The Social Medicine Portal

Organizing Against Nestle at “the other Davos”

As “[t]he world’s business and government leaders” met last week (1/28 – 2/1/2009) at the World Economic Forum in Davos Switzerland, activists staged their own ”other Davos” meeting.  During “the other Davos” activists charged that Nestle continues to violate the International Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes and accused the company of union-busting. Nestle is currently subject to an international boycott because of its marketing of baby milk substitutes.

At the alternative Davos meeting several concerns were raised about Nestle’s corporate behavior. These have been brought together in the site Nestlecritics. org. Nestle has also responded to its critics, but those responses, some of which are cited below, are spread out over a number of places on the web.

1. Aggressive marketing of baby milk substitutes:

The main focus of the boycott is Nestle’s aggressive marketing of baby milk substitutes.  The WHO’s International Code of Marketing  of Breast Milk Substitutes is fairly clear about the strict limitations on the advertising of milk substitutes.  There should be no advertising to the general public and no free samples.

Nestle claims to be living by this code and their response to the campaign can be seen at a dedicated website: www. babymilk.nestle.com.  Under the signature of Peter Brabeck, Nestle’s CEO, the site states:

Our policy and practice in developing countries since that time [the late 1970's] has meant no public promotion, including no advertising, no in-store promotions, no advertising leaflets, no “milk nurses”, no samples to mothers, and a very restrictive policy on free formula for evaluation by health professionals. We leave communication to mothers about infant formula in developing countries completely up to health professionals. In developed countries, we follow national regulations implementing the International Code, including the EU Commission Directive of May 1991, which implemented the Code within the EU.

Chairman Brabeck does introduce a small caveat to this policy and practice by stating that: “in a company of over 225,000 individuals, mistakes can be made.”

In fact it seems that mistakes are being made.  The International Baby Food Action Network produces an annual report entitled Breaking the Rules, a page of which can be seen at this link. IBFAN feels that Nestle, while not the only company violating the code, is the worst.

More to the point for us in the United States, is that Nestle conceptualizes this problem as one of the “developing world.” But this is not a distinction made in the WHO code.  Nor is there any reason to restrict the promotion of breast-feeding to developing countries.  The Healthy People 2010 United States health goals call for increasing the proportion of women who breastfeed.

A quick check of Google on 2/2/2008 showed that Nestle breast milk substitutes are well publicized on the net for US audiences.  A search under “Nestle Supreme Coupon” took us to a coupon at Walgreen’s. A perusal of the Gerber website (Nestle’s US baby milk substitute subsidiary) took us to advertising for the “Good Start” line of formula with up to $141 in savings and coupons for Gerber products and Good Start checks.

Nestle’s behavior in the US is consistent with the lack of regulation on formula advertising in the US.  Indeed, as we have noted in a previous posting, the American Academy of Pediatrics has lent its good name to formula advertising.  But this just raises more questions.  How can Nestle simultaneously broadcast its commitment to the code in developing companies while ignoring it in the US?   What exactly is the message sent?  That breastfeeding is appropriate only for poor women?   Why is it ok to advertise in the US, but not in South Africa?  Is Nestle is only committed to the code when it has to be?

2. Union Busting

A section of Nestlecritics.org is devoted to various labor disputes around the world.  These include the 2002 closing of a plant in Fulton, New York and disputes in Colombia, Japan and the Phillipines.  Peter Rossman of the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations offers an overview of the stuggle for workers’ rights at Nestle.

3.  The Nestle Boycott

For a full list of boycotted products please consult the Nestle website.    A partial list includes bottled waters (Perrier, Poland Spring, Pellegrino, Deer Park), baby foods (Gerber, Cerelac, Nestum), breakfast cereals (Cheerios, Nesquik), coffees (Nescafe, Nespresso), dairy products (Coffee-Mate, Nido), Haagen-Dazs ice cream, kitchen products (Lean Cuisine, Stouffer’s, Maggi), Nutrition products (Boost, Jenny Craig, Optifast, Power Bar) and multiple pet products (Alpo, Cat Chow, Dog Chow, Friskees, Gourmet, Proplan).

4. For more information

From Nestle:

Nestle.com website does not seem to address any of the activists’ concerns directly.  In addition to the www.babymilk.nestle.com site, most of Nestle’s responses to the boycott have been on an ad hoc basis.  Here are some:

• A May 22, 2007 letter to the Guardian from Nestle’s head of corporate responsibility: We’re not trying to undermine the baby-milk code.
• Nestle’s response to a 2000 British Medical Journal article on Nestlé’s violation of international marketing code.
• Nestle’s history of the boycott.

In addition to the sources cited above we found the Responsible Shopper section of Green America had a detailed page about Nestle’s corporate behavior.

posted by Matt Anderson, MD