Misplaced Pages

1977 Nestlé boycott

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Boycott of Nestlé corporation

A boycott was launched in the United States on July 4, 1977, against the Swiss-based multinational food and drink processing corporation Nestlé. The boycott expanded into Europe in the early 1980s and was prompted by concerns about Nestlé's aggressive marketing of infant formulas (i.e., substitutes for breast milk), particularly in underdeveloped countries. The boycott has been cancelled and renewed because of the business practices of Nestlé and other substitute manufacturers monitored by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN). Organizers of the boycott as well as public health researchers and experts consider breast milk to be the best nutrition source for infants. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends infants to be exclusively breastfed for the first six months of their lives, nevertheless, sometimes nutritional gaps need to be filled if breastfeeding is not possible.

The Nestlé boycott can be seen as special in a sense that it linked human rights regulations and humanitarian activism with corporate responsibility and market capitalism. Consumers were basically acting as global citizens by aiding people in need outside their close communities – mothers in developing countries – "using the marketplace not as a way of generating revenue, but rather as a space for protest".

Baby milk controversy

Groups such as the International Baby Food Action Network and Save the Children argue that the promotion of infant formula over breastfeeding has led to health problems and deaths among infants in less economically developed countries. There are three problems that can arise when poor mothers in developing countries switch to formula as well as one list of benefits of breast milk:

  • Sanitation:
    • Formula must be mixed with water, which is often impure or not potable in poor countries, leading to disease in vulnerable infants. 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 language 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 6 and 25 times more likely to die of diarrhea and four times more likely to die of pneumonia than a breastfed child.
  • Nutritional value:
    • Many poor mothers use less formula for the baby than is required, in order to make a container of formula last longer. As a result, some infants receive inadequate nutrition from weak solutions of formula.
    • 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. Breastfed babies are protected, in varying degrees, from a number of illnesses, including diarrhea, bacterial meningitis, gastroenteritis, ear infection, and respiratory infection. Breast milk contains the right amount of the nutrients essential for neuronal (brain and nerve) development. The bond between baby and mother can be strengthened during breastfeeding. Frequent and exclusive breastfeeding can also delay the return of fertility, which can help women in developing countries to space their births. The World Health Organization recommends that, in the majority of cases, babies should be exclusively breast fed for the first six months, and then given complementary foods in addition to breastfeeding for up to two years or beyond.
  • Preserving milk supply:
    • The practice of relying on free formula in maternity wards frequently means the mother loses the ability to make her own milk and must buy formula (as stated in the following paragraph).

Advocacy groups and charities have accused Nestlé of unethical methods of promoting infant formula over breast milk to poor mothers in developing countries. For example, IBFAN claims 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 alleges 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. The company not only made use of mass media promotion (e.g. billboards and posters) and sample distributions, they also had sales people dressed as so-called "milk nurses" to visit mothers in hospital and at their home to praise formula and its benefits. Nestlé justified its actions by rejecting the responsibility for e.g. the lack of clean water in many developing countries and further argued with freedom of consumer choice, which in the company's opinion allows for formula products to be sold in developing markets.

History

1970s

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. The report helped raise concern over marketing practices in developing countries and served as the starting point of the so-called Baby Killer campaign. Nestlé started a legal suit in Switzerland when the booklet was published in German language entitled "Nestlé kills Babies". 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'. Because the defendants were only fined 300 Swiss Francs (just over US$400, adjusted for inflation), and Judge Jürg Sollberger commented that Nestlé "must modify its publicity methods fundamentally", TIME magazine declared this a "moral victory" for the defendants. This led to similar court challenges brought against other milk companies in the U.S. spearheaded by the Roman Catholic order Sisters of the Precious Blood in conjunction with the Interfaith Centre for Corporate Responsibility.

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 as more and more people were concerned by Nestlé's marketing practices to promote baby formula instead of breast milk, especially in the developing world. 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 was formed by six of the campaigning groups at this meeting.

1980s and 1990s

In 1981, the 34th World Health Assembly (WHA), the decision-making body for WHO, 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. The US voted against the adoption.

In 1984, boycott coordinators met with Nestlé, which agreed to create an independent agency, the Nestlé Infant Formula Audit Commission (IFAC), and to sign an agreement where they pledged to fully implement the Code. The boycott was then officially suspended. In 1988, a second phase of the boycott started as 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.

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.

2000s onwards

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.

Throughout the years, Nestlé has claimed that it is in full compliance with the International Code. In 2001, for example, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, at the time CEO of Nestlé, stated: "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." The company maintained that many of the allegations are unsubstantiated, out of date, or use IBFAN's own non-standard interpretation of the Code.

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 criticised the lack of labelling in Laos and the provision of incentives to doctors and nurses to promote the use of infant formula. An independent audit of Nestlé's marketing practices in Laos was commissioned by Nestlé and carried out by Bureau Veritas in late 2011. The audit found that "the requirements of the WHO Code and Lao PDR Decree are well embedded throughout the business", but that "promotional materials in 4% of the retail outlets visited" violated either the Lao PDR Decree or the WHO Code.

In a 2018 study, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) estimated that 10,870,000 infants had died between 1960 and 2015 as a result of Nestlé baby formula used by "mothers without clean water sources", with deaths peaking at 212,000 in 1981.

In 2024, a report by Swiss nonprofit Public Eye and IBFAN stated that Nestlé adds more sugar to baby food sold in lower- and middle-income countries compared to healthier versions sold in affluent markets.

Current status

The boycott is on-going as of 2024, Nestlé also officially states on their website that it "follow the WHO Code as implemented by national governments everywhere in the world". The company states that it updates its marketing policy, that it reports on compliance on an annual basis, and that it set up a whistleblower scheme. Nestlé states that it is "committed not to interfere with mothers' desire to breastfeed and to protect them from inappropriate marketing practices by actively supporting breastfeeding". Critics state that Nestlé continues to be accused of malpractice.

Data from 2020 indicates that 136 WHO member states had established some legal measures related to the Code from 1981, however, only few fully reflect the Code. The report indicates a gap in many countries' legislation. IBFAN continues to be an international network, encompassing more than 270 groups in over 160 countries who push for implementations of the marketing of breast-milk substitutes Code and relevant resolutions. The overall goal remains: marketing baby food should not have negative impacts on infants' health.

In 2024, a new controversy arose when Nestlé was criticized for adding sugar and honey to infant milk and cereal products in certain countries.

In the media

An episode of the TV show The Mark Thomas Comedy 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.

In 2001, comedian Robert Newman and actress Emma Thompson called for a boycott of the Perrier Comedy Award, because Perrier is owned by Nestlé. An alternative competition called the Tap Water Awards was set up the following year.

In 2002, authors Germaine Greer and Jim Crace withdrew from the Hay Festival in protest over Nestlé's sponsorship of the event.

A 2007 article in The Guardian highlighted aggressive marketing practices by Nestlé in Bangladesh.

The 2014 film Tigers is based on 1997 Pakistan Nestle infant formula controversy.

See also

References

  1. "Baby formulas linked to infant deaths overseas". Minneapolis Star. September 9, 1978. Retrieved December 5, 2019.
  2. Krasny, Jill (June 25, 2012). "Every Parent Should Know The Scandalous impact Of Infant Formula". Business Insider. Retrieved December 5, 2019.
  3. Macdonald, Theresa (October 24, 1987). "Simple formula urged for healthy children". Regina Leader-Post. Retrieved December 5, 2019.
  4. "Nestle Boycott Being Suspended". New York Times. January 27, 1984. Retrieved December 5, 2019.
  5. Lessen, Rachelle; Kavanagh, Katherine (2015). "Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Promoting and Supporting Breastfeeding". Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. 115 (3): 444–449. doi:10.1016/j.jand.2014.12.014. PMID 25721389.
  6. Piwoz, Ellen G.; Huffman, Sandra L. (2015). "The Impact of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes on WHO-Recommended Breastfeeding Practices". Food and Nutrition Bulletin. 36 (4): 373–386. doi:10.1177/0379572115602174. ISSN 0379-5721. PMID 26314734. S2CID 43304804.
  7. ^ Martin, Camilia R.; Ling, Pei-Ra; Blackburn, George L. (2016). "Review of Infant Feeding: Key Features of Breast Milk and Infant Formula". Nutrients. 8 (5): 279. doi:10.3390/nu8050279. ISSN 2072-6643. PMC 4882692. PMID 27187450.
  8. World Health Organization. (2002). Infant and young child nutrition, Global strategy on infant and young child feeding, Report by the Secretariat. https://apps.who.int/gb/archive/pdf_files/WHA55/ea5515.pdf
  9. Martucci, Jessica (2015). Back to the breast: natural motherhood and breastfeeding in America. The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226288031.
  10. ^ Sasson, Tehila (2016). "Milking the Third World? Humanitarianism, Capitalism, and the Moral Economy of the Nestlé Boycott". The American Historical Review. 121 (4): 1196–1224. doi:10.1093/ahr/121.4.1196.
  11. "What is the Problem?". IBFAN. Archived from the original on April 26, 2007. Retrieved June 6, 2007.
  12. A Generation On: Baby milk marketing still putting children's lives at risk Save the Children report, May 2007 (pdf).
  13. ^ Milking it Joanna Moorhead, The Guardian, May 15, 2007
  14. "Infant and Young Child Feeding and Care". UNICEF. Retrieved June 8, 2007.
  15. "World Concern - Witness the Transformation". Archived from the original on September 28, 2007. Retrieved December 21, 2016.
  16. "Breastfeeding". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved January 23, 2007.
  17. Gartner LM, et al. (2005). "Breastfeeding and the use of human milk". Pediatrics. 115 (2): 496–506. doi:10.1542/peds.2004-2491. PMID 15687461.
  18. ^ "Mothers and Children Benefit from Breastfeeding". 4woman.gov. February 27, 2009. Archived from the original on March 16, 2009.
  19. "Gastroenteritis". Merck Manuals Online Medical Library. February 1, 2003. Retrieved November 21, 2006.
  20. Atkinson, S; Bo Lönnerdal (1989). Proteins and non-protein nitrogens in human milk. CRC Press. p. 131. ISBN 0-8493-6795-6.
  21. "Comparison of Effectiveness". Planned Parenthood. April 2005. Archived from the original on October 12, 2006. Retrieved August 12, 2006., which cites Hatcher RA, Trussel J, et al. (2000). Contraceptive Technology (18th ed.). New York: Ardent Media. ISBN 0-9664902-6-6.
  22. World Health Organization, "Global strategy for infant and young child feeding," section titled "EXERCISING OTHER FEEDING OPTIONS" November 24, 2001
  23. "Nestle Products to Boycott". Retrieved December 21, 2016.
  24. ^ History of the campaign Archived July 3, 2010, at the Wayback Machine Baby Milk Action Group
  25. "How breastfeeding is undermined". IBFAN. Archived from the original on April 15, 2007. Retrieved June 6, 2007.
  26. ^ Muller, Mike (1974). The Baby Killer. A War on Want investigation into the promotion and sale of powdered baby milks in the Third World. London: War on Want.
  27. ^ Post, James E. (1985). "Assessing the Nestlé Boycott: Corporate Accountability and Human Rights". California Management Review. 27 (2): 113–131. doi:10.2307/41165133. ISSN 0008-1256. JSTOR 41165133. S2CID 155057976.
  28. ^ Zelman, Nancy (January 1, 1990). "The Nestle Infant Formula Controversy: Restricting the Marketing Practices of Multinational Corporations in the Third World". Global Business & Development Law Journal. 3 (2): 697. ISSN 1936-3931.
  29. Sethi, S. Prakash (1994). "Multinational Corporations and the Impact of Public Advocacy on Corporate Strategy: Nestlé and the Infant Formula Controversy". Journal of International Business Studies. 25 (3): 658–660. doi:10.1057/jibs.1994.41. JSTOR 155364. S2CID 166328342.
  30. "Historical Data for Switzerland / U.S. Foreign Exchange Rate". Retrieved December 21, 2016.
  31. The Formula Flap TIME Magazine, Jul. 12, 1976
  32. Muller, Mike (February 13, 2013). "Nestlé baby milk scandal has grown up but not gone away". The Guardian. Retrieved December 21, 2016.
  33. ^ Johnson, Douglas A. (2020). "Confronting Corporate Power: Strategies and Phases of the Nestle Boycott". Journal of Human Lactation. 36 (4): 756–765. doi:10.1177/0890334420964752. ISSN 0890-3344. PMID 33035126. S2CID 222256324.
  34. "The International Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes" (PDF). WHO. 1981. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 24, 2006. Retrieved June 6, 2007.
  35. "About IBFAN – The International Baby Food Action Network". Retrieved May 30, 2022.
  36. Gershon, Livia (July 20, 2018). "The Continuing Controversy Over Baby Formula". JSTOR Daily. Retrieved May 30, 2022.
  37. Ferriman, Annabel (February 13, 1999). "Advertising Standards Authority finds against Nestlé". BMJ. 318 (7181): 417. doi:10.1136/bmj.318.7181.417a. PMC 1114895. PMID 9974443.
  38. "European Parliament public hearing on Nestlé's baby food marketing" (PDF) (Press release). Breast Feeding Promotion Network of India. November 22, 2000. Retrieved June 8, 2007.
  39. "MEPs shocked as Nestlé and Adidas snub Public Hearing on corporate responsibility" (Press release). Baby Milk Action. November 23, 2000. Archived from the original on April 15, 2007. Retrieved June 8, 2007.
  40. "European Parliament Committee on Development". Nestlé. Archived from the original on September 27, 2007. Retrieved June 7, 2007.
  41. "The "International Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes"". Nestlé. Archived from the original on May 16, 2007. Retrieved June 6, 2007.
  42. "Foreword by Peter Brabeck". Nestlé. Archived from the original on April 9, 2007. Retrieved June 11, 2007.
  43. "WHO Code Violation Allegations". Nestlé. Archived from the original on April 9, 2007. Retrieved June 6, 2007.
  44. "Letter from NGOs to Nestlé" (PDF). Retrieved September 5, 2014.
  45. "The "LAOS: NGOs flay Nestlé's infant formula strategy". June 23, 2011. Retrieved November 26, 2014.
  46. "Bureau Veritas report" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on February 3, 2016.
  47. Mortality from Nestlé's Marketing of Infant Formula in Low and Middle-Income Countries. Jesse K. Anttila-Hughes, Lia C.H. Fernald, Paul J. Gertler, Patrick Krause, Eleanor Tsai, and Bruce Wydick. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). March 2018, revised July 2023.
  48. Jeong, Andrew (April 24, 2024). "Nestlé adds more sugar to baby food in poorer countries, report finds". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved July 7, 2024.
  49. "Nestlé Boycott". International Baby Food Action Network. Retrieved September 9, 2024.
  50. "Nestlé Boycott Policy" (PDF). Herriot-Watt University Student Union. Retrieved September 9, 2024.
  51. Hunt, Tim (August 8, 2024). "Five Unethical Companies". Stanford University Magazine. Retrieved September 9, 2024.
  52. "Why was a Nestlé boycott launched?". Nestlé Global. Retrieved May 30, 2022.
  53. "Nestlé struggles to win over baby formula critics". SWI swissinfo.ch. January 10, 2020. Retrieved May 30, 2022.
  54. "Infant formula". Nestlé Global. Retrieved May 30, 2022.
  55. "Nestlé under fire for marketing claims on baby milk formulas". the Guardian. February 1, 2018. Retrieved May 30, 2022.
  56. "How formula milk firms target mothers who can least afford it". the Guardian. February 27, 2018. Retrieved May 30, 2022.
  57. World Health Organisation. (2020). Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes: National Implementation of the International Code, Status Report 2020, Summary. https://www.unicef.org/media/69646/file/Marketing-of-breast-milk-substitutes-status-report-2020-summary.pdf
  58. "Our History – The International Baby Food Action Network". Retrieved May 30, 2022.
  59. Thornton, Jacqui (April 11, 2024). "Nestlé accused of double standards over added sugar in baby products sold in poorer countries". British Medical Journal. Retrieved September 9, 2024.
  60. Goldstein, Susan (April 25, 2024). "Sugar in baby food: why Nestlé needs to be held to account in Africa". Stanford University Magazine. Retrieved September 9, 2024.
  61. Elci, Aylin (April 19, 2024). "What is the sugar scandal hitting Nestlé and what happens now?". Euronews. Retrieved September 9, 2024.
  62. "Home - Mark Thomas Info". Archived from the original on September 29, 2008. Retrieved December 21, 2016.
  63. Scott, Kirsty (August 27, 2001). "Spoof horror writer wins £5,000 Perrier award: Fringe comedy contest soured by baby milk protests". The Guardian. Retrieved June 11, 2007.
  64. "The Tap Water Awards". Archived from the original on June 12, 2007. Retrieved June 11, 2007.
  65. "Writers boycott literary festival". BBC News. May 27, 2002. Retrieved June 7, 2007.
  66. Nathan, Archana (November 22, 2018). "In Emraan Hashmi's 'Tigers', a fight against a corporation that took 12 years to hit the screens". Scroll. Retrieved September 9, 2024.

External links

Nestlé
Divisions
Divested
Subsidiaries
Joint ventures
Other assets
Brands
Appliances
Baby nutrition
Baking
Bottled water
Cereals
Chocolate
and desserts
Coffee and
beverages
Dairy products
Ice cream
Prepared and
packaged food
and snacks
Purina PetCare
Uncle Tobys
Former brands and
subsidiaries
People
Related
Related articles
  • Currently manufactured by General Mills in the U.S. and Canada. Produced by Cereal Partners under the Nestlé brand elsewhere. Brand owned by General Mills; U.S. and Canadian production rights controlled by Nestlé under license. U.S. production rights owned by The Hershey Company. U.S. rights and production owned by the Smarties Candy Company with a different product. U.S. rights and specific trade dress owned by Nestlé; rights elsewhere owned by Associated British Foods. Produced by Cereal Partners, branded as Nestlé. Produced by Cereal Partners and branded as Nestlé in the U.K. and Ireland. Produced by Post Foods elsewhere. Philippine production rights owned by Alaska Milk Corporation. Singaporean, Malaysian and Thai production rights owned by Fraser and Neave. Used only in Indonesia, Thailand, and Cambodia. Used only in the Philippines. U.S. production rights owned by the Ferrara Candy Company. NA rights and specific trade dress to all packaged coffee and other products under the Starbucks brand owned by Nestlé since 2019. Brand owned by Mars, sold by Nestlé in Canada. Produced by Froneri in the U.S. since 2020.
Food industry criticism
Books
Films
Organizations
Concepts
By country
Categories: