| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 926.1 | | BTOVT::THIGPEN_S | they say there's peace in sleep | Fri Jul 19 1991 10:26 | 12 |
| well, some context is needed here. The issue is (as I heard it) that Nestle's
promotion of its powdered baby formula is actually harmful to infant health,
because
a) it encourages women to abandon breastfeeding, arguably the best
all-around method of feeding baby
b) it makes the birth rates rise, by removing the (not 100% but still
effective) birth control that is a side effect of nursing -- the
mom is much less likely to conceive while she continues to nurse
c) because the water supply in much of the world is less than clean,
and water is not boiled before use, the milk made from the powder
and the water is not clean and causes illness and deaths from
diarrhea (sp?) and dehydration
|
| 926.2 | | 32FAR::LERVIN | | Fri Jul 19 1991 10:32 | 17 |
| There are several problems with Nestle providing free formula to
maternity wards in Third World countries.
My understanding of the problem is that 1) Once a woman leaves the
hospital the 'freebees' end, and if she has not been nursing her
infant, her own milk supply is gone. 2) Women in Third World countries
are unable to prepare the powdered forumla properly. This results in
bacterial infections to their infants, causing severe diarrhea and/or
death. 3) Once the women are dependent on the formula, because they
are no longer lactating, they then can't afford to purchase adequate
supplies of formula to feed their infants, which leads to watering down
of the formula and malnutrition and/or death for these infants.
I didn't know that Nestle was still pulling this trick. I remember
boycotting Nestle 10 years ago for this same stuff. This is not a
humanitarian act on the part of Nestle, in my opinion.
|
| 926.3 | | GNUVAX::QUIRIY | Live from B-B-Q central! | Fri Jul 19 1991 10:51 | 4 |
|
I was astounded that this is still going on as well.
CQ
|
| 926.4 | guess i'm naive | BLUMON::GUGEL | Adrenaline: my drug of choice | Fri Jul 19 1991 10:56 | 4 |
|
I am very surprised to learn that not everyone knows how terrible
Nestle has behaved in this matter.
|
| 926.5 | | WMOIS::REINKE_B | bread and roses | Fri Jul 19 1991 11:08 | 5 |
| I still recall a documentary about this from years ago. They showed
a grave yard with hundreds (or so it seemed) of tiny graves with
dirty bottles on the graves.
Bonnie
|
| 926.6 | | SMURF::CALIPH::binder | Simplicitas gratia simplicitatis | Fri Jul 19 1991 12:40 | 14 |
| IMHO, the CofE is taking a true humanitarian action by pointing out the
PROFIT-ORIENTED action of Nestle. Giving away free formula is exactly
the same trick as the tobacco companies' giving away free cigarettes.
They get you hooked, and then you have to buy the stuff. The problems
with this technique, practiced by clever 1st-world marketing types on
naive and economically-deprived 3rd-world women, are accurately listed
in .1 and .2
It's despicable. I have boycotted various companies over the years; at
the top of that list, still there after 15 years, is Nestle. What
makes it still worse is that Nestle made a public statement some years
ago saying they would cease the practice forthwith. Pull the other one.
-d
|
| 926.7 | It's easier to boycott Nestle now that I don't do chocolate | TLE::DBANG::carroll | A woman full of fire | Fri Jul 19 1991 14:01 | 8 |
| I've wondered for *years* what the story with Nestle was...I'm glad I
finally know.
So what products are produced by Nestle, other than the obvious (chocolate,
etc.) (I have found that most companies produce surprising things...) Is
it a subsidiary of a bigger company, like General Foods?
D!
|
| 926.8 | No, D!, Nestle isn't a subsidiary. | SMURF::CALIPH::binder | Simplicitas gratia simplicitatis | Fri Jul 19 1991 14:46 | 15 |
| It is the other way around. Nestle owns many other companies. As you
say, the obvious: Nestea iced tea mix, Nescafe coffees. The less known
ones include, for chocolate lovers, Cadbury's.
Information on who owns whom is available in a good public library, in
the business section.
The Council on Economic Priorities publishes a small book (pocket or
purse size) called "Shopping for a Better World" in which many of these
kinds of corporate interdependencies are listed along with info about
government contracts, affitmative action (minorities and women are
listesd separately), environmental concern, animal testing, and so on.
Many bookstores carry it.
-d
|
| 926.9 | | CARTUN::NOONAN | Courage, my friend. It is right. | Fri Jul 19 1991 14:48 | 4 |
| Not meaning to be a wet blanket or anything, but should this be being
discussed in the file? Isn't this against DEC P&P?
E Grace
|
| 926.10 | | MEWVAX::AUGUSTINE | Purple power! | Fri Jul 19 1991 15:13 | 12 |
| I believe that Hershey's owns Cadbury, not Nestles.
As for whether this is appropriate, I _think_ the
prohibition is against encouraging others to take
political action. It should be ok to inform others
about the action. I realize it can be a fine line
at times.
I also want to second CEP's books on Shopping for
a Better World.
Liz
|