Nestlé: Pro Boycott Argument
Nestlé have participated in many unethical activities over the (very recent) years; formula milk sales in
developing countries lead to approximately 1.4 million infants dying [2], an industry in which Nestlé
have a 40% share [8]; claiming that "Bottled water is the most environmentally responsible consumer
product in the world" [9]; harvesting palm oil in a manner that causes massive environmental damage,
not least by further threatening endangered species such as orang-utans; and child labour used in the
production of chocolate. Some of these have improved or even stopped, others are on-going in much
the same manner as they always were.
We would ask you to join the international movement boycotting Nestlé for all of the above reasons,
which will all be explained in more detail later. However, given that many companies are worth
boycotting, you may well ask “why Nestlé?” There are a few reasons that make Nestlé stand out. One
is the consistency, variety and magnitude of their actions. They have participated in environmental
damage, human rights abuses and causing harm to animals. If a company has, for example, been
testing on animals, then one could lobby the government and try to change the law. But here, that
lengthy process would have to be repeated over and over again for each unethical action that they
take (not to mention in each country they take it in!). So outside pressure is needed to really make
them change. They have been doing these things for such a long time (the boycott started over 35
years ago!) that they clearly haven't "made a mistake" and they do not care about being a human or
decent company. Finally, they have scored very highly in a number of "most unethical company" polls
[10] [11].
Another reason that you may choose to boycott Nestlé over other companies is to ensure that you are
having more of an effect by joining an already well-established boycott. By focussing on one company
we can make them change much quicker and have a much bigger impact. Then, once they begin acting
ethically they will set an example to other companies (particularly with the size of Nestlé, many smaller
companies will look up to them), and give us an ethical option to purchase. For example,
approximately half the students’ unions in the country boycott Nestle [12]; if instead ten boycotted
Nestlé, ten other ones Coke-Cola, ten more Mars etc, the impact would be so watered down that it
would have minimal effect. Currently, there are 19 non-governmental organisations, like Save the
Children and Oxfam supporting the boycott, and in the UK 73 students’ unions, 102 businesses, 30
faith groups, 20 health groups, 33 consumer groups, 18 local authorities and 12 trade unions, as well as
MPS and celebrities.
Formula Milk
One of the main points of focus regarding Nestlé is their attitude to promoting formula milk for infants
Page 1 of 4
in developing countries. Here we will explain how they contribute to the 1.4 million infant deaths per
year [2] that formula milk use causes.
Originally Nestlé started to promote use of their formula milk on the grounds that if the mother of a
child has AIDS and breast feeds, there is a chance of this being passed on. However after this was
started, it was realised that the risks from feeding a child formula milk made with unclean water far
outweighed the risk of passing on infection. UNICEF has estimated (using data from the medical journal
the Lancet) that 15-20% of ALL INFANT DEATHS could be prevented by breastfeeding [2]. On the other
hand, the chance of a child being infected if breastfed by a mother with HIV for 24 months is about
15% [1]; obviously if the mother has not got HIV then there is no risk at all!
The World Health Organisation (WHO) have clearly assessed that the risk from dirty water is greater,
their recent guidance being to use formula milk only if clean water is available [3] (and only with the
guidance of a health care professional etc.). The first time WHO gave any guidance was in 1981, with
their article "International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes" [4].
Despite signing up to the code, there are many clear points in the article that Nestlé have continued to
ignore. For example, the code states that formula milk should not be advertised and should be clearly
labelled as being for infants over 6 months old only. However, one Nestlé promotional leaflet [5]
clearly advertises formula milk and claims it is appropriate for "the first year of life", while other
advertising [6] promotes formula milk as "suitable from birth". Nestlé also sell it in local shops with no
effort to make sure that people have been advised how to use the formula as stated in the code. There
is also anecdotal evidence of them still giving branded items to hospitals and healthcare professionals
[7]. Even in America they somehow seemed to think they could advertise juice drinks (which they
falsely claimed had no sugar added) as suitable for infants under 2 years old.
Other problems include the fact that mixing breast milk and formula milk massively increases the
chance of contracting HIV [3]. Breast milk provides better nutrition and immune defence, however
many people start using formula only to find they can no longer afford it. By this time they cannot
provide breast milk anymore and so they have to mix the formula too weakly or use formula milk not
intended for infants.
The boycott has been running for some 30 years (barring a brief respite when Nestlé claimed they
would follow the WHO guidelines in 1981), and Nestlé have shown some degree of progress. But as
they are both the market leaders (they have a 40% share) and flout the WHO code more than any
other significant company [8], we feel that they still need to have pressure put on them. The boycott is
international and has many political and public supporters, as well as organisations that boycott Nestlé
products.
Page 2 of 4
Child Labour
Chocolate production has a well-known track record of employing children to harvest coca beans. A
panorama report came across two brothers, aged 8 and 11, who were working for a cooperative that
supplies Nestlé [13]. Companies are quite capable of getting away with this as the production of the
cocoa beans is performed in other, normally developing, countries with less human rights laws and
with poor people who need money. Nestlé continue to either deny claims despite clear evidence [13]
or they abdicate any responsibility for what they purchase by saying "the vast majority of cocoa farms
are not owned by the companies that make chocolate or supply cocoa and therefore we do not have
direct control over cocoa farming and labour practices".
Environmental
In 2008 Nestlé made the ludicrous claim that "Bottled water is the most environmentally responsible
consumer product in the world". Ignoring the fact that they based this claim on lies about how much
they recycled [14], clearly using a tap is better for the environment.
Also, the method of production of palm oil sparked a massive anti-Nestlé campaign in 2010 [15]. Palm
oil is an ingredient used in many Nestlé products and in 2009 Nestlé used some 320,000 tonnes in their
manufacturing [16]. In the process, this contributed to the destruction of the habitat of orang-utans, a
threatened species. Since then Nestlé have made some improvement; they have allowed an
independent organisation to look at their supply chain and audit it. Of course, some would say that
they could start by taking some responsibility for looking at this themselves, and then checking that
they had done enough, but something is better than nothing.
More Information
If you want more information about Nestlé's malpractices, then
http://knowmore.org/wiki/index.php?title=Nestl%C3%A9_S.A.
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestlé#Controversy_and_criticism
are good places to start.
Baby milk action (http://info.babymilkaction.org/) has a lot of information regarding formula milk, and
the documentary "The Dark Side of Chocolate", available on YouTube, is a good place if to start if you
want to learn more about the role of child labour in chocolate production.
[1] http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/hivaids.html
Page 3 of 4
[2] http://www.unicef.org/nutrition/index_breastfeeding.html
[3] http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241599535_eng.pdf
[4] https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/code_english.pdf
[5] http://info.babymilkaction.org/crowdsourcingnestle
[6] http://info.babymilkaction.org/update/update43page14
[7] http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/may/15/childrensservices.food
[8] http://www.ibfan.org/art/298-9.pdf
[9] http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/12/01/us-water-protest-idUSTRE4B06UJ20081201
[10] http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press11april03.html
[11] http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content/businesses-named-and-shamed-public-eye-awards
[12] http://www.babymilkaction.org/pages/endorsers.html#education
[13] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iYnH3fQH7c&feature=related
[14] http://www.polarisinstitute.org/groups_challenge_nestlé’s_bottled_water_greenwashing
[15]
http://www.freshbusinessthinking.com/news.php?NID=3951&Title=Nestle+Loses+Face+On+Facebook
[16]
http://www.nestle.com/MediaCenter/NewsandFeatures/AllNewsFeatures/Nestle_chairman_calls_for
_a_moratorium_on_deforestation.htm
Page 4 of 4