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

[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/