Boycott Nestle

[jj]

???

My argument was that the point made by the anti-nestle article concerning an infant's troubles going from bottle to breast is based on a valid objection. What does that have to do with Nestle's establishment?

While formula works well enough to keep an infant relatively healthy, it isn't superior to breast milk.

Athon

He's seized on this lame excuse of "bottles didn't used to exist", since he's found out that he was dead wrong on his assertion that babies just know how to breast feed automatically.

Since there weren't any modern-style bottles in 1776, obviously there was no issue to be had in the first place. Simply point out that his entire diatribe is evasion, and don't give him any excuse to make something else up.

 

[Soubrette]

I'm away for a week

Just in case you think I'm running from you thai

Sou

 

[Jedi Knight]

He's seized on this lame excuse of "bottles didn't used to exist", since he's found out that he was dead wrong on his assertion that babies just know how to breast feed automatically.

Since there weren't any modern-style bottles in 1776, obviously there was no issue to be had in the first place. Simply point out that his entire diatribe is evasion, and don't give him any excuse to make something else up.

You're nuts. Why do babies suck their thumbs? Because they are hard-wired to do it.

100,000 years of gut instinct.

You have jumped off the pier into the pseudo-logic abyss, JJ. If you think bottle feeding babies matters, I have a 24k gold bridge to sell you in east LA.

JK

 

[thaiboxerken]

So it seems to me that we agree that formula milk results in deaths that could be avoidable if breast milk was given instead.

Further you state that the Drs, Nurses and nursing mothers should take responsibility for those decisions.

Why are the companies that supply and advertise formula milk, the only group getting off scot free in the responsibility stakes?

Because companies only sell products, Nestle isn't forcing this product on anyone.


And do you draw a distinction between unethical and illegal - what I mean is, could someone be acting unethically but perfectly within the law?
Sou

Yes, someone could be doing something within the law and be unethical, as well as an ethical action being illegal.

Ethics is subjective.

 

[athon]

You're nuts. Why do babies suck their thumbs? Because they are hard-wired to do it.

100,000 years of gut instinct.

You have jumped off the pier into the pseudo-logic abyss, JJ. If you think bottle feeding babies matters, I have a 24k gold bridge to sell you in east LA.

JK

You've missed the entire plot, JK. And what's absurd about that is that you're the one who started the argument in the first place.

Nobody is arguing that babies cannot suck bottles. What is being argued is the following:

* breast milk is superior to formula because it changes as the baby develops, has antibodies to give the infant passive immunity to diseases common in its community, is free.
* infant formula, while inferior, does nourish the infant enough for survival, and is useful should there be no or limited alternatives.
* going from breast to bottle is easier than from bottle to breast, simply on the basis of 'how' an infant learns to suckle. Unlike your narrow view of things, suckling might be innate but like all innate actions, there is a learned element to it.

I know it might be difficult to pervert this into your conspiracy-based world, but with effort I'm sure you can manage it.

Athon

 

[Thanz]

I'm not agreeing that what Nestle is doing is unethical or devious.

They are paying doctors and nurses to recommend formula over breast milk, when the best evidence shows that breast milk is medically superior. They are sending marketing people into hospitals dressed as doctors and scientists to push formula on new mothers.

I'd say they are being both unethical and devious.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Yes, someone could be doing something within the law and be unethical, as well as an ethical action being illegal.

Ethics is subjective.

And what the Boycott Nestle capmaign is about is that if you feel Nestle are being unethical in what they are doing in African hospitals, boycott their products and make your feelings known until they act ethically again. So what's the problem?

 

[thaiboxerken]

They are paying doctors and nurses to recommend formula over breast milk, when the best evidence shows that breast milk is medically superior. They are sending marketing people into hospitals dressed as doctors and scientists to push formula on new mothers.

I'd say they are being both unethical and devious.

Here's how I see it. They are paying giving incentives to recommend their product.

It's good marketing and business minded. Nothing unethical here.

If a doctor or nurse is unethical enough to promote the product over breast-feeding because they want the money, it's the fault of the doctor or nurse.

Is Nestle really putting a stipulation out there to promote their product over breastfeeding? I doubt it.

 

[thaiboxerken]

And what the Boycott Nestle capmaign is about is that if you feel Nestle are being unethical in what they are doing in African hospitals, boycott their products and make your feelings known until they act ethically again. So what's the problem?

Their use of junk-science to promote their agenda.

 

[Thanz]

Here's how I see it. They are paying giving incentives to recommend their product.

It's good marketing and business minded. Nothing unethical here.

If a doctor or nurse is unethical enough to promote the product over breast-feeding because they want the money, it's the fault of the doctor or nurse.

Is Nestle really putting a stipulation out there to promote their product over breastfeeding? I doubt it.

What you see as "Incentives" are better described as bribes. THe fact that people accept the bribe does not absolve the person offering the bribe from ethical obligations.

And yes, it seems that the payments are for recommending formula over breast milk. From Soubrette's link (as I quoted before):

Dr Raj Anand, trained in medical college in Britain and now one of India's top paediatricians, says babies fed on infant formula are 14 times more likely to die from diarrhoea than those who are breastfed. He has waged a decades-long campaign against Nestlé for paying incentives to Indian general practitioners to recommend Nestlé baby milk powder to new or expectant mothers rather than breast milk. [emphasis added]

 

[BillyTK]

Their use of junk-science to promote their agenda.

Which of their claims are junk science?

 

[thaiboxerken]

He has waged a decades-long campaign against Nestlé for paying incentives to Indian general practitioners to recommend Nestlé baby milk powder to new or expectant mothers rather than breast milk.

Yea, but he's probably just fabricating stories.

Which of their claims are junk science?

The total sum of the site is junk-science, they state facts, but not enough for people to get a big picture.

At anyrate, I will not be boycotting Nestle.

 

[Guest]

I like their chocolate too much to do that.

-Who

 

[BillyTK]

He has waged a decades-long campaign against Nestlé for paying incentives to Indian general practitioners to recommend Nestlé baby milk powder to new or expectant mothers rather than breast milk.

Yea, but he's probably just fabricating stories.

Do you have evidence for this accusation?

Which of their claims are junk science?

The total sum of the site is junk-science, they state facts, but not enough for people to get a big picture.

At anyrate, I will not be boycotting Nestle.

Claim 1: Nestlé and Wyeth provide free milk to maternity hospitals in the Third World so that newborn babies are routinely bottle-fed.
Well surely that's the whole point of providing free milk. It would be illogical to provide products free-of-charge other than the one you're trying to promote.

Claim 2: When newborn babies are given bottles, they are less able to suckle well. This makes breastfeeding failure likely. The baby is then dependent on artificial milk.
I'll be generous here and note that whilst switching between breastfeeding and bottle-feeding is problematic, it's not impossible; however, we have established in this thread that starting off with bottle-feeding does make breast-feeding failure likely, because the mother stops producing the hormones which enable her to lactate.

Claim 3: When the mother and baby leave hospital, the milk is no longer free. At home parents are forced to buy more milk, which can cost 50% of the family income.

Latham, M.C. (1997) Human nutrition in the developing world, Food and Nutrition Series 29.
infant formula is extremely expensive relative to the incomes of poor families in developing countries. In India, Indonesia and Kenya it would cost a family 70 percent or more of the average labourer's wage to purchase adequate quantities of infant formula for a four-month-old baby.

Claim 4: Because the milk is so expensive the child is not fed enough. This leads to malnutrition.

Because of the high cost of breastmilk substitutes, the family purchases too little and tries to stretch it by using less than the recommended amounts of powdered formula per feed. The infant may be given the correct number of feedings and the recommended volume of liquid, but if it is too dilute each feed may be too low in energy and other nutrients to sustain optimal growth. The result is first growth faltering and then perhaps the slow development of nutritional marasmus.
Latham (ibid)

Claim 5: The water mixed with the formula is often contaminated. This leads to diarhhoea, malnutrition and often death. James Grant, Executive Officer of UNICEF, has said:
Every day some 3,000 to 4,000 infants die because they are denied access to adequate breast milk.

UNICEF: Infant and young child feeding
If every baby were exclusively breastfed from birth, an estimated 1.5 million lives would be saved – and enhanced – every year.

Claim 6: 1.5 million babies die every year from unsafe bottle feeding.
See claim 5.

Claim 7: Breast feeding is free and safe and protects against infection - but companies know that unless they get babies on the bottle, they don't do business.
Um... well, true.

Bearing in mind the WHO International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes (pdf warning) adopted in 1981, which states:

5.2 manufacturers and distributors should not provide, directly or indirectly, to pregnant women, mothers of members of their families, samples of products within the scope of this code.

5.4 Manufacturers and distributors should not distribute to pregnant women or monthers or infants and young hilcren any goifts of articles which may promote the use of breast-milk substitutes or bottle-feeding.

6.6 Donations or low-price sales to institutions or organisaztions of supplies of infant formula or other products within the scope of this Code, whether for use in the institutions or for distribution outside them, may be made. Such supplies should only be used or distributed for infants who have to be fed on breast-milk substitutues. [...]Such donations or low-prixe sales should not be used by manufacturers or distributors as a sales inducement.

7.3 No financial or material inducements to promote products within the scope of this Code should be offered by manufacturers or distributors to health workers or members of their families [...]

so any "incentives" provided by Nestle since 1981 contravene these guidelines and are therefore unethical practice, what exactly is "the big picture", and how does it in anyway mitigate Nestle's activities?

 

[Thanz]

He has waged a decades-long campaign against Nestlé for paying incentives to Indian general practitioners to recommend Nestlé baby milk powder to new or expectant mothers rather than breast milk.

Yea, but he's probably just fabricating stories.

Which of their claims are junk science?

The total sum of the site is junk-science, they state facts, but not enough for people to get a big picture.

At anyrate, I will not be boycotting Nestle.

Oh, now I get it. Their entire site is "junk science", but your claim that he is probably just fabricating stories underwent the strictest rigours of the scientific method.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

[Ove]

I have two healthy children, raised on bottles. NOT by choiche but my wife's breasts started bleeding (she has skin problems) and had to stop. This being said i think Nestle's practice is very irresponsible to say the least, also it is old news.

I remember long time ago seing a documentary about how Nestle acted in Ethiopia (i think it was). It was horrifying. They had made a campaign and actually convinced mom's that bottle feeding was far better (and more "hip")than breast feeding, they talked to a lot of women who all said the same.

Then we saw some of them prepare bottles and feed their babies and one started wondering how any of their children survived. As i said i was doing bottles myself back then and a caught a number of grave errors. F. inst: Luke warm water (from the nearest river), bottles weren't cleaned, and above all way to low dose of powder.

Thaiboxerken you are seing for yourself a western style maternity ward with lot's of doctors, nurses, midwifes, advisors etc. It doesn't work that way down there. Often there are only a few doctors and less nurses, midwifes are non existent and many places families has to provide food for the patients. The staff is underpaid and poorly educated. If a billion dollart firm like Nestle comes along with an extra income i'll bet you anything that those doctors will recommend anything.

You keep saying "People SHOULD make their own decisions" and "People SHOULD know better". Well people DON'T. A lot of people are poorly educated and rather naive and compagnies that prey on poorly educated people are vultures IMHO. You may call it clever sales tactics i call it immoral.