Does anyone boycott Nestle?

[freeflybella 0]

I never said there was NO place for breastmilk substitutes.

My issue is with lack of education and deceitful marketing practices at the expense of public health.

Quote

By the way - orphans cannot afford to buy formula.

Only a basic understanding of marketing is needed to realize that the PR of "Good Company Nestle is doing Good Charity Work" puts Nestle top of mind when mothers cruise the formula aisle.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I never said there was NO place for breastmilk substitutes.

My issue is with lack of education and deceitful marketing practices at the expense of public health.

Quote

By the way - orphans cannot afford to buy formula.

Only a basic understanding of marketing is needed to realize that the PR of "Good Company Nestle is doing Good Charity Work" puts Nestle top of mind when mothers cruise the formula aisle.

And if they can't afford to buy formula at, what? let's say $10/can, how are they going to be able to buy breastmilk at $100/day?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

My issue is with lack of education and deceitful marketing practices at the expense of public health.

I guess it's my simple refusal to lump in Nestle with other companies that do what I consider to be deceitful marketing - i.e. those weight loss products all over the television. "Use of this product coupled with sensibe diet and exercise" will cause you to lose weaight, when sensible diet and exercise can do that by themselves.

Or education. Perhaps Nestle should be busy printing out educational pamphlets. Opps. Not enough. A large protion of people from the thrid world cannot read.

Or making public service announcements on television. Oops. Can't do that. They don't have televisions.

Or putting on radio spots. Opps, a little difficult there, too, when power is not available (though I guess bastard corporation Duracell could take 50 percent of their monthly incomes for batteries.)

Educate these mothers and families not to dilute the formula. That's a good start. Of course, I can see Nestle sending hordes of educators to India and Africa to say, "do not dilute this product. Doing so can cause health problems." Seems to me that Nestle would then immediately be accused of attempting to increase profits by making sure that they can sell more of their product. Can you hear it now?

Quote

"Good Company Nestle is doing Good Charity Work" puts Nestle top of mind when mothers cruise the formula aisle.

Isn't this an interesting statement? You know, when the health of my son is at issue I don't look to the charity work a person or company does. Michael Jackson did "We Are the World" for free, yet he's not gonna be babysitting my son.

I DO look at labels. I ALSO take into consideration what my son likes (he does not seem to particularly enjoy Enfamil) and also what the price of the product is.

It also seems that price - not charity - is the main reason why Nestle is in this trouble. THAT's the reason why the mothers/fathers/uncles/etc.. are diluting the product. So, here's my four-point plan for what Nestle should do to end this trouble:

1) Raise the price of its product to make it unaffordable in any amount by the thrid-world commoners. That way they cannot feed their children diluted formula, or formula likely to cause deadly dysentery.

2) Run an aggressive PR "charity" campaign in sub-Saharan Africa and on the Indian subcontinent. Thus the people, knowing what a nice company Nestle is, will purchase the product at exhorbitant prices

3) Reformulate the baby formula to include an enzyme that activates only when the concentration of water exceeds healthy levels when the formula is reconstituted. That'll show the starving folks not to mess with the concentrations.

4) Sell Pediatric Electrolyte water to go along with the formula, with instructions to only use it in reconstituting the formula. Add to this a factor that will neutralize the enzyme activated by too high of a water concentration.

There. The people get hosed if they do not use breast milk since it's so expensive. They purchase the product anyway because Nestle is so nice, building company profits and customer satisfaction. The product becomes unusable if not used as directed. Finally, if overdiluted, with healthful Nestle product, no harm results.

Everybody's happy, and people will quit bitching, right?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Alias 0]

Quote

women, and their babies, would have been a lot better off if the women had used the formula to supplement their own meagre diet and continued to breast feed the babies....

Carpe Diem

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

So you think that everything Nestle says is a deliberate lie, and everything your website says is the absolute truth?

Try spin.

You haven't provided anything to disprove what Nestle says. Are we just supposed to take your word for it?

Click here: Nestle "Baby Milk Issue Facts"

One item from there:

Nestlé examines report on alleged WHO Code violations

Nestlé has made an initial examination of the document issued in May by the campaign group IBFAN, entitled " Breaking the Rules, Stretching the Rules 2004". The document makes allegations about 16 infant food manufacturers' compliance with the WHO " International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes" and subsequent World Health Assembly resolutions.

As always, Nestlé will carefully study the claims relating to our company and if there are substantiated violations we will correct them.

However, it appears that a great number of the accusations made in the report have nothing to do with the marketing of breast milk substitutes.

For example:

* The picture of a mother and a baby on the front-page of the edition of the scientific journal " Annales Nestlé" focused on Obesity in Childhood, is cited as a violation. "Annales Nestlé" is a well-respected paediatric journal, published since 1942, written by internationally known scientists. Each publication focuses on a specific topic such as diabetes or trace elements requirements for infants and children. Showing a picture of a mother and baby in this context is totally in compliance with any resolution adopted by the World Health Assembly. (Dominican Republic)

* Distributing the "Nestlé WHO Code Action Report" to medical professionals. In this publication we inform our contacts about new recommendations by the WHO, and how Nestlé applies those recommendations. For example Nestlé supporting exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months, and having accordingly changed labels of its complementary foods in all developing countries.

* Distributing to health professionals and other interested parties "The Nestlé People Development Review" a supplement to the Nestlé Management Report 2002, outlining Nestlé's efforts in literacy training, technical training, and personnel development. (Argentina)

* Perhaps the most bizarre allegation came from Botswana. This relates to a Nestlé initiative to raise awareness of the WHO Code among distributors and their sales people. Here, educational material on the WHO Code is viewed as a violation. The leaflet criticized by IBFAN is part of this material:

The pictures, which are easy to understand for sales people, are superimposed with a cross-out X on particular infant formula marketing practices, which are banned. The aim is to prevent wrongdoings by our trade partners and accusing Nestlé of violating the WHO Code with that initiative defies common sense.

To our understanding the vast majority of the accusations cited by IBFAN are entirely in keeping with the WHO Code and other relevant WHA resolutions, as originally passed by the World Health Assembly. A substantial number of the allegations are about infant cereals, which Nestlé do not market as a breast milk substitute. In fact Nestle is the only company that does not market infant cereals for consumption below 6 months in the developing world.
Moreover, a number of allegations unfortunately do not lend themselves to an appropriate analysis due to their vagueness or lack of any detail indicating where or when the alleged violation occurred.

The monitoring evidence presented by IBFAN is based on their own interpretation of the Code rather than on the way in which governments have decided to implement the WHO Code and subsequent WHA resolutions. This crucial fact, which has a decisive effect on the result of the monitoring, is not at all made clear in the IBFAN report and shows a basic disregard for transparency.
We also believe that findings should be shared with companies as well as with governments without any delay, as required by the WHO Code, so that corrective actions can be taken immediately, if necessary.

Nestlé therefore encourages all governments in their efforts to adapt the WHO Code as appropriate to their social and legislative framework, in particular setting up official and transparent Code monitoring bodies. As an infant food manufacturer, we have a clear responsibility to monitor our marketing practices. We take this responsibility seriously and have elaborated internal mechanisms in place to ensure Code compliance. On an ongoing basis we evaluate and seek to strengthen these mechanisms.

Nestlé appreciates being informed in a timely manner by governments, non-governmental organizations, professional groups or individuals about any activities, which are believed not to be in line with the WHO Code or other relevant resolutions.
This will help us take immediate action if needed and this is what the WHO Code recommends.

[vmsfreaky1 0]

YES! I have been for over ten years!