Conference turris::womannotes-v2

       I've heard this boycott was being revived but have no details.
       However, I subscribe to "Mother Jones" (which probably places me
       on some conservative hit list) and they will certainly mention it
       sometime. They broke the original story. I love the way some
       businesses believe that killing babies is OK if they are third
       world. Why don't the right-to-lifers fight for these babies? Of
       course they have been born already so maybe they don't count.
       liesl

    But Nestle isn't killing babies -- they're just supplying free formula
    to new mothers.  Its the parent's fault they don't realize that the
    milk supply dries up if nursing isn't continued and that they can't
    afford the full formula price and are forced to water it down, thus
    causing infant malnutrition.  Not to mention the diseases that come
    from dirty water supplies.
    
    *sigh*  Some things never change; I remember boycotting Nestle many
    years ago; had to have been as far back as the mid '70s.  Never did go
    back to buying their products.
    
    Its a shame that boycotts are so ineffective.  Look at how many years
    Nestle didn't change their act; and when they did it really amounted to
    a change in tactics.
    
    Jim (a former Gulf-Western boycotter -- anyone remember that one?)

    
    	   What I find interesting is that this is just the sort
    	of thing many people advocate in the name of humanitarianism.
    	They would have us send food to starving people (until the
    	money runs out), making them dependant on the food, and
    	ultimately condemning them to slavery to the system.
    
    	   If Nestle is doing this in the third world, think of it
    	as nothing but an extension of the hand-out programs that
    	are so popular among 'concerned individuals'.  Nestle is
    	just a part of the grander system of Industrialization,
    	and is merely using the same tactics employed by society
    	(at a slightly different level).
    
    	   Would you condemn them for giving free samples to you?
    	No, but then you can probably afford the full price for
    	their formula (when you're not boycotting them for offering
    	the same free samples in the third world).  I know, I know,
    	it's a bit more nefarious than that, but essentially it is
    	just capitalism in action... create a market, then exploit
    	it.
    
    	   I love capitalism, but then I was born into it.  To others
    	it must seem like a terrible beast devouring the planet.
    	Come to think of it, it looks that way to me too, sometimes.
    	But that beast has treated me well, so I can accept free
    	samples (and often throw them away unused).  Third-worlders
    	are outworlders as far s capitalism is concerned.  They are
    	'virgin markets'.  And the naivete associated with virginity
    	is what lures them into the trap.  Soon they are made into
    	slaves of capitalist products, such as formula.  They must
    	then take jobs to buy the formula (and other necessary
    	products, such as chocolate, disposable diapers, and 
    	frozen pizzas).  Once they are so trapped, they must move
    	to the big cities, where they take the sweat shop jobs
    	nobody else wants.  They slave away for pennies an hour,
    	all the while dreaming of the good life capitalism has to 
    	offer.
    
    	   But the good life is usually two or three generations
    	down the line for these new recruits (unless they are
    	particularly clever).  But eventually they are swallowed
    	up by the system, and absorbed into the living melting pot
    	that is modern society.
    
    	   We, the industrialized people of the planet, contain the
    	virus of modernization.  We strive to take over the entire
    	planet, casting nature aside and mounting our earth-movers
    	to clear away new subdivisions for a new generation of
    	yuppies and techno-heads.  Our virus spreads like a plague
    	across the planet, devouring everything it touches.
    
    	   And as we spread the disease, the beast of Industrialization
    	grows larger and more powerful.  It has long been too strong
    	for us to ever succeed in defeating it, so our best bet now
    	is to keep in its good graces.  And so we, as loyal subjects
    	of the grand dragon, do wantonly seek to spread our virus to
    	the four corners and beyond.  We consider it our grand mission
    	in life.
    
    	   "Feed the poor," comes the rallying cry, and there are
    	hundreds mounted up to hand out free samples to the poor.
    	Now perhaps you know what they're really doing.  They're
    	spreading the virus.
    
    	- Greg
    

    Greg, you seem to have faith that Nestle is "doing the right thing" by
    passing out this formula. I think that if infant formula were healthy
    for babies, Nestle's actions could be seen in a more generous light.
    I've heard that many formulas have much less nutrition than a mother's
    milk, that they don't help a baby form an immune system and that
    they're filled with sugar. A friend who grew up in Thailand once told
    me that there's a whole Thai generation raised on infant formula and
    missing teeth. A chief complaint against Nestle is that they've
    convinced mothers that formula is _better_ for babies than their own
    milk. 
    

    Liz

    re: .4 (Liz)
    
    	   No, actually I am well aware that anything Nestle does,
    	they do for a profit.  It's the great American way.  My whole
    	point was that because the third-worlders don't know how
    	capitalism works, they are often ensnared by it unawares.
    
    	   Of course the same could also be said of communism (or
    	any 'ism that is practiced in the industrialized world.)
    
    	- Greg

    [moved by moderator]

CIMBAD::WALTON                                       16 lines  15-NOV-1988 11:07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If I may interject...Nestle did indeed use marketing tactics which
    led many to believe that the formula was better that the mother's
    milk.  Now, the problem is fairly large here, because when the mothers
    stopped breastfeeding, they stopped passing on the immunities to
    disease (ameobic dysentary, cholera, an a few others).  combine
    the lack of immunities with the desease ridden water used to make
    the formula and the practice of watering the formula led to a marked
    increase in infant deaths.  
    
    It is widely felt that Nestle took advantage of women who wouldn't
    know any better in marketing the formula.  And personally, I think
    that is exactly what they did, and I won't knowingly buy Nestle
    products for that reason.
    
    
    Sue  

    I would like to remind people, since Nestle's crime appears to
    be being characterized as an American one, that Nestle is a
    Swiss company. It is owned and operated by Swiss and not US
    interests.
    
    			Alfred

    Some people will snipe at any note, including ones they apparently
    haven't made any effort to understand.

    Chuck, who should really know better than this

    re:.10
    
    � Some people will find wrong in any action, including charity. �
    
    Right. So when the Ol' Dope Peddlar says, "Well, kid, the first
    one's free," we should praise him for his charity?
    
    --- jerry

    re: 10
    
    Mike,
    
    There's a whole history of supporting evidence.  If you do not know
    that history, ask, and I'm sure someone will provide info or a pointer.
    When you have the information, it isn't silly, it's tragic!
    
    Nancy

    	RE:  .16
    
    	No, the silence (at least from this noter) is because your attitude
    	makes it hardly worth responding.
    
    	However, let me see if I can explain the situation to you...
    
    	Companies like Nestle' donate infant formula to hospitals in
    	the Third World for only one reason:  to worm their way into
    	a previously untapped source of revenue.  (In other words, they
    	do it to make money.  Pure and simple.)
    
    	The women of these poor countries are led to believe that their
    	own milk can't possibly be as good as the formula that modern
    	technology can produce, so they let their milk supplies dry
    	up in favor of feeding their infants the free samples of formula
    	that they get from the hospital.
    
    	Once the women's natural milk supply has gone away, the infants
    	are dependent on the formula (which their parents can not afford
    	to buy in sufficient quantities for adequate nourishment.) 
    	So the formula starts becoming "watered down" (in efforts to
    	stretch less formula over more of the infant's meals.)
    
    	Meanwhile, the much needed immune system that babies get from
    	Mother's milk is not replaced in the formula, so the infants
    	are more susceptible to disease.
    
    	Also, the families who are attempting to feed this formula to
    	their infants may not have adequate sterilization procedures
    	explained and/or available to them to offset the effects of
    	mixing the formula with contaminated water.  Even if the water
    	that they use with the formula is ok, they still may not be
    	using adequate sterilization techniques to fight the dangers
    	present to infants when their own bottles have not been treated
    	well enough to destroy the kinds of dangerous organisms that
    	are present when milk products have been left standing long
    	enough to spoil.
    
    	The overall result of this scenerio is that millions of babies
    	have died from the so-called "charity" of companies like Nestle'
    	(who were merely seeking a new market for their products, but
    	who succeeded in robbing a healthy source of nutrition from
    	babies in place of something that turned out to be POISON within
    	the particular circumstances/environment that it was being used.)
    
    	Now, Mike Z., you may think it is a big joke ("silly") to protest
    	the actions of a company who puts its own opportunities for
    	profit above the actual (and future) deaths of millions of infants,
	but there are others here who think that such companies don't
    	deserve to benefit from the continuation of profit from *OUR*
    	patronage, so a boycott has been set into motion.
    
    	Whether or not the companies actually walk up to Mothers and
    	say, "Our formula is better than your milk" is irrelevant!!! 
    	
    	If they are still offering their formula for free to Mothers
    	for four days (in hopes that the Mothers will need to continue
    	to purchase their products *REGARDLESS* of the effects on the
    	infants,) then they are not companies from which I will purchase
    	any sort of product.
    
    	Is this any clearer to you now, Mike Z.?  The actions of these 
    	companies have indirectly led to millions of INFANT DEATHS in 
    	the pursuit of new/additional profits.  This result may not have 
    	occurred to them when they started out supplying infant formula 
    	to Third World countries, but they sure as HELL know about it now 
    	(yet they are doing it again.)
    
    	Clearly, they have made their choices (for PROFITS over the lives
    	of Third World infants.)  That leaves *us* free to make OUR choices
    	about whether or not we wish to allow them to continue receiving
    	profits from *OUR* continued patronage.  Many of us do not wish
    	to give them another penny of our money until they stop what
    	they are doing.
    
    	So, what is your problem with that?  Please explain.

    from an article, "The Decline of Breastfeeding," by Kathleen G.
    Auerbach in the latest issue of _Mothering_ (No 51, spring 1989):
    
        Most hospital staffs, rather than providing skilled care and
        assistance to new mothers, serve as unpaid representatives and
        advertising agents for the multimillion-dollar formula industry. 
        They hand out "gift packs" to mothers as they leave the
        hospital--packs of artificial baby milk that the formula
        companies are only too happy to provide.  When these gift packs
        are distributed, sales of the product go up; when they are not
        distributed, sales go down.  One colleague reported that in her
        area, formula sales dropped 80 percent after her hospital
        stopped giving out formula gift packs.
        
        Simply by dispensing such "gifts," hospitals contribute to early
        lactation failure, for they give new mothers the impression that
        formula is necessary for optimal infant health.  Early in the
        20th century, when formula companies attempted to market their
        new product directly to mothers, they failed miserably.  Only
        when doctors began promoting the product were women convinced of
        the superiority of infant formula over "mother's own brand."  We
        continue to live with the legacy of this successful sales pitch: 
        nearly half of all women in this country are choosing
        second-best feeding methods for their babies.
    
    The article is about breast feeding in the US, but I believe that
    the argument is, if anything, even more compelling for third world
    countries.
    
    	-Neil

    Mike,
    
    If you mean the sales of cigaretts - are these give away free
    in third world countries to entice people to smoke?
    
    In general I believe people have only x amount of energy that
    they can devote to causes and trying to improve the world
    situation. I don't think it is unreasonable for a person to
    feel more strongly about boycotting a product that is contributing
    to infant mortality. Cigaretts do indeed raise the mortality
    rate of smokers, however, you are talking about adults who presumably
    have some control over and a measure of choice around smoking rather
    than helpless infants. 
    
    I'm not saying it is right for American countries to push cigaretts
    or banned pesticides or untested drugs in third world countries.
    What I do think, is it is not unreasonable for people to feel more
    strongly in the case where so many infant deaths are concerned.
    
    Bonnie

If anyone would like a list of boycotted products, I will be glad to
send you one.  I personally feel outraged by the actions of the Nestle
company, and feel that this is one of the most effective methods of making 
our opinions known to it.

/Mike

    before the list gets posted here, could we have some guidance from
    the moderators about how to word such annoucements appropriately?
    thanks.
    
    liz
    (who vaguely remembers that announcing a boycott might be ok, but
    encouraging others to participate might not be)
    
    (and who also encourages the mods to delete this note if it offers
    more confusion than clarity.)

Re .24

My thoughts also, which is why I am keeping the dissemination of the list at
a private level.

/Mike

    Before I let off steam  on this subject, I would like to know from
    the anti-Nestle folks out there if these infants deaths are from
    the product or bad preparation.
    
    I would like to point out that I was born and raised in a Third
    World country and beg to differ with some of the opinions expressed
    here. Not all places in these underdeveloped countries have tap
    water. As a result, giving free formula to a mother and not educating
    her on the importance of using clean water in preparing the formula
    will naturally cause problems for the baby.
    
    I happen to believe that Nestle makes good products and do have
    subsidiaries in the Third World making their product. Since no mention
    was made of the particular formula that the infants are dying from,
    I'd like to know the product. 
    
    _COOL BREEZE_
    

    The reason for renewing the boycott is *not* because the Nestle
    products are bad in and of themselves.
    
    In a nutshell, the major problem is that once a mother is "hooked" on
    the formula, which will happen if her milk supply dries up, the family
    will have to *buy* the formula.  Lack of financial resources to buy
    enough of the formula causes "many" families to water it down, thus
    significantly decreasing its nutritional value.  This is why there has
    been such a stink over the now subtle and previously not-so-subtle
    pushing of infant forumulas in the poorer countries and counties within
    this country.  If doctors in hospital's give out the formula to
    mothers, doesn't that imply to them that this is a good thing for
    their baby?
    
    A secondary problem is the lack of clean water supplies.  I haven't
    heard this mentioned as a reason for the boycott, however.

    re .27

    >In a nutshell, the major problem is that once a mother is "hooked" on
    >the formula, which will happen if her milk supply dries up, the family
    >will have to *buy* the formula.

    As I understand it, Nestle either donates in toto or sells considerably
    below cost to the governments of these Third World Nations. Any buying
    of the formula occurs between the peasants and the government, not Nestle.
    Also, the problem really is the preperation; i.e. using contaminated
    water and bottles, rather than dilution because of expense.

	Sm    

re: .26 or thereabouts:

If a mother begins using formula:

-- her own lactation ceases; thus the baby must continue to receive
   formula, which is expensive for the parents.  Since formula is
   generally imported, it contributes to the country's overall
   foreign exchange debt.

-- the baby does not receive a number of "nutrients" specific to mother's
   milk, such as disease antibodies, making it more susceptable to illnesses.

-- the formula is mixed with available water; if not done carefully
   (i.e. with boiled or treated water), the baby may be subject to
   disease or parasites.

-- the mother's lactation produces anti-fertility hormones.  If she
   stops breast-feeding, she is more likely to get pregnant, leading
   to further population increases, economic burdens, abortion, miscarriage,
   and infanticide.

-- the cost of formula (which must be purchased with, ultimately, dollars
   or Swiss francs) may be such that parents dilute it; leading to
   malnutrition.  Also, they may wean the baby before it is developmentally
   ready.

Clearer?

Martin.

    
    One of the early notes (from last November) mentions "a whole
    generation in Thailand" growing up on formula. So I showed this
    string to my [Thai] wife for her comment. It took me quite a while
    - and serious recourse to an English-Thai dictionary - before I
    could even explain to her what "infant formula" was.
    
    Her comment then was that it was "gedat" (a mild insult suggesting
    showing off) for some women in Bangkok to use the stuff - and also
    she attributed it to American TV shows that appear on Thai television,
    rather than the freebies available from hospitals - probably an
    accurate observation since as far as I can see Thai people are quite
    hospital-shy, and at least in the area my wife comes from (the
    North-East) most children are born at home without benefit of hospital
    care and attention.
    
    I wonder - do American network sit-coms do enough to promote breast
    feeding, or do they inherently promote a sterile, convience mode
    of infant rearing. Should you all boycott network TV as infinitely
    more useful than boycotting Nestl�?
    
    /. Ian (and Ann) .\

I was just reading the latest issue of Consumer Reports.  They report at
length about the Beech Nut "apple juice" fraud.  I found it interesting to
also read that Beech Nut's parent company is Nestle.

For those who aren't aware (it has been mentioned here before), Beech Nut
(a baby food company) sold flavored water for several years, labeling it pure
apple juice. 

          Carol