Nestle

Nestlé holds about 50% of the world's breast milk substitute market and is
being boycotted for continued breaches of the 1981 WHO Code regulating
the marketing of breast milk substitutes.

Nestlé 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. Nestlé 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 bavies 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.

Exploiting employees

In 1989 workers at a Nestlé chocolate plant in Cacapava, Brazil went on

strike. The wprkers compained of poor working conditions, including
discrimination against women, lack of protective clothing and inadequate
safety condition. Within two months of the beginning of the stike the
company had sacked forty of its workers, including most of the strike
organisers.
Supporting brutal / repressive regimes

Nestlé has subsidiaries in 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
subsidaries in South Africa which it owned during the Apartheid year.
L'Oréal adds Peru and Morocco to the list.

Abusing animals

Nestlé own nearly 50% of the cosmetics company L'Oreal. L'Oreal was
subject to boycott calls from animal rights groups including PeTA because of
its animal testing policy. Since then L'Oreal has claimed that it no longer
tests finished products on animals. This statement is obviously intended to
mislead since finished products do not require further testing and it implies
that the ingredients are certainly still subject to tests. Some groups called
off the boycott in response to L'Oreals' claims, however there are
individuals and organisations who continue the boycott and L'Oreal continues
to test on animals.

Nestlé itself manufactures products containing meat and has been critised by
BUAV for testing its coffee's carcinogenicity on mice.

The baby milk issue

Groups such as the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), and Save the Children claim
that the promotion of infant formula over breast-feeding has led to health problems and deaths among
infants in less economically developed countries.[3][4] There are four problems that can arise when
poor mothers in developing countries switch to formula:
• Formula must normally be mixed with water, which is often contaminated in poor countries,
leading to disease in vulnerable infants. [5] Because of the high illiteracy rates in developing
nations many mothers are not aware of the sanitation methods needed in the preparation of
bottles. Even mothers able to read in their native tongue may be unable to read the language in
which sterilization directions are written.
• Even mothers that can understand the sanitation standards required often do not have the means
to perform it: fuel to boil water, electric (or other reliable) light to enable sterilisation at night.
UNICEF estimates that a non-breastfed child living in disease-ridden and unhygienic conditions
is between six and 25 times more likely to die of diarrhea and four times more likely to die of
pneumonia than a breastfed child.[6]
 • Many poor mothers use less formula powder than is necessary, in order to make a container of
formula last longer. As a result, some infants receive inadequate nutrition from weak solutions
of formula.[7]
• Breast milk has many natural benefits lacking in formula. Nutrients and antibodies are passed to
the baby while hormones are released into the mother's body.[8] Breast-fed babies are protected,
in varying degrees, from a number of illnesses, including diarrhea, bacterial meningitis,
gastroenteritis, ear infection, and respiratory infection.[9][10][11] Breast milk contains the right
amount of the nutrients that are essential for neuronal (brain and nerve) development. [12] The
bond between baby and mother can be strengthened during breastfeeding.[10] Frequent and
exclusive breastfeeding can also delay the return of fertility, which can help women in
developing countries to space their births.[13] The World Health Organization recommends
that, in the majority of cases, babies should be exclusively breast fed for the first six months.
[14]
Advocacy groups and charities have accused Nestlé of unethical methods of promoting infant formula
over breast-milk to poor mothers in developing countries.[15][16] For example, IBFAN claim that
Nestlé supports the distribution of free powdered formula samples to hospitals and maternity wards;
after leaving the hospital, the formula is no longer free, but because the supplementation has interfered
with lactation the family must continue to buy the formula. IBFAN also allege that Nestlé uses
"humanitarian aid" to create markets, does not label its products in a language appropriate to the
country where they are sold, and offers gifts and sponsorship to influence health workers to promote its
products.[17] Nestlé denies these allegations. [18]

[edit] History of the boycott

Nestlé's perceived marketing strategy was first written about in New Internationalist magazine in 1973
and in a booklet called The Baby Killer, published by the British non-governmental organization War
On Want in 1974. Nestlé attempted to sue the publisher of a German-language translation (Third World
Action Group) for libel. After a two-year trial, the court found in favour of Nestlé because they could
not be held responsible for the infant deaths 'in terms of criminal law'. [19] However, because the
Defendants were only fined 300 Swiss Francs, and that Judge Jürg Sollberger commented that Nestlé
"must modify its publicity methods fundamentally", TIME magazine declared this a "moral victory" for
the defendants. [20]
The widespread publicity led to the launch of the boycott in Minneapolis, USA, by the Infant Formula
Action Coalition (INFACT) and this boycott soon spread to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and
Europe. In May 1978, the US Senate held a public hearing into the promotion of breast-milk substitutes
in developing countries and joined calls for a Marketing Code. In 1979, WHO and UNICEF hosted an
international meeting which called for the development of an international code of marketing, as well
as action on other fronts to improve infant and young child feeding practices. The International Baby
Food Action Network (IBFAN) was formed by six of the campaigning groups at this meeting. [16]
In 1981, the 34th World Health Assembly (WHA) adopted Resolution WHA34.22 which includes the
International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes. The Code covers infant formula and other
milk products, foods and beverages, when marketed or otherwise represented to be suitable as a partial
or total replacement of breast-milk. It bans the promotion of breast-milk substitutes and gives health
workers the responsibility of advising parents. It limits manufacturing companies to the provision of
scientific and factual information to health workers and sets out labeling requirements.[21]
In 1984, boycott coordinators met with Nestlé, which agreed to implement the code, and the boycott
was officially suspended. However, in 1988 IBFAN alleged that baby-milk companies were flooding
health facilities in the developing world with free and low-cost supplies, and the boycott was
relaunched the following year [5]
In May 1999 a ruling against Nestlé was issued by the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).
Nestlé claimed in an anti-boycott advertisement that it markets infant formula “ethically and
responsibly”. The ASA found that Nestlé could not support this nor other claims in the face of evidence
provided by the campaigning group Baby Milk Action.[22]
In November 2000 the European Parliament invited IBFAN, UNICEF and Nestlé to present evidence to
a Public Hearing before the Development and Cooperation Committee. Evidence was presented by the
IBFAN group from Pakistan and UNICEF's legal officer commented on Nestlé's failure to bring its
policies into line with the World Health Assembly Resolutions. Nestlé declined an invitation to attend,
claiming scheduling conflicts, although it sent a representative of the auditing company it had
commissioned to produce a report on its Pakistan operation.[23][24][25]

[edit] Current status of the boycott

This article may need to be updated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or
newly available information, and remove this template when finished. Please see the talk page
for more information.
The boycott is coordinated by the International Nestlé Boycott Committee, the secretariat for which is
the UK group Baby Milk Action [26]. Company practices are monitored by the International Baby Food
Action Network (IBFAN), which consists of more than 200 groups in over 100 countries.
In parallel with the boycott, campaigners work for implementation of the Code and Resolutions in
legislation and claim that 60 countries have now introduced laws implementing most or all of the
provisions.[27]
Many[quantify] European universities, colleges and schools have banned the sale of Nestlé products
from their shops and vending machines. In the United Kingdom, 73 Student Unions, 102 businesses, 30
faith groups, 20 health groups, 33 consumer groups, 18 local authorities, 12 trade unions, education
groups, 31 MPs, and many celebrities support the boycott.[28][29]
Nestlé claims that it is in full compliance with the International Code.[30] According to their CEO,
Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, "we also carry out annual audits on WHO Code compliance with a sample of
Nestlé companies, and we investigate any substantiated claims made by those who believe we have
broken the Code.... If we find that the Code has been deliberately violated, we take disciplinary
action."[31] The company maintains that many of the allegations are unsubstantiated, out-of-date, or
use IBFAN's own non-standard interpretation of the Code. [18]

[edit] Boycott in the media

An episode of the TV show The Mark Thomas Product made by the British Channel Four in 1999
investigated the boycott and Nestlé's practices concerning baby milk. Mark Thomas attempted to find
evidence for claims against Nestlé and to speak to heads of the company. In one portion of the show he
"received a tin of baby milk from Mozambique. All instructions are in English. 33 languages and
dialects are recognised in Mozambique. Portuguese is the official language. However, only about 30%
of the population can speak it. English is usually the second language for people in Mozambique. [32]
In 2001, comedian Robert Newman and actress Emma Thompson called for a boycott of the Perrier
Comedy Award, because Perrier was owned by Nestlé.[33] An alternative competition called the Tap
Water Awards was set up the following year.[34]
In 2002, authors Germaine Greer and Jim Crace withdrew from the Hay Festival in protest over
Nestlé's sponsorship of the event.[35]
A 2007 article in The Guardian highlighted aggressive marketing practices by Nestlé in Bangladesh.[5]

Nestlé India is a subsidiary of Nestlé S.A. of Switzerland. With seven factories and a large number of
co-packers, Nestlé India is a vibrant Company that provides consumers in India with products of global
standards and is committed to long-term sustainable growth and shareholder satisfaction.

The Company insists on honesty, integrity and fairness in all aspects of its business and expects the
same in its relationships. This has earned it the trust and respect of every strata of society that it comes
in contact with and is acknowledged amongst India's 'Most Respected Companies' and amongst the
'Top Wealth Creators of India'.
The company dates to 1867, when two separate Swiss enterprises were
founded that would later form the core of Nestlé. In the succeeding decades
the two competing enterprises aggressively expanded their businesses
throughout Europe and the United States.
In August of 1867 Charles A. and George Page, two American brothers from Lee County, IL,
established the Anglo-Swiss Condensed Milk Company in Cham. Their first British operation was
opened at Chippenham, Wiltshire in 1873.[3]
In September 1867, in Vevey, Henri Nestlé developed a milk-based baby food and soon began
marketing it. Henri Nestlé retired in 1875, but the company, under new ownership, retained his name as
Farine Lactée Henri Nestlé.