Video: Nestle CEO says water should be privatized and sold for profit, is not a human right.

[Fire Walk With Me]

I'm sure this has made the rounds here in the past; it is the first time I've seen video:

From 2 minutes to 3:40, he clearly indicates that water should be privatized and marketed to the population of the world.

In the first two minutes, he discusses how Nestle are the largest foodstuff corporation in the world, the 27th largest corporation overall. He uses the word foodstuff to also describe water. He also argues for the use of GMOs.

I don't even want to see the rest.

[Aristus]

1. So do we have to pay this motherfucker every time it rains?

[djean111]

5. There are laws about collecting rainwater in utah, Colorado, and Washington.

In Los Angeles, I believe there is a law that homeowners should save rainwater.
Water and sunlight and wind - once the 1% figure out how to block and charge for these, they will.
Perhaps ratchet up the charges for using the grid, and placing levies on batteries and solar panels.

[WinkyDink]

37. "I believe there is a law that homeowners should save rainwater." Laws don't allow for "should."

[djean111]

42. Pardon my incorrect use of the word "should". You are correct!!!!!!

Here is the proposed law, I don't know if it was passed:
"A new proposed law to go into effect in 2011 could have Los Angeles residents changing their habits when it comes to rainfall. Rather than just complaining that there's some strange wet substance falling from the sky, all new homes, large developments, and some redevelopment projects will start to appreciate those few rainy days by harvesting and redirecting rainfall. The Department of Public Works has unanimously approved the new ordinance that will require the use of several different methods to capture, reuse or redirect runoff from 3/4 inch or heavier rainstorms. Does this mean LA is becoming water wise? Ecolocalizer reports, "Not only will Los Angeles' new ordinance help to recycle our planet's most precious resource, it will also help to keep polluted urban water out of our increasingly acidic seas. The Board of Public Works Commissioner Paula Daniels, who initially drafted the ordinance last July, explained that the new requirements would prevent over 104 million gallons of polluted urban runoff from ending up in the ocean."
This is from treehugger.com.
Preemptive defense - not sure about the difference between ordinance and law here. But feel it is a good idea for Los Angeles.

[ladjf]

34. Lookout sunshine. That will be next. nt

[southernyankeebelle]

2. I don't know about anyone else but I've always paid a water utilitizes every month.

[Fire Walk With Me]

6. He would have it be illegal to drink it from a stream, to catch it in your mouth as it falls from

the sky when it rains. "Not a human right" is fairly clear. Infrastructure taxes for human rights services are not corporate for-profit industries.

[Aristus]

8. You are paying for the utility company to access the water, purify it,

and get it to your faucet. Not the water itself.

[southernyankeebelle]

9. you getting technical on me? LOL, I wonder what he thinks Jesus would say to him? I know. Your a

prick for the first degree. Yep.

[Fire Walk With Me]

11. Have no issues with the head of a mega-corporation making decisions for the rest of humanity? MMM?

Corporate apologists make me sick. I for one do NOT welcome our new plutonomist overlords.

[southernyankeebelle]

38. me neither. I don't think god would want us to pay for water. it is a god given right.

[niyad]

13. do you pay the utility company (presumably part of the city or county) or do you pay a

PRIVATE corporation? are you aware of the water battles being fought, the attempt to privatize the commons, and make even our community water a for-profit enterprise?

[Fire Walk With Me]

16. Yeah, imagine HOW MUCH MORE it would cost if corporations privatized water. Much more so, I imagine.

[Niceguy1]

32. the water company in the city

Grew up in has always been privatel..and where I live now it is private..and cheaper that the city water my neighbors are on...and it pisses the city off to no end lol, to rhe point they have talked about trying to shut them down.

[niyad]

33. so you don't have a problem with this greedy, grasping bastard saying water is not a human right?

[Niceguy1]

35. I was reaponding to the.poster who said that

Private is evil when it comes to water companies. I did not endorse what they guy from nestle said. ...lide isn't black and white... usually the best parh is somewhat in the middle.

[WinkyDink]

39. Your private co. is only as good as the public one's existence. Better hope the latter sticks around

[Niceguy1]

41. not true

Neither owe it's existance to the other. One was built with tax payer money, the other was built with private money (family owned). The private water co has much better service.

[southernyankeebelle]

36. I think it's the city. Now am not complain about it because they have to make sure the plant

is taken care of and we have to pay for that. But water is a god given right to us all.

[reformist2]

3. Please stick to chocolate bars, Mr. Nestle.

[niyad]

17. their "chocolate" is not fit to eat

[AsahinaKimi]

19. I once toured the HERSHEY'S CHOCOLATE factory in PA

Before that, I loved Chocolate, but after walking though the area where the Chocolate vats were, the smell was so strong, it nearly turned my stomach. I could not eat any chocolate for a few months after that experience. I thought it was funny, as you were leaving they had huge chunks of chocoloate for sale, that were broken or in some way defective for bargain prices. There was no way I would buy any of that... and had I been smart, I would have bought it before going into that vat room. I had the smell of Chocolate in my nose for about a week after that.. and couldn't stand to even look at a candy bar.

[Matariki]

24. Me too!

I was 8 years old and in ecstasy! There was see-through, swimming pool sized box of chocolate being 'stirred' like a seesaw. Man if that was ever a little kid's wet dream!

[niyad]

27. milton hershey would roll over in his grave if he knew what was going on with his company.

[MichiganVote]

4. They've been stealing it in Michigan for a decade.

And of course, our state mislegislature doesn't bat an eye.

[Buzz Clik]

7. Goddamit. This video is old as hell, and it gets posted 10 times a year.

This dude has not been CEO of Nestle in this decade!

Enough already.

[niyad]

14. has the basic outlook of this disgusting corporation changed for the better in that time?

[Buzz Clik]

18. Maybe not. Can we update our screeds against them so they're less than 5 years old?

[niyad]

22. when the thinking is the same, what difference does it make? the battle for water is ongoing,

and going to get far more serious than even the battles for oil. but, hey, nice try at deflecting a really serious problem. whether ten years ago, or ten minutes ago, that statement should have been roundly denounced as the theft of the commons that it is.

[pa28]

28. Brabeck is currently chairman of the board. The present CEO is his employee.

The vision for privatization of water outlined in the video continues to progress just as he planned it and this piece continues to be relevant fodder for information and discussion.

Sorry you think it's been overplayed but many others of us would disagree.

[Kennah]

45. No, he's the Chairman, so he's the boss of the CEO of Nestle

Here is a more current video.

"If Nestle and myself have become very vocal in the area of water, it was not because of any philanthropic idea. It was very simple. By analyzing what is the single most important factor for the sustainability of Nestle, water came as the number one subject."

This is a very disturbing trend. Corporations are beginning to toss around the word sustainability, but they are talking about Corporate sustainability. It is all part of our march toward fascism.

[Buzz Clik]

46. You do understand that he is talking about water in a totally different context.

He is speaking of the necessity of Nestle becoming more sustainable in their approach to their use of water as an industry. He's talking about developing the use of better practices within Nestle for being better about their use, conservation, recycling of water.

This is not about selling water to third world countries.

[Kennah]

48. Fascism does have to look out for it's own future and do some planning

[ananda]

10. I can't watch it.

Those CEO fuckers are just so sick and sociopathic.

[Fire Walk With Me]

12. "Sociopathic" is the perfect word. n/t

[niyad]

15. anybody else here remember the nestle infant formula scandals?

[Fire Walk With Me]

21. Very vaguely...I'm almost afraid to ask to be reminded, especially in light of the OP...

But please do tell...

[niyad]

25. read here:

Nestlé boycott
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A boycott was launched in the United States on July 7, 1977, against the Swiss-based Nestlé corporation. It spread in the United States, and expanded into Europe in the early 1980s. It was prompted by concern about Nestle's "aggressive marketing" of breast milk substitutes (infant formula), particularly in less economically developed countries (LEDCs), which campaigners claim contributes to the unnecessary suffering and deaths of babies, largely among the poor.[1] Among the campaigners, Professor Derek Jelliffe and his wife Patrice, who contributed to establish the World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action (WABA), were particularly instrumental in helping to coordinate the boycott and giving it ample visibility worldwide.
. . .
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 breastfeeding has led to health problems and deaths among infants in less economically developed countries.[2][3] 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.[4] Because of the low literacy 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.

Although some mothers can understand the sanitation standards required, they often do not have the means to perform them: fuel to boil water, electric (or other reliable) light to enable sterilisation at night. UNICEF estimates that a formula-fed child living in disease-ridden and unhygienic conditions is between 6 and 25 times more likely to die of diarrhea and four times more likely to die of pneumonia than a breastfed child.[5]

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.[6]

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.[7] Breastfed babies are protected, in varying degrees, from a number of illnesses, including diarrhea, bacterial meningitis, gastroenteritis, ear infection, and respiratory infection.[8][9][10] Breast milk contains the right amount of the nutrients essential for neuronal (brain and nerve) development.[11] The bond between baby and mother can be strengthened during breastfeeding.[9] Frequent and exclusive breastfeeding can also delay the return of fertility, which can help women in developing countries to space their births.[12] The World Health Organization recommends that, in the majority of cases, babies should be exclusively breast fed for the first six months.[13]

Advocacy groups and charities have accused Nestlé of unethical methods of promoting infant formula over breast milk to poor mothers in developing countries.[14][15] For example, IBFAN claim that Nestlé distributes free 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 countries where they are sold, and offers gifts and sponsorship to influence health workers to promote its products.[16] Nestlé denies these allegations

. . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott



GSB: Social impact hub

Nestlé baby milk scandal has grown up but not gone away


Nestle


At the World Economic Forum in Davos, I gave Nestlé chair Peter Brabeck, a present – an original, signed copy of The Baby Killer, the 1974 report that I wrote for War on Want.
The Baby Killer explained how multinational milk companies like his were causing infant illness and death in poor communities by promoting bottle feeding and discouraging breast feeding.
Our Swiss associates were less subtle. They titled the report "Nestlé Toten Babies" (or Nestlé Kills Babies), which a Swiss court found was libelous. On the substance of the argument, however, the judge warned Nestlé that if the company did not want to face accusations of causing death and illness through sales practices such as using sales reps dressed in nurses' uniforms, they should change the way that they did business.

That shocked the company and undermined its benevolent self-image. It also launched a long-running global campaign, proving that networked social action was possible even in snail mail days.

Nestlé boycotts spread from Switzerland and Britain to the US, where shareholder activism and court challenges against other milk companies – led by the Sisters of the Precious Blood, a religious order working under the umbrella of the Interfaith Centre for Corporate Responsibility – achieved a fine balance between grassroots organising, legal process and catchy communication.

The campaigns attracted wide-spread support from medical professionals, health authorities and civil society in developing countries. So in 1981, the UN World Health Assembly (the governing body of the World Health Organisation) recommended the adoption of an international code of conduct to govern the promotion and sale of breast milk substitutes. Global regulation of consumer industries was – and remains – a threat to business. UN resolutions are "soft law" that have little direct effect, yet often lead to hard national enforcement.

. . . .

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/nestle-baby-milk-scandal-food-industry-standards


. . . . .

image boycottnestle.blogspot.com

Nestlé’s marketing techniques in promotion of the use of the infant fromula in the Third World countries have been considered unethical. Nestlé was also not quite well acting in accordance with the established moral standards worldwide. The company used very aggressive marketing what also included hiring unqualified sales girls who were promoting the baby formula without possessing enough knowledge of the formula itself and its safety requirements.

new-mothers-everywhere-received-promotional-material-for-formula the-baby-killer-blew-the-lid-off-the-formula-industry-in-1974 boycottnestle.blogspot.com

Besides handing out pamphlets and samples to new mothers, the company hired “sales girls” in nurses uniforms (sometimes qualified, sometimes not) to drop by the households unannounced and sell them on baby formula. As one mother recounts a Nestlé “milk nurse’s” sales pitch: “The nurse began by saying … breastfeeding was best. She then went on detail the supplementary foods that the breastfed baby would need … The nurse was implying that it was possible to start with a proprietary baby milk from birth, which would avoid these unnecessary problems” (Source: Baby Milk Action. The Business Insider)



Nestlé, as one of the leading nutrition multinationals, should have been more aware of how the baby formula should have been promoted and advertised in the Third World countries where the level of povery, stagnation, education and cultural development are lower than compare to the developing or developed countries. Nestlé somehow ignored the problems with water supplies, cleanliness of water, and also how mothers in less developed countries would keep the bottles sterile and clean (Feeding and Nutrition of Infants and Young Children).

. . .

http://blsciblogs.baruch.cuny.edu/mgt4880nestle/2013/04/22/crisis-facts-problems-and-issues/

[Fire Walk With Me]

31. Thanks...

[derby378]

20. I wish he'd talk with the folks in Cochabamba, Bolivia about how well that policy worked out

El agua es nuestra, carajo!

[Fire Walk With Me]

23. They kicked out the water privatizers, didn't they? Solidarity!

[derby378]

26. They finally did - but not before innocent blood was shed

Rest in peace, Victor Hugo Daza.

[Baitball Blogger]

29. He is such a creep.

I wonder if they know that the CEO magic is gone.

[geckosfeet]

30. Wait until this pile'o'shit in a suit realizes we need air as well.

[doc03]

40. Well dah, I paid $54.25 last month for

2000 gallons. Oh and probably another $20 for water fit to drink.

[Berlum]

43. They, Inc. (R) trash the planet. Then charge the proles for every drop.

Massive suckage is afoot.

[Kennah]

44. Video might be old, from 2005, but discussing it appears to be having an effect

He's damned near doing backflips on HuffPo.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-brabeckletmathe/addressing-the-water-chal_b_3152926.html

[Fire Walk With Me]

47. Yep. While searching for this video, I came across a page on nestle.com

where they way NO! He's a good man and despite that video, wants water to be for everyone!



Pure bullshit. The corporate only think in one direction and it's very very clear. They may be talking a good game to the contrary, but money talks. I believe they were just thrown out of Arkansas for draining a river.