Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 18 of 19

Thread: Nestle Boycott (and others): What They Did & Why They Are Boycotted Globally

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, Australia
    Posts
    8,980

    Default Nestle Boycott (and others): What They Did & Why They Are Boycotted Globally

    Here is a list of commonly avoided/boycotted brands and products, with information on why they are being boycotted.

    Nestle

    See the BabyMilkAction.org site which has loads of information and their FAQ page about the boycott.

    Nestle is targeted with the boycott because monitoring conducted by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) finds it to be responsible for more violations of the World Health Assembly marketing requirements for baby foods than any other company (see the codewatch section for profiles of the different companies to target their malpractice).

    As UNICEF has said:

    "Marketing practices that undermine breastfeeding are potentially hazardous wherever they are pursued: in the developing world, WHO estimates that some 1.5 million children die each year because they are not adequately breastfed. These facts are not in dispute."
    A list of corporate crimes by Nestle, including:
    • Unethical Marketing of Artificial Baby Milk
    • Exploiting Farmers
    • Union Busting
    • Promotion of GM Food
    • The Ethiopia scandal
    • Illegal extraction of groundwater
    • Pollution
    • Pyres of Burning Animals
    • Fraudulent Labeling
    • Perpetuating Sexism
    • Promoting unhealthy food
    • Promoting untested nano-technology
    • Backlashing against Fairtrade


    Ethiopia scandal: "Just before Christmas 2002, Oxfam revealed that Nestlé was demanding millions of dollars in compensation from Ethiopia – precisely when the country was in the midst of an extreme drought that put over 11 million people at risk for starvation."
    You can see an article about that here: Nestle claims £3.7m from famine-hit Ethiopia

    What's Wrong With Nestlé?

    Check out THIS page to see a shocking clip on Palm Oil (which Nestle uses in it's products and had pulled from FB) and what it's doing to decimate Orangutan habitats.

    Irresponsible marketing

    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.

    [Baby Milk Action, Action Pack, March 1993] [Breaking the Rules (IBFAN 1991)] [State of the Code by Company (IOCU 1991)] [Baby Milk Action, Newsletter Summer 1989] [Baby Milk Action Update, July 1992, November 1991, September 1991]]

    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.

    [The Global Consumer - Phil Wells & Mandy Jetter (New Consumer/Gollancz 1991)]

    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.
    [Who Owns Who 1992, D&B]

    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.

    Nestléitself manufactures products containing meat and has been critised by BUAV for testing its coffee's carcinogenicity on mice.
    [Liberator, Summer 1991]

    Credits and References: Most of the information in this section was taken from The Ethical Consumer Guide to Everyday Shopping published by the Ethical Consumer Research Association.
    Last edited by BellyBelly; August 29th, 2011 at 04:09 PM.
    Kelly xx

    Creator of BellyBelly.com.au, doula, writer and mother of three amazing children
    Author of Want To Be A Doula? Everything You Need To Know
    Follow me in 2015 as I go Around The World + Kids!
    Forever grateful to my incredible Mod Team

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forestville NSW
    Posts
    8,944

    Default

    I know they are boycotted and will attempt to find more information on it sometime in the near future:

    Johnsons and Johnsons - animal experimentation
    Proctor & Gamble - their animal experimentation
    Shell petroleum - their human exploitation and earth exploitation
    McDonalds (google McLibel)
    Last edited by christy; June 25th, 2009 at 10:41 PM.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    104

    Default

    If you look up the Ethical Consumer Guide they have lists for each product category of brands that have boycott calls against them, or that you might want to avoid for other reasons (use of GM crops, bad environmental practices, etc). Also tells you which companies are Australian owned, and who owns the 'front' company (some brands that used to be Aussie owned/made have been bought by O/S companies, and ditto brands that used to be small and ethical being taken over by not-so-ethical corporations). Very useful. But depressing to realise how much supermarket space is taken up by products from companies I don't want to support!

  4. #4

    Default

    Yep, I bought last week after I read about it in one of Flaguni's posts.
    It took me so long to do my first shop with it between that and my list of numbers most of the supermarket is off limits.

  5. #5
    Gigi's Avatar
    Gigi is offline BellyBelly Life Member - Love all your MCN friends
    Add Gigi on Facebook

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Festival State
    Posts
    3,008

    Default

    any chance of a link to falguni's post?

    i'm going to look up (on bing) "ETHICAL CONSUMER"S GUIDE"

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Victoria
    Posts
    507

    Default

    oh thanks for the link to consumer guide, I was wondering where to look for that info!

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    in the ning nang nong
    Posts
    12,163

    Default

    fyi - there's an iphone app for the ethical shopping guide too and they're beinging it out on android soon.

    and for those (like me) who don't have an ophone, there's a new 2011 hardcopy one

    get into it!

  8. #8

    Default

    I do boycott Nestle, I'll say that before I post some alternative points.

    As a geneticist, I am pro-GM foods. That doesn't mean you should boycott me. I also consider selective breeding to be an early form of genetic engineering: all your crops have been genetically engineered anyway. GM has the potential to feed the world, grow crops in arid conditions, boost harvests... OK so there are some not-so-altruistic stuff being engineered too, but the ultimate aim of GM foods (even the pesticide-resistant stuff) is to provide more food and therefore end starvation - which we should be all for. Stopping GM at the start means more starvation.

    And I'm also pro-animal experimentation, mostly. Depends what it is. But I don't blanket ban animal experimentation. (Although I dislike J&J due to the chemicals used whenever I pick up their products; I'd rather not use them due to chemistry.)

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central Coast NSW
    Posts
    592

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Flying Butter View Post
    I do boycott Nestle, I'll say that before I post some alternative points.

    As a geneticist, I am pro-GM foods. That doesn't mean you should boycott me. I also consider selective breeding to be an early form of genetic engineering: all your crops have been genetically engineered anyway. GM has the potential to feed the world, grow crops in arid conditions, boost harvests... OK so there are some not-so-altruistic stuff being engineered too, but the ultimate aim of GM foods (even the pesticide-resistant stuff) is to provide more food and therefore end starvation - which we should be all for. Stopping GM at the start means more starvation.

    And I'm also pro-animal experimentation, mostly. Depends what it is. But I don't blanket ban animal experimentation. (Although I dislike J&J due to the chemicals used whenever I pick up their products; I'd rather not use them due to chemistry.)
    You make some good points. I agree Nestle's breach of ABM marketing is appalling! But I also agree with animal experimentation except where it is unecessarily cruel - after all, people come first. I'm confused with regards to GM foods, I've heard some sick things with regards to splicing animal genes into vegetation and that is something I feel is against nature but TBH I don't know anything about GM, so if you have any links for me FB would be interested to read up on it.

  10. #10

    Default

    If you're interested in why people boycott GM foods you probably need to know more about Monsanto.
    Monsanto's Harvest of Fear | Politics | Vanity Fair
    The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified crops | Mail Online
    Terminator technology


    Whilst I agree that selective breeding is a form of genetic modification it is a slow process and a far cry from things like terminator technology which IMO is utterly immoral and using animal genes in plants a la verminator seeds.

  11. #11

    Default

    Subscribing

  12. #12

    Default

    GM is hardly "terminator technology" - although I do agree that Monsanto haven't done the GM cause any good with some of their silly "look what we can do!" engineering that doesn't do the world any good.

    Terminators were machines and had no genetics. If Monsanto is doing terminator technology stuff then that's a whole nother kettle of fish.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    In my Zombie proof fortress.
    Posts
    6,449

    Default

    Food Inc is worth watching with regards to Monsanto. Their treatment of farmers in the US who tried to seed save is just plain shocking.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, Australia
    Posts
    8,980

    Default

    I do not support animal testing at all. I don't believe animals were put on the planet to be used to mess up and play with, I find it to be cruel. Who would want a life like that I believe they deserve equal rights. Its an issue very close to my heart. Its a shame so many research dollars go into looking for non-natural solutions, when there are so many naturally occurring things that can heal. Its all about the money though.
    Kelly xx

    Creator of BellyBelly.com.au, doula, writer and mother of three amazing children
    Author of Want To Be A Doula? Everything You Need To Know
    Follow me in 2015 as I go Around The World + Kids!
    Forever grateful to my incredible Mod Team

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,090

    Default

    I was only thinking today we should do a 'NO Nestle November' campaign to bring back some attention to the issue, encourage those thinking of boycott to try it for the month, raise more awareness. obviously we want people to boycott long term and No Nestle November might be a good launch pad. It's got a good ring to it I think

    Sent from my BlackBerry 9100 using Tapatalk

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BellyBelly View Post
    I do not support animal testing at all. I don't believe animals were put on the planet to be used to mess up and play with, I find it to be cruel. Who would want a life like that I believe they deserve equal rights. Its an issue very close to my heart. Its a shame so many research dollars go into looking for non-natural solutions, when there are so many naturally occurring things that can heal. Its all about the money though.
    Animals used for testing are kept in better conditions than most pets. Until they're tested on and killed, of course. But lab animals have a high standard of living and health for most of their lives. Many pets cannot say the same. Nor can many animals in the wild. If it were not for testing, many of these animals would have been killed ("pest control") or not born at all. And I would not want to take drugs that hadn't been trialled before. If they've been trialled on humans for over a decade, fine - but if they hadn't done animal testing first and it was a new drug then no WAY would I take that drug. (Cosmetics are fine for human trial only though.)

    Lab animals are kept in infinitly better conditions than a lot of meat animals too. Same for a lot of wool-providers, egg-layers and milk-givers. Not that I'm saying these animals are always abused, just that lab animals HAVE to be better kept because lab animals can't have a secondary illness prior to testing.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    South Eastern Suburbs, Vic
    Posts
    6,054

    Default

    I only boycott Nestle based on their unethical formula stuff. Probably animal testing is another thread really but I tend to think like TFB - cosmetics etc I'd rather go natural anyway, but for research into serious illness and furthering our understanding of curing disease, my world view does place human life above animal life. Not that we don't have an important responsibility towards taking care of the earth and its creatures, and I do think with GM stuff, we need to proceed with caution (although, once again, it's the human issues a la Monsanto that I take issue with the most). It's just my world view, and I get that not everyone thinks that way. xo

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Ouiinslano
    Posts
    5,303

    Default

    I don't believe human life is any more important than animal life. We're just animals that can build fancy stuff. But you're right, Nelle, whole other thread possibility.

    Meanwhile, I think it's very kind of Nestle to give us such a broad range of reasons to hate on them.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •