Drunken Bungle Whore

Looking for info.

There's a guy at work who avoids everything made by Nestle - and says it's something to do with them killing babies.....? I'm pretty sure there's fairly strict laws about that sort of thing - so could anyone enlighten me as to what Nestle may/ may not have done?

TVM!

Diablo

Pro abortion?

Just a guess...

Funkii Munkii

Lots of people avoid Nestle products because they rip off 3rd world farmers, but then again which multi national doesn't.

Or it could be to do with the fact they like their additives and E numbers.

Markus

Beth,
Have a peek at this and also this

Longjing

Basically it's because of the way they're alleged to have marketed baby milk products overseas... not new, been going on for years and years.

Roughly, Unicef and others criticise Nestle for aggressively marketing baby food to mothers to the exclusion of breast feeding. This is said to cause poor health through immune deficiencies and stuff.

There's a code of practice for marketing to young mothers. Campaigners say Nestle has been in violation for about 20 years. Nestle says they're lovely and just misunderstood, and has a rather large PR department to promote that message.

have a look at http://www.babymilkaction.org/index.html

or google Nestle and baby milk and you'll get a wide selection of views on both sides.

I don't boycott Nestle especially, but they don't come out of it very well imo. Actually, I do boycott Nescafe, but that's cos it's rank old man's p1ss.

Drunken Bungle Whore

Ta everso!

hedgehog

The "dead baby" story is one that is used by a lot of hand wringers in an attempt to attach an emotional argument to one that should really be considered in terms of the science.

I'm talking in general terms here and not in terms specific to Nestle, or anyone else, but it is easy to see how the dead baby story works. All you need as a father or mother who can attribute, or be lead to attribute, the death of their baby to the product, company or effect against which you are campaigning. When you put them up for press interview it is impossible for the press to ask hard questions about things such as causal relationships because it looks harsh and is likely to get even more support for the cause. So, the interviewer can't say "Do you not think maybe your baby died because of X and that this has no relationship at all with the cause you are claiming?" It is also difficult to investigate the background as you can only go on the word of the grieving relative and medical info etc. is usually not discussed in specific terms with the press or others.

So, most of the pressure groups who take an anti-progress position and who oppose scientific development rely a lot on the dead baby story, or variations upon it. In some cases it is all they have to support their cause.

While I am not making little of any death I hope it is possible to see how the emotional pressures of being presented with a dead baby, or any dead person, can help to overcome any doubt that the average person exposed to the argument may have. There is no question that there are a very many cases when people, and even babies, are treated in a manner which is unreasonable and this information must be made public so that those involved can face the full force of the law. However, in general when I see a dead baby story this tends to make me more keen to see reliable peer reviewed science to support the claims being made and if none is available then the grieving relatives are merely being used by some pressure group or another and, in truth, may be working against an objective scientific investigation of what actually caused the death of their child.

So, beware the dead baby story unless you personally have seen hard science which is peer reviewed in a reliable journal and which supports the story, failing that then it is likely that those grieving are being used in some way to colour your opinions.