Boycott Nestle

[aloha]

I don't know if anyone else heard the Today programme? Nestle is demanding £6million in compensation from Ethiopia, one of the poorest nations on earth which is facing catastrophic famine. Children are already dying because they have no food. Nestle has been offered over £1million, but is refusing to settle, even thought the company knows what the consequences may be. I thought this might be of interest to anyone who has read about the famine or contributed to famine relief. Personally, I didn't donate to have a greedy, immoral multinational snatch the food from starving children's mouths. Nestle already promote artificial feeding in the third world, contrary to the World Health Organisation's code of marketing. Where drinking water is unsafe, bottle fed babies are up to 25 times more likely to die from diarrhoea. So Nestle profits while babies die. Boycotting this disgusting company means more than never buying Nescafe again (though it's a very good start as it is their flagship product) but also covers many products including Cheerios and Shredded Wheat, Perrier Water, Kit Kats , Yorkie, Felix catfood as well as L'Oreal, Lancome, Garnier, Maybelline and Helena Rubenstein. For more information & a list of Nestle products, go to www.babymilkaction.org.

Actually on the 23rd December Nestle made a statement on the Ethiopian issue. They stressed that they were only one of a number of companies involved in the case and re-itereated that they remain of the view that that it's important for the long-term welfare of Africa that governemtns comply with international law. BUT they said they had no interest in taking money from Ethiopia when it is in "such a desparate state of human need" and said they would be donating "any money received from this settlement to both public and private efforts to relieve hunger in Ethiopia". "As the Ethiopian government has already offered US$1.6m, we will immediately make this sum available upon receipt for famine relief in Ethiopia and will do the same with any additional sums from a final settlement".

The company commented that this was a long running dispute at the start of which Ethiopia was not suffering a famine (and at which time the proceeds were intended to be re-invested in the country) and that nobody contacted the company ahead of the demonstration / press reports which took them by surprise.

As far as I can tell, the statement that all money received would be given to famine relief wasn't reported anywhere. It's only because I am on the company's email list for corporate announcements that I saw it.

I think there is a big difference between a legal right to sue, and a moral imperative not to do so. If I found out that due to some long ago legal dispute between a past owner of my house and a third party, I was able to screw some money out of a very poor person in great difficulty, I would obviously be wrong to go ahead with trying to get the money - whatever the technical legal status of my claim, surely? The Spectator has a very particular political viewpoint which I do not agree with. Ye Gods, Boris Johnson and Cristina Odone do not provide role models of any kind IMO.

Also, far from retiring 'bewelled' coffee growing families are being screwed into the ground by multinational coffee companies. They are in real trouble and are being terribly exploited. I really don't think it's patronising to be concerned about the health of people in other countries who live in different circumstances than I do.

But perhaps Aloha if that poor person's actions meant that say, nobody was willing to buy a house in that area thereby blighting the entire neighbourhood it might be the right thing to do. Anyway, as they now say it will be all donated to famine relief anyway. This would undoubtedly mean the funds will be used to directly help more Ethiopians than if they stay in the government's coffers. I am not a Spectator fan either but I think it is worth looking at the alternative view sometimes.

Oh dear, the usual misconceptions and ignorance about the Nestle boycott and Baby Milk Action rear their heads again! Re the Spectator article - if the author had looked at the BMA site or literature they would see that BMA is not against formula milk, it is against inappropriate infant feeding -not the same thing at all!!

I'll take just a few of the points of the Spectator article, such as "For years, Nestlé has been subjected to a boycott in response to its selling formula baby milk in the Third World." - BMA's boycott of Nestle campaign is not aimed at Third World countries, it is aimed at protecting all babies, the world over.

"1.5 million babies a year die because they are not breast-fed, claims the pressure-group Baby Milk Action." - BMA itself does not claim that 1.5 million babies a year die because they are not breast fed. That figure comes from the World Health Organisation, surely a well-respected organisation?

"If formula milk is not easily available, babies end up being fed on cows milk or watery porridge, far more hazardous than carefully formulated milk."- But formula milk isn't always easily available unless you have money. Looking at the country where I currently live, Indonesia, ordinary formula costs about $3 a tin. Given that many, many people here live on an income below the offical minimum wage of less than US$57 a month (and with no Welfare benefits to turn to) how can a product costing 20% of your income be classed as being 'easily available'? If formula manufacturers wanted to save babies lives they'd be better spending a little money on iron tablets for pregnant women. Over 400 women a week die here due to pregnancy and/or childbirth. 80% of those deaths are caused by loss of blood and 80% of that blood loss is due to low iron levels. At a stroke, you would prevent 256 women a week from dying, who would then be able to breast feed their babies.

"Baby Milk Action brushes off the issue of HIV, accusing milk manufacturers of exploiting fears of HIV transmission. In fact, the United Nations quite clearly recommends that, so long as water supplies are safe, HIV-infected mothers should avoid breast-feeding." - BMA doesn't brush off HIV. Indeed, it is calling for more research in this area.

"The organisation goes on to list circumstances where it claims that Nestlé has broken the World Health Organisation international code of marketing of breast-milk substitutes, in spite of the obvious impossibility of keeping to the letter of this pedantic document." - Oh, okay it's pedantic, so we'll ignore it shall we? Can we also ignore all the other pedantic documents in the world, please?

"The code demands that all instructions be in the mother's native language, oblivious to the fact that there are thousands of dialects spoken among the world needy poor." - Surely being one of the needy poor shouldn't exclude a person from having access to correct information. That truly is patronising.

"Using diagrams to demonstrate how to use formula milk is made all but impossible under the code, for the bizarre reason that it forbids pictures of babies to be used on the tin." - Not bizarre at all, if you look at how formula, and anything else, is advertised. A picture makes something much more appealling than just words, especially if it is idealised.

"why, if formula milk is so lethal, did infant mortality fall rather than soar after the product was introduced in developed countries in the 1860s?" - From what I understand, the fall in infant (and general) mortality was due to general improvements in living standards such as clean water, better housing, better nutrition, and better understanding of disease processes, not formula.

Here's the BMA site for those wanting to find out what BMA is really all about, not the Spectator's take on it. In fact, maybe I should send my rant to the Spectator, not Mumsnet!

Short of time but WHO have denied many times that they ever made that statement saying that the 1.5m number relates to infant nutrition in general rather than formula. A genuine question but if formula is so expensive in the third world then how can it be implicated in the deaths of so many children?

I haven't seen the WHO statement - I'll have a look tomorrow if/when my internet connex allows me to.

Cropy, re the formula question. Free samples may be given to parents, to start off with. Or they may use formula as a top-up, when a tin lasts for a while, but because it may intefere with bfeeding they then find they have to use more and more and it becomes unaffordable. (Actually, it sounds a bit like drugpushers activities, doesn't it?!?) I would also think that milk powder that is inappropriately stored (very few people have fridges and daytime temps are around 95deg) for a long time is likely to grow bugs. A tin may be eked out by diluting the bottles so it seems to go further, leading to malnutrition. Formula is displayed alongside much cheaper ordinary dried milk and mothers switch over to that, thinking it is the same as formula. Also other children may have to go without so the baby's formula can be paid for. HTH.

Thanks Suedonim, another question if you don't mind. If formula is too expensive, too difficult for locals to understand how ti use and too difficult to store then what are third wold mothers supposed to do who have been unable to successfully establish breast feeding?

I think what suedonim's posts so clearly show is that use of formula is different in developing countries, and is is not patronising to say so. We are talking about (often) illiterate, very poor people (poor beyond our imagination), without access to clean water, kettles, fridges, sterilisers, new bottles and teats etc etc etc. Of course formula is not a good idea in these circumstances, and of course it will pose a risk to babies. I think the point about trying samples of formula in hospital/early on and then finding that the mother's milk supply dries up so she is then dependant on formula is a particularly good - if chilling- one.

I genuinely don't think that the fact that a long-defunct government (20-odd years ago) nationalised some companies has had any affect on investment in Ethiopia now. The current government does not do anything like this, current companies are not at risk. Nestle don't 'invest' out of charity, they are there to screw what they can in the way of profit. Fine, but don't let them dress it up as charity. Also, this 'giving the money to famine relief' stuff is very new. I heard the representative on the Today programme and he didn't mention it, depite being pressed hard on how his company could try to take this money when people were starving. It seems that debates like this one do have an effect on even the biggest, nastiest multinationals

Croppy, I don't really know what happens to babies whose mothers can't bf and can't afford formula, although I think TikTok has posted somewhere that mothers who are physiologically unable to bf are pretty rare. Some parents rent out their baby to beggars in return for a cut of the beggar's takings, to increase their income. Taking a guess at it, babies are fed on unsuitable foods, leading to malnutrition and related diseases such as TB and some babies just die eventually, I suppose, which is unbelievably tragic both for the family and for the wider world - all that lost potential.

Nor am I sure what happens to those babies whose mothers die. Sometimes they go to orphanages or are sold for adoption abroad but I know that very often, when a mother dies, the children are sent to live with relations. The mother may well have had similar age siblings so maybe the baby is wetnursed. (The wife of one of our company's drivers is very sick at present and it looks as though he may end up widowed with three small children, inc a baby. He's on a 'good' income of about US$75 a month.)

One of the expat groups here runs feeding schemes in some of the shanty towns so if I can speak to the woman who organises them, I'll ask her about these feeding issues. The name 'feeding scheme' is a bit of a misnomer, really, as recently they've concentrated on education rather than handouts. By encouraging longer term breastfeeding and showing people basic hygiene and nutrition principles, such as washing your hands before preparing food and growing and eating vegetables, then training up two or three women to keep spreading and reinforcing the message, they've had a lot more success in preventing malnutrition and on general health than merely doling out rice and a bit of meat three times a week. Sorry, getting away from the point here, but I find it fascinating that small efforts can have such big results.

BTW, for the record, I'm not at all against formula - I'm just against unethical marketing.

Thanks again Suedonim. Of course Aloha we all accept that conditions in third world countries mean formula needs to be treated very sensitively and I fully support efforts to monitor the ethics of Numico, Danone, Nestle and all the other large formula manufacturers. My point was simply that almost all of Nestle's Africa formula sales are actually to South Africa where the customer base is broadly similar to that elsewhere in the developed world. I think it is wrong and yes, patronising to lump these people in all together. Also, again I think Nestle is unfairly targeted.

As for investment in Ethiopia. My job revolves around this and I can assure you that legal / political risk is the number one consideration for investing in developing and for that matter developed countries. Few people would consider investing in a country which doesn't comply with international law. Hence the mass withdrawal of foreign capital from countries such as Zimbabwe and crashing local stockmarkets that inevitably accompany any hint at all from developing countries of nationalisation of asstes even with compensation.

Have to agree that in my experience of this (having worked for international banks in SE Asia) it is true that in these circumstances Ethiopia is highly unlikely to attract any inward foreign investment until they demonstate that they will comply with international laws regarding foreign assets. It is after all the current government that is refusing to pay the compensation (not that I am defending Nestle in any way).

I haven't read the whole thread but to "answer" the Nestle is unfailry targeted comment... well YES and NO... yes they are not the only ones with poor ethics... but NO they do a lot more than just the baby formula bad practice...
I'll give you another example which made the news in France... they sell ready-meals/convenienced food (Buitoni, Herta and Maggi) with a fairly (too) high level of salt...

1. it's bad for you health wise - they could use less salt - that was the argument from the nutrionists who raised the alarm... if my memory serves me correctly the daily dose of sodium intake should be max 2mg... that's what they have (or more) in most of their foods... which means you shouldn't have salt in anything else... well to start with you have some in bread anyway... Nestle at the time said they didn't put THAT much salt, but tests made in independent lab showed consistently more than what was on the label!
2. Salt (and sugar and fat) taste is addictive... so once you start eating their stuff you find it actually taste better than your own stuff as you get hooked on the salt/sugar/fat content
3. When you eat a lot of salt you drink more.... now who do you think owns Vittel, Contrex, San Pellegrino and Perrier some of the biggest bottled water cies??????? and the French are not just wine drinkers... they drink a huge amount of bottled-water.... clever???? isn't it... I mean don't think this is JUST a coincidence... let's not be this naive!

Out of interest, were Nestle's brands more salty than others?

Personally, I'd be surprised if people who ate a lot of pre-packaged convenience food drank much bottled water. The vast majority of Perrier is any case sold through bars and restaurants. In any case, isn't Buitoni purely dried pasta?? Maggi is mainly stock cubes and sauces with some frozen food so Nestle is by no means a major player in convenience foods as such. In the UK, the supermarkets dominate pre-packaged food which are generally full of salt. Is this becasue they want to sell more water? err no, it's because they taste crap and they'll do anything to enhance the flavour.

Just did a quick search. Almost all of the top 10 selling makers of mineral water have no involvement in convenience food so perhaps someone should alert them to the fact they are missing a business opportunity.

One last fascinating fact. The UK is apparently the biggest market in Europe for convenience foods but it does not have one of the highest per capita rates of bottled water consumption. Do the French really eat loads of convenience food? I'm shocked!!

i was v. shocked to find jars of dolmio pasta sauce readily available in italian supermarkets when we were there on holiday last year!

Yes, Croppy, I'd be surprised, too. One of the things that really struck me when we were on holiday in (admittedly, rural) France last year was how different the stock in the supermarkets was. Much less convenience food, far greater range of fresh and locally produced produce. And there was hardly anyone with their ear glued to a mobile phone, unlike the Sainsbury's I go to, where there's invariably a couple of people in each aisle saying, "well, they've got strawberry and apricot but not raspberry. Shall I get it in the large carton?..."
And I understand the UK has the highest levels of obesity in Europe, too (followed by Spain, apparently. Wonder what their supermarkets are like?)

Have noticed more convenience foods in France and definitley fatter kids. Also noticed a proliferation of McDonalds in France. Connected??? You decide.

Someone asked what happened to orphaned babies or babies whose mothers are unable to establish bf.

Formula is a modern invention!! It has only been common place in the developed world for about 60 years.

Before that, babies who were not breastfed (for whatever reason) were wet-nursed by other women (this was the custom among better off families for a few hundred years, and still fairly common among upper class families until about 100 years ago) or they were fed on boiled cows milk mixed with water and sugar.

The idea of feeding babies 'home made' formula like this sounds horrifying today, but really, we don't know that manufactured formula is much better! There have been no trials to measure long-term health outcomes. Manufactured formula has many additives as part of the factory process and preserving. The protein in it is 'modified' which makes it more quickly digestible, and it's thought this is probably better for young babies' tummies.

It is very rare for a mother in the developing world to fail at breastfeeding. If she does need to supplement - perhaps she is separated from her baby because she can't take the baby to work with her for some reason - another mother can share the feeding, or the baby can drink home made formula based on another mammal's milk.

Formula manufacturers would like to be thought of as indispensable saviours of the human race - they are not. They make a convenience product, that's all!

To back up Suedonims comments about formula, I dug out my notes from meetings in Guatemala City with women who had formula fed and subsequently lost babies!

Basically, this is one womans story ...
Sarita (25) has 4 children, and has lost 2. One was stillborn, one (first)died age 12 weeks from diahorreal illness. She was approached when in a clinic with her new baby - basic clinic services provided for weighing/advice etc. Young woman in nurses uniform wearing badge saying 'Feeding Adviser'. Suggested to her that owdered milk might be 'better' for her baby - did she want to try it? She was 17 - said yes - was given a small tim of formula, told to bring empty tin back next week for second free sample. Did so. Told to come back again next week - tim was to cost her (Eq US$ 2). Couldn't afford it. Tried bf again - couldn't. Went to supermarket where she found cheaper baby milk at $1.20 for weeks supply - still too much but had to. She stopped eating as much herself to pay for the milk. Made it up at about 3/4 strength to make it go further, and decided not to boil the water for 10 mins but just for 5 to save fuel costs.
(Sarita lived in Metzquital, a shanty town of Guatemala City, which at that time had no water piped, electricity, sewerage etc. Her family had fled the countryside when she was 5 due to civil war - her village was burned to the ground to look for guerillas and only 3 families survived. Her mother was raped and murdered by Government forces).
Her daughter died 6 weeks later after 4 weeks of losing weight and 5 days of diahorrea.
She then went on to train as a LLL BFC and had 5 more pregnancies - one baby died at birth through bleeding problems, the other 4 are fit and healthy. Now training to be a contraceptive adviser and trains other breastfeeding counsellors.
She showed us the tins - had kept them as storage jars as the had good lids. Nestle brand.

Tis is only one story out of several I heard. But along with that I never heard a woman say she couldn't breastfeed - everyone started and almost all did it sucessfully. I did meet one woman who had wetnursed her grandson (!) when her daughter died in childbirth. If people in this country want to use formula then that is OK, but the whole issue is totally different in the developing world. Most women in the developing world succesfully bf their children - there is no other option.

Tinker, you may well be right. How depressing!

Croppy - but if the risk was purely historical - ie the nationalisation happened 25-years ago and hadn't been repeated, plus the current government was against nationalisation, surely that would be low risk? Or would a current government really be held responsible for what their predecessors long ago did when making commercial decisions? That sounds strange to me. The Ethiopia situation is very different from Zimbabwe. In Zimbabwe, the CURRENT government is nationalising/stealing. That's not happening in Ethiopia nor is it likely to (though I'm not saying the government is perfect, whose is?). Also, the Ethiopian government did NOT refuse to pay. Having had the money demanded from them (wrongly and totally immorally IMO, as Nestle had neither lost nor needed the money in any way), they offered to pay a very large sum which was the value of the business at the time, and which the World Bank (not a notably philanthropic organisation) agreed was a fair sum, but with Nestle rejected.

SusanMt, there really is nothing like a report from the frontline to really cut through Nestle's PR crap. Thanks so much.

It's not the nationalisation issue for Ethiopia now, its not complying with an international legal ruling on settling creditor claims. That would give them a high political / legal risk rating.