Talk:Nestlé boycott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since this page has now been separated from the main Nestle article, I see that one of the most important aspects of the boycott has been left out, which I had suggested as an edit to the other article: WHY are these products dangerous in third world countries? Apparently, it's because they have to be mixed with water, which in many of these places, is contaminated (although this makes me wonder what adults drink then, if they can't drink the water).

Here's the text from the original article:

In Nestlé's case, this has centered on its apparent recommendations for nursing mothers to switch to its infant formula milk products, leading to the alleged deaths of about 1.5 million babies each year as a result of formula being mixed with contaminated water.

If this is indeed accurate, I think it needs to be placed in this article. Otherwise, it leaves it up to the reader to guess why people are boycotting. Thanks. --Birdhombre 13:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] I find this article, and the boycott itself [offensive language removed]

2 of the 3 flaws with this aren't Nestle's fault. 1 is the fault of the country, 1 is the fault of the mothers. And no company should be held accountable for a user not following their directions. And the 3rd flaw appears to be false

If you give the directions in a foreign language... PuercoPop (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

i changed the title of this section to remove ableist language 99.233.152.171 (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My rewrite

I have attempted to improve the format of the article as well as to provide background information on what the central issue of the boycott is. I realize the article is somewhat one-sided and does not provide Nestlé and it's supporters side of the issue. If someone does either have that info to add or would like to locate it then please insert into the article. --Cab88 09:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for the additional info! As it turns out, I just happened to be reading about this issue yesterday in the book Why Decisions Fail by Paul C. Nutt, and it basically said all the things you did. Thanks. --Birdhombre 13:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ahem, there's still a pretty big mistake in the second section. "Nursing mothers would accept the free samples, which in tern caused their breasts to cease producing breast-milk due to insufficient and thus forcing them to continue using formula despite the sanitary and cost issues. " Said section has redundant material, and this line doesn't even make sense.. or i'd rewrite it. also has a typo (tern is a bird)

[edit] POV Check removed

I've removed the POV Check marker, as I do not believe that this article is biased; it seems to contain an accurate summary of the claims made by campaigners in regard to Nestle, and the fact that it does not contain Nestle's side of the story does not in itself warrant a POV marker.

Actually, the article IS biased in that it does not provide Nestlé's responses. ~ A reader

Yep - totally one sided

I agree ~ another reader —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.165.105 (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infant deaths

The article says "This is alleged to have led to the deaths of about 1.5 million babies." Two things need clarification:

  • Who alleges this, what's the source?
  • It used to say (and still does, in Nestlé) 1.5 million each year, while as it stands here, it means 1.5 millions accumulated. I don't know which is correct (and if either of them are, it is pretty horrible), but the difference is significant and we should clarify this.

Haakon 2 July 2005 09:55 (UTC)

Ok, I did some research and rewrote the paragraph. I made some points clearer (IMO), and added that the 1.5 million figure is indeed per year. Sources: [1], [2], [3]. Haakon 2 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)

Note that all these sources given are based on the campaign figures of the people running the nestle boycott and so are not really impartial.

Nestle may indeed be playing a role in pushing their products more than is in the interests of the developing worlds health - In fact despite their published policies they still seem to be a bit of a bad guy. But quite frankly laying this many deaths solely at their door is beyond the bounds of credibility.

[edit] Cost to the company

Does anyone know much the boycott actually hurts the company financially? Is it in any way significant when compared to their overall revenues? Maccoinnich 18:50, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is my question, too, because it speaks to the point. I joined the boycott back in 1977-78 when as a breastfeeding mom and b.f. coach I was concerned about these issues. I kept boycotting until about a decade ago when I came to feel that there had been some economic and PR impact on Nestle, enough to cause changes in practice/policy. Ecomonic impact is usually the motivator for such change. I would like more info on this, since I am currently in a doctoral economics class and a group of us are looking at the success/failure of such efforts as this boycott and why. (4.255.38.152 05:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] diarrhea

Are you saing that all 1,5 million cases of deadly diarrhea in third world are caused by using some nestle milk? Diarrhea article says that it is a total number of deaths from diarrhea.

[edit] nestle statement 6 april 2006

In The Independent on 6th April, the Nestle UK Chief Press Officer wrote in and stated what can be found on their website here. Briefly:

  • They follow the WHO Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk substitutes 1981
  • They do not advertise or promote milk formula in the developing world
  • They do not have pictures of babies on their packaging
  • They do not give out free samples to hospitals except when requested in very special circumstances

And others.

[edit] Endorsements

Has anyone ever compiled a list of celebraties who are paid to endorse Nestle products? I know that David Bowie sold his likeness to advertise a Nestle water company. Have there been any others? --Dickmac999 21:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nestle Products

Is it appropriate to provide a link to a list of Nestle products at the Nestle web site? --Dick Mac - Brooklyn, NY 23:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Valid

Are these allegations still valid?? Nestle is a Global company afterall....Is it just an anti-Nestle campaign being carried out by some vested interests??? --Muby - Bangalore, India 02:58, 02 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the allegations are still valid. If you visit the Baby Milk Action website (they are the british organisation who co-ordinate the Nestle boycott) you will be able to find examples of WHO code violations from as recently as May 2006.

80.6.116.174 15:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unexplained initialism

Resolved. —Pengo 01:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What's an LEDC? I don't think this term should be used without a link to explain it. It's just confusing. --Weeble 14:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it means "less economically developed country." I went ahead and spelled it out and made a wikilink to the initialism. I also changed the two instances of "LEDC countries" to "LEDC" since the former is redundant. --Birdhombre 03:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from a passer-by

This article is full of argumentative POV slop and needs to be completely rewritten. A number of alleged "facts" are utter rubbish. This thing is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. •Jim62sch• 10:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Totally disputed

This article contains large blocks of controversial material which lacks a reliable source, is biased and reads like an advertising campaign. It should be totally rewritten and provided with citations.Page Up 19:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific so that the problems may be resolved? —Pengo 01:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove this article

This article is nonsense - get rid of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.84.252.228 (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

What specific problems do you have with the article? —Pengo 01:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section Removed

"Unethical actions of which Nestlé has been accused

Nestlé has been accused by supporters of the boycott of unethical methods of promoting infant formula over breast-milk to poor mothers in third world countries.[citation needed] One major issue is passing out free powdered formula samples to mothers in hospitals.[citation needed] After leaving the hospital, these mothers' breasts will have ceased to produce milk due to the substitution of formula feeding for breastfeeding.[citation needed] This forces the continued use of formula, which can contribute to malnutrition,[citation needed] and under worsened sanitary conditions with contaminated water, often leading to diarrhea. UNICEF alleges this situation results in the deaths of about 1.5 million babies each year. The formula, which is no longer free after the mother leaves the hospital, can for some also put a significant strain on the family's budget."

I removed the above section because after every accusation it has 'citation needed'. Until such a time that citations are available this should not be re-added. I am all in favour of showing the media/organisations who condemn some of Nestle's actions but without referencing how are we expected to sort the unverifiable from the verifiable? If wanted I can try find some references but I will leave enough time for the orginal creator/people more involved in the article's field of work to try. ny156uk 21:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rediculous references

I think this kind of referencing makes Wiki look terrible. They have/are repackaging their complimentary foods, and they have stated clearly that they support breastfeeding until at least 6 months which is what WHO and UNICEF recommend why is this so one sided. There should be more accurate information provided and if it is not cited then it should be removed. If 1.5 Million babies die because they were formula feed Nestle, then maybe someone should make the note that they aren't using clean water, not using enought formula and feeding them with other alternatives. Why is this not discussed? The nurse at the hospital I gave birth said that 40% of women are unable to breast feed or choose not to, for various reasons so I am sure that there are 40% in developing countries. With malnutrition there would some women that need to have an alternative and with mortality rates, unfortunately some babies won't make it. Nicole, Mom in Canada ```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.142.61.42 (talk) 04:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Actually, WHO and UNICEF both recommend breastfeeding for 2 years, and after that as long as both mother and baby desire to continue. The AAP recommends 1 year, and thereafter continuing as long as desired. There is no health organization that recommends less than a year. 40% of women in developed countries may choose not to breastfeed, but that is because they see formula as a safe alternative. Less than 2% of women actually physically cannot breastfeed. In third world countries where formula is more dangerous than it is here in North America, a 40% formula feeding rate would be even more tragic. Not to mention added cost for no reason at all.

Edit or Remove this article

This article does not even read like the rest of Wiki. It has a lot of sentences that are the points of view of people who support the boycott, and while their opinions should be noted, as it the whole rason the boycott started, it needs to be edited to show this.

Some of the statements made are very scary for mothers that formula feed their babies, and i feel that they need to be backed up with the appropriate links.

It may also be worth noting that in Britain baby formula is also given out for free at hospitals as well - although this is probably funded by the NHS. I breastfed my daughter but i formula fed my sons, and it was provided in the hospital for the entire duration of my stay. When i left after five days, i eas still producing breastmilk and could have continued had i wanted to.


I agree that this article needs to be edited, more information given with credible sources, but it should not be removed as it is a long standing international boycott of which, I believe, there is no parallel. I will try and edit and add some substantial references if possible. AmyNelson 12:17 BST 21 May 2007

Having made some edits, I have found it very easy to find sources for the claims, I have no idea why this simple task was not done sooner, perhaps there have been people against the boycott that have attempted to undermine the content on the page, this page has merit and it should be an easy task to improve it further.AmyNelson 12:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free formula

The claims include that Nestlé supports or has supported the distribution of free powdered formula samples to mothers in hospitals. After leaving the hospital, these mothers' breasts will have ceased to produce milk due to the substitution of formula feeding for breastfeeding.

Was this claim really made? It seems a bit bizzare to me at least as reported. I would presume most mothers in the developing world are not going to spend very long in hospital unless there were complications. I would guess something like 2-3 days would be something like the norm. While starting to breast feed after 2-3 days would I guess be harder then starting immedietly, would production really have ceased completely by this time? It sounds fairly fast to me... Nil Einne 09:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

According to IBFAN, "Supplementing breastfeeding interferes with lactation and makes an early end to breastfeeding more likely." Which is a bit less drastic than "ceasing to produce milk". I'll make a change to the wording. Fionah 10:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and attribution of sources

I’ve made a number of changes to this article, I hope for the better! The main changes are to include references, some rephrasing and reorganizing for clarity, adding Nestlé’s own response to the allegations, plus some extra info about the boycott in the media. I have no connection with either Nestlé or the boycott advocacy organizations, although I did support the boycott in my student days. I think the following guidelines would be useful for keeping this article as NPOV as possible:

  • If a claim is made by a boycott support organization, clearly state where that claim is coming from, e.g. by starting with "IBFAN claims…" or "UNICEF alleges… "
  • Where relevant, include Nestlé’s response, again with appropriate attribution e.g. " Nestlé maintains…"
  • Where possible, use the primary source for a claim rather than a quotation from a secondary source. For example, for "UNICEF claims that breast-fed infants are less likely to die of diarrhea", reference the UNICEF web page, not the Baby Milk Action web site where this is quoted.
  • Where possible, use neutral sources such as news reports or medical journals to support or refute claims.

Also, the following information would enhance the article (if anyone can find it):

  • The economic impact (if any) of the boycott
  • The global spread of the boycott

Looking forward to feedback. Fionah 17:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] small POV correction made in main paragraph

hey folks. i changed the words 'UNICEF alleges' to 'according to UNICEF' since the latter sounds more neutral. 99.233.152.171 (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)