LACTNET Archives

Lactation Information and Discussion

LACTNET@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 2 Dec 1997 16:37:39 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (26 lines)
Nestle was initially boycotted in the 1970's because they were they were
the biggest formula company in the world.  They were marketing their
products in extremely unethical ways, and the result was the deaths of
*millions* of babies, mostly in the third world.  Nestle was not the
only offender, but as the largest and richest company, it became the
target company.  They were vulnerable because they make so many other
products that we use, unlike Mead Johnson and Ross, who are just as
guilty.  Nestle did start to hurt, promised they would make nice, and so
the boycott was called off.

Unfortunately, they did not keep their words.  Because of Nestle, for
example, Canadian mothers are being subjected to direct advertising as
we have never seen.  Ironically, they have not pulled it off, but other
companies taking "courage" from Nestle, have reaped the "benefit" which
Canadian mothers and babies have suffered.  Mead Johnson is absolutely
the worst offender in Canada.  But that is just in Canada.  Nestle has
kept up its dirty practices all over the world.

They do say that they will follow government policy, and in Australia,
it appears, they have done just that.  But that does not make up for
what they are doing in the rest of the world.  Perhaps the rest of us
should just boycott our governments, because, according to Nestle, all
they have to say is "no direct marketing" and they will comply.  Hmmmm.

Jack Newman, MD, FRCPC

ATOM RSS1 RSS2