madamez - that may well be right, but with nestle the problem is specifically their MARKETING strategies - they prey on women who are desperate to feed their babies: this is from a campaign site and explains it better than I can:
Nestle have been repeatedly criticised and widely boycotted in a number of countries because of their violation of international codes on the marketing of baby milk products. Nestle holds about 50% of the world's breast milk substitute market and is being boycotted for continued breaches of the 1981 WHO (World Health Organisation) Code regulating the marketing of breast milk substitutes.
Nestle encourages bottle feeding primarily by either giving away free samples of baby milk to hospitals, or neglecting to collect payments. It has been criticised for misinforming mothers and health workers in promotional literature. Nestle implies that malnourished mothers, and mothers of twins and premature babies are unable to breastfeed, despite health organisations claims that there is no evidence to support this.
Evidence of direct advertising to mothers has been found in over twenty countries such as South Africa and Thailand. Instructions and health warnings on packaging are often either absent, not prominently displayed or in an inappropriate language. All of these actions directly contravene the Code regulating the marketing of baby milk formulas.
Even in the UK, bottle-fed babies are up to ten times more likely to develop gastro intestinal infections, but in the Third World, where clean water may be absent, mothers may be illiterate and independent health care and advice may be lacking, bottle feeding can be more dangerous. This can lead to a situation where babies are left vulnerable to dysentery, malnutrition and death, and Nestle is able to retain its estimated $4 billion market share in the baby-milk industry.
Over 3000 infants die every day from baby bottle disease (WHO), and formula dependant babies create massive economic strain on poor families, contributing to unsustainable land use.
Nestle were recently criticised by Oxfam for pursuing the Ethiopian Government for US $6 million as the country attempts to tackle a famine affecting 11 million people.This payment was so large because they demanded it in US dollars not local currency at the current rate of exchange not that of 1975 .Nestle did not even own the company when the factory was nationalised. Nestle has finally accepted US $1.51 million offered by the government on 23/1/3 following the campaign run by Oxfam which created a public relations nightmare.
The workers in a Nestle chocolate plant in Cacapava, Brazil went on strike in 1989, complaining of poor working conditions, including discrimination against women, lack of protective clothing and inadequate safety conditions. Within two months of the beginning of the strike the company had sacked forty of its workers, including most of the strike organisers.
Nestle has subsidiaries in some of the most repressive regimes in the world, including Brazil, China, Colombia, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Senegal, Sri Lanka and Turkey. The company also has subsidiaries in South Africa which it owned during the Apartheid year. L´Oreal (parent company - Nestle) have subsidiaries in Peru and Morocco.
Sources
Mcspotlight
Baby Milk Action Charity
Make Trade Fair
From End Evil Blacklist website.