Pre-school are doing a Nestle promotion

[DitaVonCheese]

:( Do I say something? What? Give them a copy of the boycott Nestle article I've just written for an NCT newsletter?

I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying dita but do you have evidence that Nestle are directly responsible for the deaths of 1.5m babies a year?

If not you might just want to rethink that statement.

That's just the message I want to pass on to my kids. You can't make a difference so why even try & don't try to speak up for what you believe in if you are in the minority as you just make yourself look like an idiot.

I don't boycot nestle & then sit back and think I've done my bit, I also give to various charities and volunteer in an attempt to change living conditions.

Also nestle chocolate & coffee taste like crap.

right. So just by what percentage has inphant mortality increased since formula was introduced in the 3rd world?

because of course the answer always lies in the magic breastmilk doesn't it.

So, in countries where women routinely die in childbirth leaving newborn babies behind what do you think happens to those babies if there is no formula and no substitute relative to bf (because not all babies can be bf by someone else, there isn't always someone else available.) what do you think happens to those babies? oh wait, they die.

In countries where 25% of the population is HIV positive and the best alternative would be to give formula (and the only reason for advising against it is not the formula but the water) what d you think happens to those babies? Ah yes, they contract HIV too and ... they die. Maybe not as babies, oh no - they live for a few years but they get sicker and sicker because the western world won't fund the anti retroviral drugs needed and they die a long and painful death.

And those women who are unable to bf due to malnutrician so severe that although they will produce some milk it is simply not enough - what do you think happens to those babies? They grow up malnurrished and with weakened immunity and ... that's right, they die.

Of course there is an argument for companies to not go into these countries and push their agendas. But without formula there are babies that would die. The argument is against the contamination of water not the formula.

So what is being done to iradicate the water contamination in the 3rd world? How about the drugs needed to treat those who are HIV positive to ensure those men and women and babies at least have a shot at life rather than dying in such a horrible manner?

What about the corruption in governments which means that money donated goes into the back pockets of the governments rather than the actual causes it is intended for?

There is no statistic that says inphant mortality has risen in the 3rd world due to nestle's involvement.

It is awfully easy to sit here in our 1st world countries and preach about the evils of the western companies that are causing the deaths of babies in the 3rd world. But without those companies there will still be deaths in the 3rd world, and that reality is at serious risk of being forgotten behind peoples' personal agenda aimed at the tip of the iceberg.

pissedrightoff - this is debateable. In terms of code violations there is certainly evidence of lack of labelling in national language, and anecdotal evidence in some countries of provision of incentives to health care staff. Many of the more flagrant bad practices are now no longer carried out (e.g. distribution of formula to new mothers) although again there have been occasional allegations of this in certain countries on a small scale.
Dita - while I myself am a boycotter, your estimate that Nestle is responsible for 1.5m deaths a year is currently implausible (may have been less so in the 1980s). This would be approximately a fifth of all deaths in under 5s globally based on 2010 figures. Formula usage in most of the high mortality countries is still thankfully very rare.

"I don't want babies to die. Nestle are responsible for the deaths of 1.5 million of them a year." Really. And all of those babies died because nestle went into hospitals and agressively made those women give up bf in favour of their product, did they? That is such a black and white statement that it is actually laughable.

What that statistic actually says is that 1.5 million babies die each year due to contaminated water. So where is the statistic that addresses why those 1.5 million babies weren't bf? Where is the statistic that addresses why formula was considered the better option for those babies? How many of those women were HIV positive for instance? How many of those mothers had died in childbirth leaving behind an inphant who needed feeding and then tragically died? How many of those women were suffering other illnesses that meant they were unable to bf?

Of course it's possible that some of those babies would have survived if they were able to be bf. But you are suggesting that the reason they were not bf was because, and only because, nestle went in there and pushed their formula, when in fact we know only too well that it's not as black and white as all that.

Where is the statistic that shows how many of those babies would have died anyway were it not for contaminated water? of HIV, malnutrician, other illnesses contracted from a parent/guardian..

The 1.5 million figure is just an empty figure used to push an agenda against one company, and is meaningless without the other stats to back it up.

My apologies to Nestle, they merely contribute to 1.5 infant deaths per year, so that's okay. BMA stats on that figure

It doesn't say 1.5 million per year die due to contaminated water

wanna I'm sorry if my answers aren't in depth enough for you, I'm fitting this in between housework and largely typing one-handed.

Nestle did use send employees into hospitals dressed as nurses and tell them to use formula, so you're not actually too far off the mark with your sarcasm. Nope, they don't do it any more but it has contributed to the change in culture in many societies.

HIV is a conundrum, yes. Unicef on HIV & BMA on HIV

Not sure where you get your info re malnutrition.

As I've said and you seem to have missed, I'm not anti-formula, but I would like to see it marketed responsibly. I'm not sure how controversial that really is.

My apologies for trying to protect you . There is such a thing as a slander law and large companies are notorious for ensuring that their names are not made mud by slander not that someone like Nestle needs help in being made to look bad.

I wasn't in any way excusing their behaviour, past or present.

Sorry, Button, my snarkiness was directed at wanna not you :)

Off to do school run, thanks for the replies even though I wasn't really after a debate on the Nestle boycott. Will post elsewhere next time!

so they don't do it any more.

So what exactly is the issue then?

Anything that BMA publishes is entirely biased and based on their own personal vendetta and is therefore entirely not credible IMO.

But given these practices no longer happen the boycott is entirely groundless anyway.

Eh what?

and it is naive to think that you won't get a debate on nestle if you want to impose your views about nestle on others.

Also, I don't expect you to necessarily be able to come upwith ready facts and figures, although not knowing the answers does make an argument in favour look somewhat weak if you just throw figures around that are neither credible nor accurate. "nestle cause 1.5 million deaths a year," no they don't - and immediately if someone can counter-balance your argument it loses more credibility.

"you should boycott nestle because they go into the 3rd world and pretend to be nurses in order to convince new mothers to give their babies formula." "really?" "Well, no, they used to in the 80's, they've stopped now but ... well they used to, and they cause 1.5 million deaths a year.." "1.5 million? that many?" "well, no, actually there are obviously other contributing statistics..." and so on.

I never have, nor ever will boycott nestle, but I have to say that your arguments for, or lack thereof, would convince me more in the direction of the boycott being an entirely pointless exercise with no pheasible reasoning behind it any more.

Yes in the 80's they were clearly involved in some highly dubious practices. But that was 30 years ago.

I think what is more relevant here is that while nestle's practices have changed, and medicine has become more advanced, and even formula has become better, the contamination of water in the 3rd world hasn't changed. Why is that?

Instead of putting energy into a cause that no longer exists, why not invest that energy in something that could make a real difference. Because it's not just ff babies that have to drink contaminated water. Even if those babies are not ff they will still have to drink the contaminated water at some point. And in 30 years that fact hasn't changed. It's not just babies that are dying..

I think the thread is digressing slightly. The point is should the nursery be promoting a brand that is actively boycotted by some parents? My answer would be no. They should be aware that this would put some parents in an awkward position where they do not want their children to miss out on an activity but they don't want to be part of the promotion of a brand they would not buy out of principle.

Oh I see what you're on about now wanna. That was a single extreme example, not the basis for the whole boycott - I was just pointing out that your sarcastic scenario was actually quite accurate.

BMA can back up their stats etc with Unicef/WHO refs - that's sufficient for me.

You have a bee in your bonnet about water, I get that. I really don't care whether you boycott Nestle or not. Tbh I'm done with arguing on the internet, I've been doing it for years and the excitement wore off a long time ago. You knock yourself out.

Thanks Catherine, that was exactly my point. I'll speak to them tonight and see if I can find an alternative scheme.

Clearly you do care whether people boycott though or you wouldn't be thrusting your articles at the preschool in the hopes they'll change their mind.

The problem with such long-standing boycotts is that they lose their reasoning after a while and people lose sight of why they're boycotting something. People boycott ten years on because others do, for instance. A lot of people boycotted South African products in the 80's because of apartheid for instance. I know of people who still do, even though apartheid has been abolished and SA has moved on. It's the same with the nestle boycott. In the 80's nestle sent formula to the 3rd world and babies died as a result and yes, the boycott would have been relevant then. But this is no longer the case and therefore the boycott is no longer relevant. It's more about bandwagon jumping than real reasoning now, because boycotting nestle is the right-on thing to do, regardless of the fact the reasons behind the initial boycott ceased to be several years ago.

catherine but lots of people boycott lots of different companies for different reasons.

Lots of people boycott tesco for instance because of the way it essentially monopolises the market. But you don't see people objecting to schools benefiting from the tesco computers/sports equipment for schools vouchers do you?

Or insisting that schools serve only organic/free-range school meals on the basis of animal welfare?

This is no different. Ultimately, every boycott is personal to the boycotter only. There is always potential for someone to feel put out/uncomfortable, but ultimately it comes down to that you can't please all of the people all of the time. That is life.

"Anything that BMA publishes is entirely biased and based on their own personal vendetta and is therefore entirely not credible IMO."

And your evidence for this is...

My evidence is having travelled extensively through Africa and seen first hand the code violations and devastation left in the wake of Nestle's marketing.

Last seen in 2010 when I was in Kenya. This is not going back to the 80s.

Fully support you, OP.

To those of you who haven't been there, I'm afraid you can't begin to imagine what it's like to see a perfectly healthy mother who could breastfeed just fine, and her dying baby who she can't afford the formula for but was told that formula was going to make her baby brighter. Thinking that this would help him get out of the slum, that's what she went with.

You can visit, you can save some of them, but you can't save them all. The images will never leave me.

I like Gold Blend but I'd throw up if I drank it.

wanna I'm not trying to persuade pre-school to boycott Nestle (though it would be nice if they would), I'm just trying to get them not to actively promote Nestle. And yes, I would like other people to join the boycott, I just meant I'm not bothered either way whether you do since you've made it clear you're not interested.

I'm sure there are people who oppose the Tesco school scheme/would like schools to provide organic meat, not sure what your point is If the Nestle boycott is personal to me only then frankly I'm doing bloody well at it

I'm joining the PP who was mystified at your can't-change-anything-so-why-bother POV.

carrotcake :(

Perfectly fine to share your views and some info with the nursery, Dita. In my experience you will get a range of responses, from sour and sneery to interested.

I think it's telling that all the major NGOs actually working with mothers and children in desperate situations (Oxfam, Red Cross, Red Crescent, SCF, Unicef and so on) support the boycott and work very hard to ensure that formula is marketed and/or donated ethically.

We all heard about it somewhere, Dita. For me it was at University when I tried to buy a KitKat in the student union shop. Honestly, I wasn't bothered/didn't understand and was miffed about the limited choice.

Later I came across it within NCT and was surprised that it was still going (this would be 10 years later). Struck more of a chord then and I started to investigate it. I spoke to a cousin who works for Save the Children and lives in Africa who confirmed the reality of the situation.

Later I saw it all myself but it was only because of someone writing an article for a local NCT magazine that it hit my consciousness again.

You don't know what ripples you create when you drop a stone.

Re HIV: if a mother exclusively breastfeeds, rates of transmission are surprisingly low. I don't have the figures to hand but extensive studies have shown the transmission rate is much higher with combination feeding than with exclusive bf. An HIV+ woman in the third world is arguably keeping her baby safer by bf than by using formula.

Nestle still promote their products dangerously. Interestingly you can't access their US formula site from the UK (because they violate the Code in ways they won't get away with here, I wonder?) but you can access the Canadian one. If you read it, they tell you it's ok to make bottles up with cooled boiled water. This is very unsafe for babies. Wannabe, it's not just water that's the issue -the powder itself contains potentially fatal bacteria, which is why bottles must be made up with water at at least 70 degrees.