1977 Nestlé boycott
A boycott was launched in the United States on July 4, 1977, against the Swiss-based Nestlé corporation. The boycott expanded into Europe in the early 1980s and was prompted by concern 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 state that infant formulas are worse for infants' health than real  breast milk. As of 2013, the Nestlé boycott was coordinated by the International Nestlé Boycott Committee, whose secretariat was the British group Baby Milk Action. Baby milk controversy. Groups such as the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) 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: 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 claim 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 allege 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. Nestlé denies these allegations. History . 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. Nestlé attempted to sue the publisher of a German-language translation (Third World Action Group) entitled "Nestlé tötet Babies" for libel. 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. 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 (IBFAN) was formed by six of the campaigning groups at this meeting. In 1981, the 34th World Health Assembly (WHA) 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. In 1984, boycott coordinators met with Nestlé, which agreed to implement the code, and the boycott was officially suspended. In 1988 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. 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. Current status. , the Nestlé boycott is coordinated by the "International Nestlé Boycott Committee", the secretariat for which is the UK group "Baby Milk Action". Company practices are monitored by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), which consists of more than 200 groups in over 100 countries. Alongside the boycott, campaigners work for implementation of the Code and  Resolutions in legislation, and claim that 60 countries have now introduced laws implementing most or all of the provisions. Some universities, colleges, and schools have banned the sale of Nestlé products from their shops and vending machines in the period since the revelations. In the United Kingdom, 73 students' unions, 102 businesses, 30 faith groups, 20 health groups, 33 consumer groups, 18 local authorities, 12 trade unions, education groups, 31 MPs and many celebrities support the Nestlé boycott. Nestlé claims that it is in full compliance with the International Code. According to Nestlé CEO Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, "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 maintains 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. Calls for boycott after Nestle refused to withdraw from Russia amid Russia's war on Ukraine. In March 2022, after Russia launched an all-out war agains Ukraine, while many large companies have stopped doing business in Russia, Nestlé continued to supply products to Russia. Public activists in many European countries organised rallies and launched a campaign on social networks demanding Nestle management to restrict the activities of the company in Russia. On March 17th, Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal tweeted that he had spoken with Nestle CEO  Mark Schneider "about the side effect of remaining in the Russian market." "Talked to @Nestle CEO Mr.Mark Schneider about the side effects of staying on the Russian market. Unfortunately, he shows no understanding. Paying taxes to the budget of a terrorist country means killing defenceless children & mothers. I hope Nestle will change its mind soon”, Shmyhal wrote. Nestle said on March 9 that it had suspended capital investments and advertising in Russia. But the Swiss company has also stopped shipping non-essential products such as espresso and mineral water. However, the world's largest food company continues to supply  essential products to Russia. "As a food company and employer, we also have a responsibility to the people of Russia and our more than 7,000 employees, most of whom are local," Nestle said in a statement. Anonymous called for Nestle blackout after it refused to cease Russia operations, and launched a campaign #BoycottNestle. The hacktivist organisation took to Twitter on March 18, to call for the boycott as almost 400 companies announced plans to halt business and operations in Russia. 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.