My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

General health

Boycott Nestle

145 replies

aloha · 19/12/2002 09:44

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.

OP posts:
Report
aloha · 22/01/2003 17:18

Ah, but if the 'creditors' didn't demand 'repayment' for money they have no moral right to and never lost in the first place, the issue wouldn't exist though, would it?

OP posts:
Report
pupuce · 22/01/2003 22:44

Croppy - Buitoni and Maggi are more than those products in France... Buitoni does all sorts of pizzas, lasagnas, pancakes,... and maggi makes ready-meals.
Perrier is a household bottled water in France FAR more than restaurants where Badoit is the leader!

But the shock in France was related to Nestle's tactics.. so I do not knw if they salt more than others.

Out of curiosity, where did you get the top 10 brands list?

Report
jasper · 22/01/2003 23:18

susanmt I have been quite affected by your post.

I met a leading light in the baby milk action group some years ago.
She is my best friend's aunt.

I have to say she put me right off the cause as she was a total nutcase.
She did absolutely nothing for the cause and I have always been deeply sceptical of the BMA because of her.
Your story has helped me to see past this frankly lunatic woman!
Thanks.

Report
Demented · 22/01/2003 23:27

Susanmt, just read your post and find it sickening. That poor woman.

Report
Croppy · 23/01/2003 08:38

But Aloha, if that was the case, they wouldn't have won a legal ruling in their favour. fair enough Pupuce but it still doesn't explain why countries who have the highest per capita consumption of convenience foods (where France doesn't rate very highly at all) tend to have the lowest per capita consumption of bottled water. Like most people in the financial world, I have access to just about every industry report ever publshed.

Report
Croppy · 23/01/2003 09:38

Ok pupuce, I can’t believe I’m bothering with this but I hate these sorts of conspiracy theories. First up I cannot believe that anyone really believes that Heinz adds salt, and sugar for that matter to baked beans for any other reason than it enhances the flavour at minimum cost to the manufacturer (rather than for example to get toddlers quaffing Perrier).

In 2001, the French market for bottled was worth US$3.3bn versus just US$958m in the UK so 30% of the size. I don’t have exact figures for convenience / prepackaged food but the market estimate is that the UK market for convenience food is 2 – 2.5x bigger than France. Nestle’s market share in the UK is 12.7% (Danone’s is 23.7%) and yet it is 45.2% in France (but Perrier is small, it is their still brands that dominate as still water accounts for 81% of the market). In the UK, Nestle’s four brands Malvern, Buxton, Vittel and Perrier are primarily sold through bars, restaurants, hotels etc. with their share of supermarket sales (which presumably is for home consumption) far lower than competitors. French consumption of mineral water has slowed to 1.2% growth in 2002 down from 5% in 1995 which is the exact opposite of the growth in consumption of convenience food there.

Don’t you think that A) if Nestle added salt to convenience food in order to get people to drink their water, they would target the UK which is a far larger convenience food market than France and B)that they would at least introduce a lower priced sparkling mineral water (as this is much more popular in the UK than France) to be primarily sold through UK supermarkets and C) given that there is no correlation whatsoever between the consumption of convenience food and mineral water that they would perhaps be questioning their enthusiasm with their salt shakers by now anyway. But then of course, no doubt there is some internet site somewhere dedicated to this so hey, who needs logic.

Report
prufrock · 23/01/2003 09:44

Croppy - leave that datastream terminal alone NOW

Report
Croppy · 23/01/2003 09:48

Prufrock I think I need to put in an emergency call to the Help desk to terminate my access for my own sanity.

Report
aloha · 23/01/2003 09:50

Croppy, I think we both know that moral & legal are not at all the same thing! If the creditors (esp Nestle who never lost a penny in Ethiopia) agreed to put aside their claim the problem wouldn't exist. Just because you have a technical legal right to something doesn't mean you should immediately go grasping it, IMO. Particularly if it means a super-rich multinational is trying to profit at the expense of a starving nation. BTW The World Bank thought Ethiopia's offer of compensation was a good one (the issue of settlement isn't black and white due to the length of time that has elapsed) You wouldn't call them softies would you?

OP posts:
Report
Croppy · 23/01/2003 10:02

As has been established by the court Nestle did lose money and therefore was entitled to the compensation, the amount of which was determined by the court. The company is not trying to profit from it as they have pledged to directly put all money received towards famine relief so the net result would be that the starving would get more direct money than would otherwise be the case. The reason they are pursuing it is simply to uphold the principle that countries should abide by international law as their is no actual gain to them. Anyway, let's just agree to disagree shall we as even I'm bored now.

Report
aloha · 23/01/2003 10:06

I would, except I think you are factually wrong. How could Nestle lose money when they didn't even own the company when it was nationalised?

OP posts:
Report
Croppy · 23/01/2003 10:11

Oh for goodness sake, it was an international court ruling that they were entitled to the money not my personal opinion!. This entitlement obviously depends entirely on the validity of their claim. When they acquired the company, they also acquired the litigation. The price they paid reflected the strength of the case i.e compensation was expected. I shall just agree to disagree with you then.

Report
aloha · 23/01/2003 10:42

That's not true. Find me the reference that states they are entitled to 6million dollars! They are in negotiations with the Ethiopian government which were initiated by the government. The government voluntarily offered 1.5million, which the World Bank agreed was an appropriate sum. Nestle refused to accept it (being an exceptionally morally bankrupt multinational) and demanded 6million. A huge international outcry from famine relief organisations and individuals ensued, so they pretended they intended donating money to famine relief all along. Which proves that boycotts and email campaigns can work.
I can find no evidence whatsover that Nestle itself ever lost a penny in Ethiopia. I would be very interested to find any reference that suggested they did.

OP posts:
Report
Croppy · 23/01/2003 11:07

Nestle is one of 50 companies involved in the same claim, the principles of which are determined under international law. I'm not going to spend time searching for references etc as I've wasted too much time on Mumsnet lately. So I'm prepared to say I'm completely wrong and Nestle is the devil incarnate.

Report
bossykate · 23/01/2003 12:12

careful croppy, boris johnson will have you down as a burger-bashing antiglobal malcontent!

Report
prufrock · 23/01/2003 12:52

But of course still advise your clients to invest in it!

Report
pupuce · 23/01/2003 21:15

Croopy - thanks for all these figures... still didn't tell emw here you got them?

Just one thing that I DO want to highlight... Nestle's marketing in France is very unrelated to their marketing strategies in the UK... I speak from experience in this... For annonimity reasons I can't say who I worked for (not Nestle though ) but it was a bigger group than N. and we had business contacts with them... so when I suggest that their marketing is not global but country based... I tthink I am quite right!

Report
aloha · 23/01/2003 22:08

Nestle's is by far the biggest claim and the company that is/was least amenable to negotiation. If I'm lying then so is Oxfam and the World Bank (unlikely bedfellows). Maybe Nestle isn't the devil incarnate, but it's certainly pretty evil, IMO. But then I think taking money from the starving and sending salespeople into baby clinics dressed as nurses so that babies die is pretty much as low as you can get. Maybe I am a wide-eyed innocent but I really can't think of anything more morally wrong! Boycott Nestle!! Boycotts work! Email campaigns work! Yippee!

OP posts:
Report
janh · 27/01/2003 15:38

Did everybody know about this already? (I just found it via an Oxfam email and hadn't heard it anywhere):

**



***

This came from

www.maketradefair.com/default.asp

(apols if it's been listed before.)

Report
bells2 · 27/01/2003 16:13

Good news all round - this is what the company said:


In Addis Ababa today, representatives of Nestlé and the Ethiopian government signed an agreement reimbursing Nestlé approximately USD 1.5 million for a long-standing property claim on the part of Nestlé Germany. The property, a meat processing business, had been nationalized in 1975 by the government then in power and sold to a private investor in 1998.

As indicated in a statement by Nestlé S.A.'s CEO Peter Brabeck dated 23 December 2002, the settlement proceeds will be immediately contributed upon receipt to famine relief efforts in Ethiopia, which is facing a drought endangering the lives of many people. The first proceeds of the settlement will be received within 30 days, and donations will be made to humanitarian organizations working with the Ethiopian government in providing emergency food aid.

As previously indicated, Nestlé is also exploring potential ways it could help Ethiopia to create longer-term food security and access to water. As the world's largest food company and largest bottled water company, Nestlé has extensive experience in sourcing water. These efforts are part of Nestlé's long-term commitment to create sustainable economic development and reduce hunger in Africa.

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.