RESPONSABILITAT SOCIAL CORPORATIVA
Nestlé boycott
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The
Nestlé boycott is a
boycott launched on July 7, 1977, in the United States against the Swiss-based
Nestlé
corporation. It spread quickly throughout the United States, and
expanded into Europe in the early 1980s. 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.
[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 six 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.
[17]
History of the boycott
Nestlé's 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. Nestlé 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 Nestlé because
they could not be held responsible for the infant deaths 'in terms of
criminal law',
[18]
despite the fact that its aggressive marketing strategy had led to the
deaths of thousands of babies who did not have access to clean water
with which to mix the milk powder and, who needed the antibodies in
their mother's milk as an essential part of their immune system. Because
the defendants were only fined 300 Swiss Francs (just over US$400,
adjusted for inflation
[19]), and Judge Jürg Sollberger commented that Nestlé "must modify its publicity methods fundamentally",
TIME magazine declared this a "moral victory" for the defendants.
[20]
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.
[15]
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.
[21]
In 1984, boycott coordinators met with Nestlé, 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.
[4]
In May 1999 a ruling against Nestlé was issued by the UK
Advertising Standards Authority
(ASA). Nestlé claimed in an anti-boycott advertisement that it markets
infant formula “ethically and responsibly”. The ASA found that Nestlé
could not support this nor other claims in the face of evidence provided
by the campaigning group Baby Milk Action.
[22]
In November 2000 the
European Parliament
invited IBFAN, UNICEF, and Nestlé 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 Nestlé's failure to bring its
policies into line with the World Health Assembly Resolutions. Nestlé
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.
[23][24][25]
Current status of the boycott
The Nestlé boycott is currently coordinated by the
International Nestlé Boycott Committee, the secretariat for which is the UK group
Baby Milk Action.
[26] 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.
[27]
Many European universities, colleges, and schools have banned the
sale of Nestlé 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.
[28][29]
Nestlé claims that it is in full compliance with the International Code.
[30] According to Nestle
CEO Peter Brabeck-Letmathe,
"we also carry out annual audits on WHO Code compliance with a sample
of Nestlé 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."
[31]
The company maintains that many of the allegations are unsubstantiated,
out of date, or use IBFAN's own non-standard interpretation of the
Code.
[17]
In May 2011, the debate over Nestlé'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 Nestlé 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.
[32]
Boycott in the media
An episode of the
TV show
The Mark Thomas Product produced by the British
Channel Four in 1999 investigated the boycott and Nestlé's practices concerning baby milk.
Mark Thomas
attempted to find evidence for claims against Nestlé and to speak to
heads of the company. In one portion of the show he "received a tin of
baby milk from
Mozambique.
All instructions are in English. 33 languages and dialects are
recognised in Mozambique. Portuguese is the official language. However,
only about 30% of the population can speak it. English is usually the
second language for people in Mozambique.
[33]
In 2001, comedian
Robert Newman and actress
Emma Thompson called for a boycott of the
Perrier Comedy Award, because
Perrier is owned by Nestlé.
[34] An alternative competition called the Tap Water Awards was set up the following year.
[35]
In 2002, authors
Germaine Greer and
Jim Crace withdrew from the
Hay Festival in protest over Nestlé's sponsorship thereof.
[36]
A 2007 article in
The Guardian highlighted aggressive marketing practices by Nestlé in
Bangladesh.
[4]
Other Nestlé operations targeted
Nestlé is sometimes targeted for other aspects of its operations. A
Brazilian
group called Cidadãos pelas Águas (Citizens for Water) has called for a
boycott of Nestlé in Brazil over the company's extraction of water from
an
aquifer in
São Lourenço. Some also boycott Nestlé
coffee and
chocolate products in favour of
fair trade alternatives. (
Partners Blend coffee, launched by Nestlé during 2005, has obtained
Fairtrade labelling status.) Baby Milk Action has also condemned this development.
[37]
In the
Philippines, there exists a Boycott Nestlé campaign due to suspected labor rights violations in a factory in
Laguna province.
[38] This campaign is led by
Kilusang Mayo Uno.
