Nestle boycott
...e instructions. The problem with feeding formula to infants especially if you are of a lower class is the economic burden it can have. These mothers were given formula at hospitals and once it got to the point of a burden it was too late. Mothers were no longer lactating and were forced to stretch the formula causing infection and malnutrition to their babies. Mothers were feeding contaminated formula because of unsafe water supplies and lack of cleanliness and refrigeration. The overall result was the increase in infant malnutrition, gastroenteritis, diarrhea and death. Although the NESTLE corporations was not directly attacked by the pamphlet the responsibility lay on them since they were not only part of the problem but the largest in marketing to third world countries. Issues such as social changes in traditional urban countries are part of the problem as to why many mothers have chosen to bottle feed instead of breast feed and the west is responsible in changing the trend. The more western cultures move into these nations the more harm it does to them. In the book on World Hunger the twelve myths, the authors stress that in order to end hunger and avoid exploitation is power and an equal say as to what the people want. If the people in third world countries would have the power to say they don’t want to become westernized, companies such as Nestlé would not take interest in adjusting their culture. In countries such as Chile the government introduced a free milk scheme in the 1940s in which it promoted to bottle feed. There is no denial that nutrition from breast milk is more nutritious, hygienic, and better in the development of the child however infant formula is being pushed because of its convenience and its false hope that your baby will come out healthy as in the pictures in the labels of the cans. There are similar marketing schemes done in the United States when it comes to nutrition. In the book Fast Food Nation it is stated that many American consumers spend billions of dollars in fast food because of its convenience but yet nutritionally it is bad for its consumers. Although the U.S. is a country where there is power in what we people say, fast food is known to be poisonous food but yet this powerful country allows the fast food industry to take over and dictate what we eat. The convenience is their marketing scheme but yet do not provide a nutritious menu. The pattern in most companies is basically universal; their main goal is to sell at no matter the price. It isn’t a problem if they follow guidelines as to the well being of its consumer. By no means is the objective to completely slander companies, after all their goal is revenue and that is not a problem, however companies cross the line when they forcefully impose their ideals to countries in they offer no alternatives. Nestle can argue that they offer alternatives to mothers by either choosing formula or breastfeeding. It isn’t a choice when they give the formula for free at hospitals and offer them to mothers in hospitals. That is not a choice that is dictating. Another lack of choice they offer is misinformation of nutrition value. These companies did not educate women that breastfeeding was healthier instead they marketed a scheme by putting little healthy looking baby on the cans and said the babies can look that healthy if fed formula. Pictures of nurses holding the cans of formula lead to believe that the medical industry endorses the idea that it is better. Nestlé’s response to the baby killer basically was the typical response of any corporation when they caught doing something bad. They first argued that Muller was supposed to present the report prior to publishing in order to correct some factual mistakes. One of their defenses was that in a free consumer society it is nearly impossible to correct the problem. They also blame women’s social environment on the high rate of bottle-feeding not their product. As far as better emotional development on a breast fed child they claimed it was completely unproven. These defenses seem ridiculous although they take no direct responsibility they acknowledge the problem. They are part of the problem when they sell products to be used in westernized first world kitchens to families who do not even know what a standard American kitchen looks like. Now that we know all the bad things these companies did in the 1970s the question is what can be done about the problem? The first step the war on want lead was an international boycott. In a sense it was effective because it put pressure on organizations to do something about the control of these aggressive marketing directives. The World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF adopted an International Code for the marketing of breast milk substitutes in 1981. The main objective of these codes were “to contribute to the provision of safe and adequate nutrition for infants, by the protection and promotion of breastfeeding and by the proper use of brea...