Nestl boycott

The Nestl boycott is a boycott launched on July 7, 1977, in the United States against the Swissbased Nestl corporation. It spread quickly throughout the United States, and expanded into Europe in the early 1980s. In Canada, the controversy lasted from 1978 to 1984.[1] It was prompted by concern about the Nestle's promotion of breast milk substitutes (infant formula), particularly in less economically developed countries (LEDCs), which campaigners claim contributes to the unnecessary suffering and even deaths of babies, largely among the poor. [2] 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.[3][4] 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.[5] 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 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 diseaseridden and unhygienic conditions is between six and 25 times more likely to die of diarrhea and four times more likely to die of pneumonia than a breastfed child.[6] 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.[7] 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.[8] Breastfed babies are protected, in varying degrees, from a number of illnesses, including diarrhea, bacterial meningitis, gastroenteritis, ear infection, and respiratory infection.[9][10][11] Breast milk contains the right amount of the nutrients essential for neuronal (brain and nerve) development.[12] The bond between baby and mother can be strengthened during breastfeeding.[10] Frequent and exclusive breastfeeding can also delay the return of

fertility, which can help women in developing countries to space their births.[13] The World Health Organization recommends that, in the majority of cases, babies should be exclusively breast fed for the first six months.[14] Advocacy groups and charities have accused Nestl of unethical methods of promoting infant formula over breast milk to poor mothers in developing countries.[15][16] For example, IBFAN claim that Nestl 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 Nestl 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.[17] Nestl denies these allegations.[18]

History of the boycott

Nestl's perceived marketing strategy was first written about in New Internationalist magazine in 1973 and in a booklet called The Baby Killer, published by the British NGO War On Want in 1974. Nestl attempted to sue the publisher of a German-language translation (Third World Action Group) for libel. After a two-year trial, the court found in favour of Nestl because they could not be held responsible for the infant deaths 'in terms of criminal law'.[19] Because the defendants were only fined 300 Swiss Francs (just over US$400, adjusted for inflation[20]), and Judge Jrg Sollberger commented that Nestl "must modify its publicity methods fundamentally", TIME magazine declared this a "moral victory" for the defendants.[21] The widespread publicity led to the launch of the boycott in Minneapolis, USA, by the Infant Formula Action Coalition (INFACT) and this boycott soon spread to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Europe. 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. In 1979, WHO and UNICEF hosted an international meeting that called for the development of an international code of marketing, as well as action on other fronts to improve infant and early child feeding practices. The International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) was formed by six of the campaigning groups at this meeting.[16] In 1981, the 34th World Health Assembly (WHA) adopted Resolution WHA34.22 which includes 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 for advising parents. It limits manufacturing companies to the provision of scientific and factual information to health workers and sets forth labeling requirements.[22] In 1984, boycott coordinators met with Nestl, which agreed to implement the code, and the boycott was officially suspended. In 1988 IBFAN alleged that formula companies were flooding health facilities in the developing world with free and low-cost supplies, and the boycott was relaunched the following year.[5]

In May 1999 a ruling against Nestl was issued by the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). Nestl claimed in an anti-boycott advertisement that it markets infant formula ethically and responsibly. The ASA found that Nestl could not support this nor other claims in the face of evidence provided by the campaigning group Baby Milk Action.[23] In November 2000 the European Parliament invited IBFAN, UNICEF, and Nestl 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 Nestl's failure to bring its policies into line with the World Health Assembly Resolutions. Nestl declined an invitation to attend, claiming scheduling conflicts, although it sent a representative of the auditing company it had commissioned to produce a report on its Pakistan operation.[24][25][26] Current status of the boycott The Nestl boycott is currently coordinated by the International Nestl Boycott Committee, the secretariat for which is the UK group Baby Milk Action.[27] Company practices are monitored by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), which consists of more than 200 groups in over 100 countries. 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.[28] Many European universities, colleges, and schools have banned the sale of Nestl products from their shops and vending machines. In the United Kingdom, 73 student unions, 102 businesses, 30 faith groups, 20 health groups, 33 consumer groups, 18 local authorities, 12 trade unions, education groups, 31 MPs, and many celebrities support the Nestle boycott.[29][30] Nestl claims that it is in full compliance with the International Code.[31] According to Nestle CEO Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, "we also carry out annual audits on WHO Code compliance with a sample of Nestl companies, and we investigate any substantiated claims made by those who believe we have broken the Code.... If we find that the Code has been deliberately violated, we take disciplinary action."[32] The company maintains that many of the allegations are unsubstantiated, out of date, or use IBFAN's own non-standard interpretation of the Code.[18] In May 2011, the debate over Nestl's unethical marketing of infant formula was relaunched in the Asia-Pacific region. Nineteen leading Laos-based international NGOs, including Save the Children, Oxfam, CARE International, Plan International and World Vision have launched a boycott of Nestl and written an open letter to the company. Among other unethical practices, the NGOs criticized the lack of labelling in Laos and the provision of incentives to doctors and nurses to promote the use of infant formula.[33]

This isnt the first time Ive blogged about Nestle and is likely not going to be the last. I wrote about the company when I first learned about the Nestle boycott. And again when the Nestle Family Twitter-storm took place in 2009. I wrote about Nestle when I compiled an updated list of all of the many, many brands Nestle owns (for people who choose to boycott them). And most recently, I wrote about Nestle when I discovered that they (well, two of their brands Stouffers and Butterfinger) would be one of about 80 sponsors at this years BlogHer Conference in New York City. My goal throughout all of this has never been to tell people what they should or should not do. Thats not my place. My goal has always simply been to raise awareness. There will be people who hear about the Nestle boycott and their unethical business practices and they wont care one way or the other. Or perhaps they just wont have time to look into it further. I know that and thats fine. However, there will also be people who havent heard about what Nestle is doing and will want to learn more and find out what they can do and thats where I like to think I can help. Im a big fan of providing people with information and arming them with knowledge and letting them make their own choices.

Overview of Nestls Unethical Business Practices

Nestl is accused by experts of unethical business practices such as:

Promoting infant formula with misleading and harmful strategies that violate the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and put babies at risk (see Baby Milk Actions Briefing on Nestle Updated July 2010 and the Boycott Nestle and other action to protect infant health blog); Using suppliers that violate human rights (e.g purchasing milk from Mugabe, buying cocoa from suppliers that use child slaves) and destroy the environment (e.g. palm oil from rainforest); Controlling and abusing of water sources in its bottled water operations (e.g. in United States and in Brazil); Promoting unhealthy food, especially for young children; Trade union busting activities and denying the rights of workers to collectively bargain; and more (see Nestle Critics Portal and Corporate Watch: Nestle SA: Corporate Crimes).

Nestl defends its unethical business practices and uses doublespeak, denials and deception in an attempt to cover up or justify those practices. When laws dont exist or fail to hold Nestl to account, it takes public action to force Nestl to change. Public action can take on many forms, including boycotting Nestl brands, helping to spread the word about Nestls unethical business practices, and putting pressure on the government to pass legislation that would prevent Nestl from doing things that put people, animals and the environment at risk.

Solution

Provide better awareness to the users about the usage pattern of the product Avoid the sales of such products in the under developed countries Make use of breastfeeding for infants rather than giving milk products

HR ISSUE
TOPIC: UNETHICAL ISSUES AT NESTLE IN UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRIES

SUBMITTED TO Mrs. INDULEKHA. R SUBMITTED ON 24-04-2012

SUBMITTED BY BINNY SEBASTIAN S2. MBA ROLL NO: 8