The boycott was launched in the United States on July 7, 1977, against Swiss-based NestlÃÆ'Â © n company. The boycott spread to Europe in the early 1980s and was fueled by concerns about the "aggressive marketing" of NestlÃÆ'Â © breast milk substitutes, especially in developing countries, mostly among the poor. The boycott has been canceled and updated due to NestlÃÆ'Â © Â © s business practices and other replacement manufacturers monitored by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN). Country boycott organizers who replace breast milk are worse for infant health. In 2013, Nestlé's boycott was co-ordinated by the International NestlÃÆ'Â © Boycott Committee, whose secretariat is the British Baby Milk Action group.
Video Nestlé boycott
Baby milk issue
Groups like the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) and Save the Children have argued that the promotion of formula milk for breastfed babies has caused health and death problems among babies in less-developed countries economically. There are three problems that can arise when poor women in developing countries turn to formula milk and a list of breastfeeding benefits:
- The formula should be mixed with water, which is often impure or non-drinkable in a poor country, causing illness in a vulnerable baby. Due to the low literacy rate in developing countries, many mothers do not know the required sanitation methods in bottle preparation. Even mothers who are able to read in their native language may not be able to read the language in which the direction of sterilization is written.
- Although some mothers can understand the required sanitation standards, they often do not have the means to do so: fuel to boil water, electricity (or other reliable lights) to allow for sterilization at night. UNICEF estimates that formula-fed children living in conditions of disease and unhygienic are between 6 and 25 times more likely to die of diarrhea and four times more likely to die of pneumonia than breastfed children.
- Many poor moms use less formula powder than necessary, to make the formula container last longer. As a result, some babies receive inadequate nutrition from a weak formula solution.
- Breast milk has many less natural benefits in the formula. Nutrition and antibodies are passed to the baby while the hormone is released to the mother's body. Breast-fed infants are protected, at various levels, from a number of diseases, including diarrhea, bacterial meningitis, gastroenteritis, ear infections, and respiratory infections. Breast milk contains the right amount of essential nutrients for neural development (brain and nerves). The bond between the baby and the mother can be strengthened during breastfeeding. Frequent and exclusive breastfeeding may also delay the return of fertility, which can help women in developing countries to make room for their births. The World Health Organization recommends that, in most cases, infants should be exclusively breastfed for the first six months, and then be given complementary feeds in addition to breastfeeding for up to two years or more.
- As stated in the following paragraph, the practice of relying on free formula in the maternity ward often means that the mother loses the ability to make her own milk and must buy formula milk.
The advocacy group and charity have accused NestlÃÆ'  © an unethical method of promoting breastmilk formulas for breastfeeding to poor mothers in developing countries. For example, IBFAN claims that NestlÃÆ'  © distributes free formula samples to hospitals and maternity wards; after leaving the hospital, the formula is no longer free, but because supplementation has disrupted lactation, the family must continue to buy the formula. IBFAN also alleges that Nestlà ©  © uses "humanitarian assistance" to create a market, not labeling its products in a language appropriate to the country where they are sold, and offering gifts and sponsors to influence health workers to promote their products. NestlÃÆ'  © deny these allegations.
Maps Nestlé boycott
History
Nestlà ©  © Nestlà © marketing strategy was first written in the magazine New Internationalist in 1973 and in a book entitled The Baby Killer , published by the British NGO War On Want in 1974. NestlÃÆ' © attempted to sue the German translation publisher (Third World Action Group) for defamation. After a two-year trial, the court decides to support Nestlà ©  © because they can not be held liable for infant deaths 'in terms of criminal law'. Because the defendants were fined 300 Swiss Francs (more than US $ 400, adjusted for inflation), and Judge JÃÆ'¼rg Sollberger commented that Nestlà ©  © "must modify its publicity method fundamentally", the magazine TIME states this as "moral victory" for the defendants. This led to similar court challenges posed against other dairies in the US spearheaded by the Roman Catholic Order of Sisters of Worthy Blood along with the Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility.
Widespread publicity led to the launch of a boycott in Minneapolis, USA, by the Infant Formal Action Coalition (INFACT) and the boycott soon spread to Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Europe. In May 1978, the US Senate held a public hearing into the promotion of breastmilk substitutes in developing countries and joined the call for the Marketing Code. In 1979, WHO and UNICEF organized an international meeting calling for the development of international marketing codes, as well as other measures to improve the practice of infant and young child feeding. The International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) was formed by six campaign groups at this meeting.
In 1981, the 34th World Health Assembly (WHA) adopted Resolution WHA34.22 which includes the International Code of Substitute Marketing of Breast Milk. This Code of Ethics covers infant formula and other dairy products, foods and beverages, when marketed or represented to be a substitute for partial or total breastfeeding. It prohibits the promotion of breastmilk substitutes and gives the health worker the responsibility to advise parents. It limits manufacturing firms to providing scientific and factual information to health workers and establishing labeling requirements.
In 1984, the boycott coordinator met Nestlà ©  ©, who agreed to implement the code, and the boycott was officially suspended. In 1988 IBFAN charged that formula companies flooded healthcare facilities in developing countries with free and low-cost supplies, and the boycott was relaunched the following year.
In May 1999, a verdict against NestlÃÆ'  © was issued by the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). NestlÃÆ'  © claimed in an anti-boycott advertisement that markets infant formulas "ethically and responsibly". ASA found that Nestlà ©  © can not support this or any other claims in the face of evidence provided by the Baby Milk Action campaign group.
In November 2000, the European Parliament invited IBFAN, UNICEF, and Nestlà ©  © to present evidence to the Public Hearing before the Development and Cooperation Committee. The evidence presented by the IBFAN group from Pakistan and UNICEF legal officials commented on Nestlà ©  © 's failure to bring its policies in line with World Health Assembly Resolutions. NestlÃÆ'  © declined an invitation to attend, claiming a scheduling conflict, despite sending representatives from audit firms that had been tasked to produce reports about its Pakistani operations.
Current status
In 2013, NestlÃÆ'Â © boycott coordinated by the Nestlone International Nestlone nursery, the secretariat of the British Baby Milk Action group. The company's practices are monitored by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), which consists of more than 200 groups in over 100 countries.
Along with the boycott, the campaigner works for the implementation of the Code and Resolutions in the law, and claims that 60 countries have introduced laws that apply most or all of the provisions.
Several universities, colleges, and schools have banned the sale of NestlÃÆ' ©  products from their shops and vending machines in the period since disclosure. In the UK, 73 student unions, 102 businesses, 30 religious groups, 20 health groups, 33 consumer groups, 18 local authorities, 12 unions, education groups, 31 lawmakers and many celebrities endorsed Nestlà ©  © boycott.
NestlÃÆ'  © claims that it fully complies with the International Code. According to Nestlà ©  © Peter Brabeck-Letmathe CEO, "we are also conducting annual audits on compliance with the WHO Code sample NestlÃÆ' ©, and we investigate any proved claims made by people who believe we have violated the Code... If we find that the Code has been deliberately violated, we take disciplinary action. "The company claims that many of these allegations are unproven, outdated, or use the interpretation of IBFAN's non-standard Code of Ethics.
In May 2011, the debate about unethical baby formula marketing was relaunched in the Asia-Pacific region. Nineteen leading international Lao NGOs, including Save the Children, Oxfam, CARE International, Plan International and World Vision have launched NestlÃÆ' © s boycott and written an open letter to the company. Among other unethical practices, NGOs criticized the lack of labeling in Laos and providing incentives to doctors and nurses to promote the use of infant formula. The independent audit of NestlÃÆ' ©  's marketing practices in Laos was commissioned by Nestlà ©  © and carried out by Bureau Veritas at the end of 2011. The audit found that "the WHO Code requirements and Lao PDR Decisions are well embedded throughout the business", but that "promotional materials at 4 % of visited retail outlets "violates the Lao Decision or WHO Code.
In media
An episode of the TV show The Mark Thomas Comedy Product produced by the British Channel Four in 1999 investigated the boycott and NestlÃÆ' ©  practices of infant milk. Mark Thomas sought evidence for a claim against Nestlà ©  and spoke with the head of the company. In one portion of the show, he "received a can of baby milk from Mozambique, all the instruction in English 33 languages ​​and dialects recognized in Mozambique Portuguese is the official language, but 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 NestlÃÆ'Â ©. An alternative competition called the Tap Water Awards was formed the following year.
In 2002, authors Germaine Greer and Jim Crace resigned from the Hay Festival in protest over NestlÃÆ'Â © s sponsorship of the event.
An article 2007 at The Guardian highlights aggressive marketing practices by Nestlà © in Bangladesh. 2016 hawk
The Council of Canadians, a social action organization, launched a boycott in September 2016 in response to a company that defeated a small town aimed at securing long-term water supplies through local wells, stressing the need for a bottled water industry reform as a country of drought battles and depletion of reserves groundwater.
See also
- H2NO - a lucrative campaign by Coca-Cola to deter consumers from ordering tap water drinks at restaurants
References
External links
- International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN)
- Baby Milk Action
- NestlÃÆ'Â © n marketing profile, from Solving Rules that Expose Rules, IBFAN, 2004
- Edinburgh Edinburgh Edinburgh University Campaign Campaign
- Nestlà © response to baby milk problems
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments