From: keithl@mukluk.cc.monash.edu.au (Keith Lewis)
Subject: Re: Why you shouldn't buy Nestle
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 03:34:46 GMT

ajnash@mcnc.org (A.J.Nash) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.132601.11295@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> daniel@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Daniel Bowen) writes:
>>Nestle, the world's largest producer of powdered baby milk, is currently
>>breaking a World Health Organisation Code on the marketing of baby milk.

>Who wrote this code? 

	Like he said, - The World Health Organization.

>What are their credentials? 

	They eradicated smallpox from the planet.

>What part of the code are they breaking? 

	The WHO code, as it is known, adopted by the 34th world health
assembly in May 1981, includes the 10 provisions summarized as follows:

1) No advertising of these products to the public.
2) No free samples to mothers.
3) No promotion of products in heath care facilities.
4) No company mothercraft nurses to advise mothers.
5) No gifts or personal samples to health workers.
6) No words or pictures idealising artificial feeding, including pictures
   of infants, on the labels of the product.
7) Information to health workers to be scientific and factual.
8) All information on artificial infant feeding, including the labels,
   should explain the benefits of breast feeding, and the costs and hazards
   associated with artificial feeding.
9) Unsuitable products, such as sweetened condensed milk, should not be
   promoted for babies.
10) All products should be of a high quality and take account of the
   climatic and storage conditions of the country where they are used.

>Has anyone examined the motives of those who wrote this code?

	The WHO code developed in a direct response to public and
professional concern over the improper marketing of breastmilk substitutes,
bottles and teats which can lead to inappropriate feeding practices, which
in turn can affect infant health.  The WHO code was overwhelmingly supported
by 118 nations to one in the World Health Assembly.  The only country to
vote against the code was the USA, who felt it may have repercussions on
their economy.

>I suppose I am to assume that the free milk is cheaper than breast
>milk and that is the reason the newborn is given bottled milk?

	I'm afraid I totally fail to understand your logic.  But to be
pedantically clear, if the mothers knew that breast milk was better and
safer than formula they would be using breast milk if possible.  The fact
that many of them use formula unnecessarily, and dangerously, is proof that
they have been lied to.  Who do you hold resposable for that?


>>2. When newborn babies are given bottles, they are less able to suckle
>>well. This makes breastfeeding failure likely. The baby is then
>>dependent on artificial milk.

>I don't know where the data for this statement came from but any of the
>babies that I've seen would suck on any thing put in their little mouths,
>ie: Breast nipple, bottle nipple, finger,and etc.

	You don't seem to have had much experience.  I can tell you from
my family's experience that babies are awfully good at getting their own way.
Once they discover that it is easier to suck from a bottle than a breast,
they have to get terribly hungry before they are prepared to put in the
effort needed to breast feed again.  And that doesn't even mention the
supply and demand problem having been mucked up by the baby not feeding at
the natural times.  

>>3. When the mother and baby leave hospital the milk is no longer free.
>>At home the mother is forced to buy more milk which can cost 50% of the
>>family income. 

>So The Nestles Company is responsible for the price of milk in these 
>countries?

	Again it seems you are being deliberately obtuse.  Are we discussing
milk (from cows) or artificial breastmilk substitutes?

>>4. Because the milk is so expensive the child is not fed enough. This
>>leads to malnutrition.
>And so we should boycott the Nestle Company, causing them to close their
>plants and facilities, and layoff all of their employees, who will then
>be unemployed and unable to buy milk for their babies so they can suffer
>from malnutrition?

	Yes.  But your argument doesn't apply beacuse these employees mostly
live in Europe and the USA and hence are eduacted, know the problems, and
wouldn't give formula without a medial or personal reason.

>>5. The water mixed with the formula is often contaminated. This leads to
>>diarrhoea, malnutrition and often death. James Grant, Executive Director
>>of UNICEF has said:
>>    `Every day some 3,000 to 4,000 infants die because they are denied
>>    access to adequate breast milk.'
>Nestle is responsible for the contaminated water?

	Nestle is responsible for the *USE OF* contaminated water?

>Why don't they have access to adequate breast milk? Could it be that the
>mothers are starving? Companies,like so many are already doing, could send
>food and grain to feed the population but based on your rationale we should
>boycott those companies because they would not be able to afford to buy
>food and grain  produced by their own economy thus forcing more
>companies to close and layoff its employees. We must be sure to not to
>miss any of the other so-called do gooders such as the farmers who produced
>the food and grain to begin with. Lets besure to boycott their products and
>the whole world can then suffer from malnutrition and all of the associated
>diseases that the third world countries are suffering from.

	On the other hand, if you knew a company was going around murdering
babies, you'd want to boycot them wouldn't you?

>>6. 1.5 million babies die each year from unsafe bottle-feeding.
>>7. Breast-feeding is free and safe and protects against infection - but
>>companies know that unless they get babies on the bottle, they don't do
>>business.
>If it is as you say, they can't afford to buy the milk after leaving the
>hospital, how then can the Nestle Company hope to do business with
>people who have no money to buy their product?

	Perhaps they intend to get a small amount out of each of a very
large number of very poor people.

	I think you'd scream pretty loud if you needed to spend 50% of your
salary on some sort of drug.

>IMHO what should really be boycotted are those organizations that take
>half truths and twist and turn them so that they appear as fact in order
>to advance their cause.

	Describes your posting pretty well IMHO.	

>I really appreciate you pointing out that someone with authority at the
>Nestle Company has compassion on the less fortunate and has taken steps
>to do something about the suffering of others. 

	What is really sad is they did have an opportunity to do just that...

>What have you done to
>help alleviate someone's suffering or misfortune? 

	I once put in some effort to help a New Guinnea baby unable to suck
due to a malformation of the pallet.

	Tell us about your own efforts?

	For me personally this is rather sad.  I used to really like
chocolat.

Keith Lewis.