Boycott Nestle
|
The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 1.5 million infants die around the world every year because they are not breastfed. Where water is unsafe, a bottle-fed child is up to 25 times more likely to die because of diarrhea than a breastfed child.
In order to sell more of its infant formula in third world countries, Nestle would hire women with no Special training and dress them up as nurses to give out free samples of Nestle formula. The free samples lasted long enough for the mother’s breast milk to dry up from lack of use. Then mothers would be forced to purchase the formula but, being poor, they would often mix the formula with unsanitary water or ‘stretch’ the amount of formula by diluting it with more water than recommended. The result was that babies starved all over the Third World while Nestle made Huge profits from this predatory marketing strategy. That is why a marketing code was introduced in 1981 to regulate the marketing of breast milk substitutes. Companies continue to violate its provisions. The Code’s main points called for no sales promotion to the public of products obsolete as breast milk substitutes, and distribution of upright, ethical information to parents by health care workers. 
News of any dependable health risks associated with modern formulas surprises most Americans, whose only point of reference on the subject is generally the well-publicized Nestle Boycott of the 1970s and ’80s. Many Americans recall seeing the photos of severely malnourished “bottle babies” from various third-world nations, as consumer-advocacy groups alerted citizens for the first time to the marketing practices being employed abroad by major infant-formula corporations. Physicians and other health-care providers in the developing world were bribed by formula manufacturers to steer patients away from breastfeeding and toward a particular mark of synthetic infant nutrition. Age-old cultural norms of exclusive and extended breastfeeding were disrupted as mammoth advertising campaigns convinced women that commercial infant formula was the “modern, sterile, western” way to feed babies. Original mothers were lured into giving birth in hospitals funded by infant formula manufacturers. There, these women were encouraged to offer bottles of artificial breast milk substitutes — a practice proven to disrupt breastfeeding. Nestlé opposed the adoption of the International Code in 1981, with Nestlé Vice-President, Ernest Saunders, head of the industry body, describing it as “irrelevant” and “unworkable”. Nestlé has had 21 years to co-operate by following this recommendation of the world’s highest body in the health field. Nestlé has opposed the Indian Government’s implementation of the International Code by issuing a Writ Petition against the government, following the criminal prosecution of Nestlé over its labeling (see Update 20).International Code in March 1998 by threatening to close its factory (see In 1977, a worldwide boycott was launched against the Nestle Corporation, which was found to be the most unethical of the several companies selling baby formula at the time. Consumers all across the world stopped purchasing Nestle products. The World Health Organization drafted the which was signed by remarkable of the world in the early ’80′s and finally by the United States in 1994. Nestlé reacted to Zimbabwe’s implementation of the 1. Has stopped the exercise of “milk nurses” to promote formula to mothers, 2. Has stopped the distribution of samples of formula directly to mothers, and 3. Has begun distribution of products with labels which encourage breastfeeding and provide more specific instructions and nutritional information, and 4. Has established an audit commission to which complaints about misconduct can be referred for investigation, The achieve of the boycott have been substantial, not just in direct terms, but also in its pain to Nestle corporate image, the impact on management morale, and the indirect costs of management time and attention spent trying to combat it. In 1984 it was described by Esther Peterson, advisor to President Jimmy Carter, as ‘the most important victory in the history of the international consumer movement’. With pressure from the boycott, Nestle curbed some of its more blatant malpractices, but monitoring reveals the company again starting to use techniques which campaigners thought had ended long ago. The boycott in the UK, is acknowledged to be the most popular in the country. When in 1991 it was endorsed by the General Synod of the Church of England, sales of Nescafé in the UK dropped by 3% – equivalent to £6 million. Small Wonder that Nestle mounted a massive PR disinformation and sponsorship campaign year after year until in 1997 it persuaded the Synod to end its support. Nestle was less successful at persuading the Liberal Democrats against supporting the boycott in Edinburgh in March this year. Nestle had a hospitality room at the Sheraton Grand Hotel and placed information in the delegate’s pack inviting them to encourage. Despite this apparent willingness to discuss the issues, Nestle turned down the offer of an official fringe meeting from the Liberal Democrat Youth and Students, who proposed the boycott motion. No doubt we can expect to see Nestle at one or two more Party conferences this year. In the past, Baby Milk Action supporters have handed out leaflets to MPs, Bishops and other VIP guests invited to the annual Nestle Development Lecture, held at the Banqueting House in Whitehall. One guest commented that our low-key and polite presence had a much effect as Nestlé’s top management were quizzed on baby food marketing practices while cocktails were served. We were waiting to alert the Hastily Response Network about this year’s event, but found that Nestle has discontinued the lectures. After years of refusing to debate the remark with Baby Milk Action, Nestlé has now given ground. Apparently, this is because Nestlé is having difficulty in recruiting graduates, such is the company’s bad image amongst students. Unfortunately, for Nestlé’s strategy, the debates are strengthening rather than weakening support for the boycott (see report in Boycott News 30). Sources Cited Baby Milk Action. Press Release. Retrieved April 7, 2005 from http://www.babymilkaction.org/boycott/prmachine.html#1http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/yqsanswered/yqanestle.html http://www.wearsthebaby.com/infantformula.htm http://66.218.71.225/search/cache? p=effect+boycott+has+had+on+nestle&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&u=www.babymilkaction.org/boycott/boyct25.html&w=effect+boycott+had+nestle&d=DF49C96708&icp=1&.intl=usUpdate 23). Nestlé’s best-known product in Zimbabwe is reported to be breakfast cereal, which is not affected by the new law.While the rest of the world signed onto the Code in the early 1980s, the United States withheld its encourage until the Clinton administration voiced its approval in 1994. Public-health and consumer activists have charged that Nestle and other corporations continue to violate the Code. According to WHO and UNICEF, between one and two million infants around the world still lose their lives each year due to artificial feeding. Nestlé’s response to the campaign against its aggressive marketing of baby foods is to claim that it stopped promotional practices in the 1970s and stopped distributing free supplies in the 1990s. It blames the on-going controversy on incorrect interpretation of the marketing requirements and says its own instructions are in line with the International Code. Nestlé is not telling the truth. After a brief hiatus the Nestle boycott was re launched in 1988 and continues to this day. A original report called “Cracking the CodeUNICEF at: http://www.breastfeeding.com/advocacy/advocacy_boycott.html. There are those who favor continuing the Nestlé boycott. Their main concern is that violations of certain provisions of the WHO code continue to be reported. The most serious violations are the provision of samples to hospitals (which they often then distribute to mothers), outdated labels still appearing on cans in many countries, and some promotions to doctors and other health professionals either through gift items or by uniformed nurses employed by the company. Many of these violations may seem trivial to North Americans, but it is important to remember that they occur in cultures where extreme poverty is the norm and uniformed professionals have a very high social standing. In the context in which these actions occur, they constitute high-pressure salesmanship, and many argue that the boycott should be continued until these practices are abandoned. Many others feel that the time has now come to end the boycott. They argue that Nestlé has complied with the principal objectives of the WHO Code. Problems with outdated labels will remedy themselves as old stocks are exhausted. Violations of other code provisions related to sampling and promotion to health professionals are popular to most companies at this time, and if Nestlé stops giving samples to hospitals the other companies will simply fill in the gap, which means that infants will be exposed to the same risks as before. The Nestlé company has shown its change of intent clearly ‘enough that the drastic measure of boycotting is no longer justified. Further, given that the major areas of violation involve all companies and disaster contacts with hospitals and health professionals, the most effective means of implementing the WHO code is through changed procedures and codes of conduct for the health professions. The Nestlé Company has announced its intent to abide by the principles of that code, and more specifically has taken the following steps responsive to concerns raised by the General Board resolution of February 1979 endorsing the Nestlé boycott: a. has stopped all promotion of formula to the general public,” outlines the many present-day violations of the W.H.O. code. This report is available fromInternational Code on the Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes, |
Tags: Direct Marketing Response Rates, Direct Response Marketing Administration, direct response marketing association, direct response marketing definition, Emotional Direct Response Marketing