, or bury thier kid.

So no, it’s not entirely altruistic. Nestle isn’t stupid, they’ve known this for what, 2 decades now? They even have it posted on their website that they had to agree to certain ethical terms in order for the boycott to be off. They shirked on those terms. They give samples out to hospitals in 3rd world countries and encourage women to take them, without explaining to them that the kid WILL be dependant on them and she will have to buy more or else.

They also say that they would like to give enough formula for a baby’s entire infancy to women with HIV but the terms from the last boycott won’t allow them to. This is not true.
 
“Can a product which requires clean water, good sanitation, adequate family income and a literate parent to follow printed instructions, be properly and safely used in areas where water is contaminated, sewage runs through the streets, poverty is severe and illiteracy is high?”
Code: 
         In 1978 Nestlé admitted, "No". Sadly when the same question is asked today, the answer remains, "No". 



         According to the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF about *1.5 million babies die every year because they were not breastfed.* In many parts of the world, not breastfeeding means the difference between life and death.  Where water is unsafe, preparing formula means exposing children to the harmful bacteria found in untreated water.  This causes many infants to become infected with bacterial diseases, the most feared of which is diarrhoea, which yearly leads to dehydration and death for thousands of infants.  Many more millions suffer from infectious diseases and malnutrition, never reaching their full potential because they were not breastfed. The global decline in breastfeeding and the subsequent ascent of  "commerciogenic malnutrition" has been attributed in part to the aggressive marketing of breastmilk substitutes by the babymilk and babyfood industry[1](http://www.infactcanada.ca/NestleBoycott.htm#1.)[. ](http://www.infactcanada.ca/NestleBoycott.htm#1.) To Counteract this dangerous trend, the World Health Assembly ratified an international marketing code[2](http://www.infactcanada.ca/NestleBoycott.htm#2.)[ ](http://www.infactcanada.ca/NestleBoycott.htm#2.)designed to protect breastfeeding and ensure the proper use of artificial feeding when necessary.



        The International Code imposes strict guidelines that prohibit the promotion of infant formula to the public, the promotion of infant formula through health care systems, direct contact between formula companies and mothers, and ensure proper labels on all products describing the benefits of breastfeeding and the dangers of bottlefeeding (see the International Code page on this website for more information).
continued in next post
 
Despite the fact that Nestlé has promised to comply with the WHO Marketing Code, the company disposes of large quantities of free formulas to maternity hospitals and birthing centres, distributes free formula to pregnant women and new mothers, misinforms about infant feeding, and tries to entice health care workers with enducements and gifts. In Bangladesh, Brazil, Mexico, Russia and South Africa, mothers of newborns receive free Nestlé infant formula samples in hospitals. Health care workers receive gifts such as pens, calendars, and desk sets in Chile, Colombia, and Spain, and in Zimbabwe, health care workers receive Christmas hampers from Nestlé.3.
Code: 
        Nestlé knows that artificial feeding in the poor areas of the world is dangerous.  So why do they promote their products there?  The awful reality is that every breastfeeding mother represents competition for formula companies.  In what has become a deadly zero-sum game, Nestlé is trying to convince mothers all over the world to engage in dangerous feeding practices.



        As the world's largest babyfood company, Nestlé sets the marketing standards for the industry.  Currently, rather than setting a good example, it is the single most prolific violator of the International Code.  Participants in the Nestlé Boycott refuse to let Nestlé carry on business as usual while they are at the same time endangering the health of millions.  Boycotters refuse to buy any Nestlé products in order to put pressure on the company by creating bad publicity and lowering sales.  The Boycott will be promoted and publicized until such time as Nestlé is forced to change its marketing practices and begins to act ethically.
 
40.png
MommyLeah:
Island,

I sit here and shake my head at your reply. Pardon me for being this way, but you MUST be a man. Even if a woman is eating minimally, the more she breastfeeds, the more milk comes in for her baby. If she does not breastfeed, she dries up. Its nature. For a company to send over JUST ENOUGH for the baby to eat until the mom can’t produce milk anymore is sickening. Even though I wanted to breastfeed, I signed up for Enfamil Family Beginnnings Enfamil makes formula. The sent me four half-sizes of formula and two four packs of ready to drink formula. I gave 75% of it to an inner-city church’s pregnancy center. Have the sent me anymore? Nah. Coupons for $1.00 off their product, though. WOO-HOO. So its not an “urban legend”~~these things really happen. Its all about the almighty dollar, not because they “care”.

MommyLeah
Click to expand...
I did the exact same thing! I had to use a wee bit of formula when my son was newborn because complications sent me back to the hospital a couple of times. (I pumped and my supply was fine.) Then, I gave what I still had to my inner-city churche’s pregnancy center. (You wouldn’t happen to be talking about Old Saint Mary’s in Cincinnati, would you?)

I know it sounds far-fetched, but it’s true, and not just in developing countries: formula manufacturers DO try to get women to use their product as soon as the baby is born. You can go home with free formula from a US hospital, too. Our culture does not really encourage breastfeeding. Not that long ago - in fact, in our mothers’ generation - people actually believed that formula, being scientific, was actually better than breast milk. Hence all the MIL’s who give new moms a hard time about nursing to this day. Anyway, many women don’t really know how to nurse and they often worry that they can’t do it. Some women can’t produce milk, and MANY women encounter problems that hinder successful breast-feeding. So, a new mom hears many horror stories and she’s justifiably worried that she’s not going to be able to do it.

Babies lose weight in the first week or so of life. This makes us anxious. I know that I was anxious. You can’t see how much milk you’re producing, and the only guage is how the baby seems to be doing. So, you’ve got an inexperienced mother who is naturally anxious and who isn’t necessarily getting the support she needs… it’s easy to see how she’d give in to the temptation to use that free formula she’s brought home from the hospital. This frequently means she doesn’t produce milk, after all. For a typical middle-class American mom, all that means is the baby doesn’t get the very BEST food available, but s/he will turn out OK. However, if that mom is poor, or doesn’t have access to clean water, things can be much worse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top