Boycott Nestle this Easter (and every Easter really lol)
Join the ongoing Nestle boycott. Why?
What's Wrong With Nestlé?
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 (note from BellyBelly: also has ownership in the Body Shop). 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.
[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.
