From: soberg@think.com (Stephanie Oberg)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers,aus.general
Subject: Re: Why you shouldn't buy Nestle
Date: 28 Sep 1992 21:43:14 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gandalf.think.com

This is how it all began....

>>EVERY 30 SECONDS A BABY DIES FROM UNSAFE BOTTLE FEEDING IN THE THIRD
>>WORLD.
>>
>>Nestle, the world's largest producer of powdered baby milk, is currently
>>breaking a World Health Organisation Code on the marketing of baby milk.

There has been so much misinformation in the responses that I must set the
record straight.  This is your chance to hit 'n'.

>>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.

The point here is twofold:  1)  mothers who cease breastfeeding lose their
milk supply, and 2)  bottles are easier to suck than the human nipple,
sometimes giving rise to nipple confusion and rejection of the breast if
it is offered later.  Both of these facts are well-documented in Western
medical texts.

>>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?

No.  They are responsible for "hooking" the mother and infant on artificial
formula so that the mother loses her milk supply and the infant may be less
willing to suck.  Keep in mind that formula makers do the same thing in the
First World, where the consequences are not fatal.  Formula makers are
doubly responsible for practicing their aggressive marketing tactics in a 
place where their product does so much harm.

>>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?
>
>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 [....]

Ordinary foods such as are eaten by adult women in Third World countries
are either cheaper than formula (calorie for calorie), or require no cash 
at all.  Examples of the first type are corn meal, rice, and other staple
starches.  The second type can include the woman's own produce (vegetables,
fruits, and grains), milk from goats that graze arid lands, meat and eggs
from chickens fed on garbage, and gathered wild foods.  A woman can be well
nourished without spending a penny of cash, and many millions are.  Her
baby is then fed at no cash cost.  Formula MUST be bought with cash -
and that's the point - formula makers' bottom line.

>>
>>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?
>>

The drug pusher analogy is again painfully accurate.  The drug pusher 
handing out free samples doesn't need 100% instant addiction to make a 
profit.  Every little bit helps...  Formula pushers in the Third World
need only some sales to balance the free samples.  I would suggest that
a mother whose breast milk has dried up and whose infant is withering on
inadequate and contaminated formula would be every bit as desperate to buy
more formula as a junkie is to buy crack.  When her milk is gone, what is
the alternative?

>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.

Speaking of twisting facts...a common sales tactic of formula pushers in
the past has been to use saleswomen in Third World hospitals, dressed as 
nurses.  "Here, give your baby this bottle.  The formula will make him
strong..."

>I'm not going to boycott the Nestle Company... I'm going to buy more of
>their products.

Stephanie Oberg



-- 

sojourner
Newsgroups: misc.consumers