|
|
- This article is about a boycott campaign against Nestlé. For information on the company, see Nestlé.
The Nestlé boycott is a boycott launched on July 4, 1977 in the United States against the Swiss based Nestlé corporation. It soon spread rapidly outside the United States, particularly in Europe. It was prompted by concern about the company's marketing of breast milk substitutes (infant formula), particularly in Third World countries, which campaigners claim contributes to the unnecessary death and suffering of babies largely among the poor.
| Contents |
The potential problems with infant formula in third world countries
The promotion of infant formula over breast-feeding among the poor and lower classes, particularly in third world countries, has led to several health problems among infants in these countries. There are two problems that can arise when poor mothers in third world countries switch to formula. First, because most formula is of the powdered variety, it must be mixed with water before it is ready to feed. Due to contaminated water supplies in some poor countries, the formula is often mixed with contaminated water, which often causes various diseases and other ailments in infants fed the formula. Second, unlike breast-feeding, formula costs money, which poor families cannot easily spare. Therefore, many poor mothers use less formula powder than is necessary, so as to make a container of formula last longer. As a result, some infants receive inadequate nutrition from weak solutions of formula. In theory, if mothers were to use ready-to-use formula, which is premixed in individual bottles, they would resolve the problem of contaminated water, but premixed formula is more expensive than powdered formula and would exacerbate the problem of money. Because of these two problems, it is recommended that poor mothers breast-feed their babies because doing so is free, and studies have shown that even mothers who suffer from inadequate nutrition can provide adequate nutrition to their babies via breast milk.
Unethical actions Nestlé has been accused of
Nestlé has been accused by supporters of the boycott of unethical methods of promoting infant formula over breast-milk to poor mothers in third world countries. One major issue is the passing out of free powdered formula samples to soon-to-be and currently nursing mothers who do not have sanitary water to mix it with or who cannot afford adequate supplies of formula over the long term. Nursing mothers would accept the free samples, which in turn caused their breasts to cease producing breast-milk due to substituting formula feeding for breastfeeding and thus forcing them to continue using formula despite the sanitary and cost issues. This is alleged to have led to the deaths of about 1.5 million babies.
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 (http://www.i-case.com/newdemo/inffeed/docs/018if.pdf#search='the%20baby%20killer') published by the British non-governmental organization War On Want in 1974. Nestlé attempted to sue the publisher. After a two-year trial, the court found in favor of Nestlé and fined the group 300 Swiss francs because Nestlé could not be held responsible for the infant deaths 'in terms of criminal law'.
The widespread publicity led to the launch of the boycott in Minneapolis, USA. 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. This was developed under the auspices of the World Health Organization and UNICEF and adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981 as 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.
In 1984, boycott coordinators met with Nestlé and accepted the company's undertaking that it would abide by the Code, but the coordinators were not satisfied with Nestle's subsequent action and the boycott was relaunched in 1988.
In May 1999 a ruling was published against the Nestlé by the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). Nestlé claimed in an anti-boycott advertisements 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.
In November 2000, the European Parliament held a public hearing into Nestlé malpractice. Although management told shareholders months before that they welcomed the hearing, they refused to send a representative. At the time, Nestlé objected to a presence of an expert witness from the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN). Later Nestlé claimed none of its 230,000 employees was available.
Current status of the boycott
The boycott is now coordinated by the International Nestlé Boycott Committee, the secretariat for which is the UK group Baby Milk Action (http://www.babymilkaction.org/). Company practices are monitored by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), which consists of more than 200 groups in over 100 countries.
In July 1999, the UK Advertising Standards Authority upheld complaints against the company brought by Baby Milk Action and published a ruling against a Nestlé anti-boycott advertisement in which the company claimed to market infant formula 'ethically and responsibly'.
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, though it sent a representative of the auditing company it had commissioned to produce a report on its Pakistan operation.
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.
Other Nestle operations targeted
Nestlé is sometimes targeted for other aspects of its operations. A Brazilian group called Citizens for Water (Cidadania pelas Aguas) has called a boycott of Nestlé in Brazil over the company's extraction of water from an aquifer in São Lourenço. Some also boycott Nestlé coffee and chocolate products in favour of Fair Trade alternatives.
External links
- International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) (http://www.ibfan.org/english/gateenglish.html)
- Baby Milk Action (http://www.babymilkaction.org/)
- Nestlé marketing profile (http://www.ibfan.org/english/pdfs/btr04/btr04nestle.pdf), from Breaking the Rules Stretching the Rules, IBFAN, 2004
- Edinburgh University Néstle Boycott Campaign (http://babymilk.8k.com/)