The Nestle Boycott in Global Media - Essay Example

The Nestle Boycott Introduction Nestle S.A is a multinational company that was founded in 1905 in Switzerland. The company deals with health related products and specifically baby foods, which it sells around the world. The company has hundreds of factories located in different countries that produce the food products. Since 1977, Nestle has attracted a number of controversies that range from environmental concerns to baby foods. However, the persisting controversy that has faced the giant company is the infant formula product that mothers give their children as a substitute for breast milk. One of the main concerns for the widespread use of infant formula among children is the high number of deaths especially in the least developed countries (LDC) where mothers substitute breastfeeding with infant formula. Nestle has been accused of its aggressive marketing strategies that convinces mothers in poor countries to abandon breastfeeding their children and resort to infant formula. This has attracted the longest boycott in history known as Nestle Boycott where organizations concerned with the Nestle’s marketing practices of its controversial infant product in third world countries despite the linkage of the product to the high rates of deaths among babies in those countries. The organizations that participate in Nestle Boycott have a number of arguments that they believe are worthy stopping Nestle to engage in the marketing of infant formula in LDC. In view of the immense social, cultural, and economic differences between first and third world countries, it is acutely unethical for core nation corporations such as Nestle to implement their marketing techniques in peripheral nations without realizing the severe consequences. The Genesis of the Boycott Henri Nestle, the founder of Nestle, S.A. is credited with inventing the first artificial food products for babies in the world in 1866. After New Internationalist magazine published a story about the unethical marketing strategies that Nestle employed to sell its product to mothers in 1973 and in a booklet called The Baby Killer, in 1974, the company continues to face a boycott of its product infant formula. Nestle became the topic of consumer boycotts in the 1970s owing to its marketing practices. Powdered milk formula for infants was distributed free in hospitals to mothers who had given birth to newborn babies. What attracted the attention of consumers was the fact that this practice had not been witnessed in core countries like United States of America and England but only in less developed countries where the mothers were concerned about breastfeeding their babies. One of the most well known controversies involving Nestle involves the advertising and marketing of infant formula products to mothers in LDC around the world. The issue came up and attracted world attention in 1977 because of the Nestle boycott. Nestle continues to face criticism that the company violates the 1981 World Health Organization code that instituted regulations for marketing and advertising of breast milk substitutes (Solomon, p. 2).  The controversial issue led to the formation of groups such as the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) and Save the Children who continues to provide evidences that the promotion of infant formula over breastfeeding lead health problems and deaths among infants in less economically developed countries. Nevertheless, Nestle has continuous counteracted these claims by initiating company policies that are geared towards encouraging mothers to breastfeed their children and only resort to infant formula in cases where it is completely impossible to breast feed. Because of aggressive marketing strategies by Nestle, free samples were distributed at maternity units, and by Nestle sales representatives who addressed as quasi-medical personnel. The critiques of this marketing strategy pointed out that poor mother were being persuaded to resort to infant formula as a total substitute of natural breastfeeding to children. The impression that was created by the sales representatives was that infant formula was better for their babies than breast milk. Critiques further argued that it was difficult for a mother to resort back to breastfeeding once she starts on with infant formula because her milk production ceases and thus she has to depend on the supplier of the product for her child’s food. Breastfeeding as the Best Nutrition for Children According to World Health Organization, breast milk has the nutritional value to the child and this value cannot be substituted with any other kind of food that the baby might get outside the breast. WHO guidelines are a direct contrast with Nestle is marketing strategies where advertisements give much credit to infant formula products while mentioning nothing about the need to breastfed a child. For instance, Convention on the Rights of the Child guidelines provides that every infant and child have the right to good nutrition. The issue of under malnutrition is the main cause of almost 35% of diseases in children under the age of five. Most of the children who were found under-malnutrition in less developed countries used the infant formula products that Nestle marketed to their mothers. In addition, studies have indicated that globally, 30% (or 186 million) of children under the age of five are estimated to be stunted and 18% (or 115 million) have low weight-for-height (McDermott, p. 93). This is associated with the poor feeding habits that encouraged the use infant formula and substituted the breastfeeding culture that culturally provided the required nutrition to children. Further studies indicated that because of the use of infant formula products in less developed countries, more than 75% of children under the age of six months lacked the exclusively right of feeding only on breast milk thus causing the death of children in these countries. As a result, few children received nutritionally adequate and safe complementary foods in many countries with only a third of breastfed infants 6-23 months of age meeting the criteria of dietary diversity and feeding frequency that were suitable for their age. A number of reasons have been identified as to why infant formula should not be used as wholesome substitutes for breast-feeding and which have continued to increase. The Nestle boycott was suspended in 1984 after the company agreed to abide by the 1981 World Health Organization code that established regulations for marketing products in international markets. However, opponents of infant formula cite difficult in accessing water in poor countries where infant formula is used. In cases where water is found, it is normally contaminated and not suited to be used as mixer for infant formula. In addition, they argue that some of the countries where infant formula is marketed have high illiteracy levels among women thus rendering many mothers unable to observe the sanitations standards that are required for infant formula. Furthermore, the high rate of poverty in least developed countries prevent mothers from accessing added expenses like fuel and electricity for sterilizing the utensils in which infant formula is served to their children and therefore increase the chances of children getting infected with bacterial diseases (Brady, 7). UNICEF estimated that a formula-fed child living in disease-prone and insanitary conditions is between six and 25 times more likely to die of diarrhea and four times more likely to die of pneumonia than a breastfed child is. This estimation continues to cast a black spot on the infant formula products that Nestle has marketed in poor countries where the described conditions are rampant. Additionally, many poor mothers use less formula powder than is described by the manufacturer with a view of preserving the products. In the end, children who depend on infant formula for their nutritional needs are deprived of the adequate nutrients in their bodies and therefore develop malnutrition diseases that culminate into the deaths. Similarly, the opponents of infant formula have cited nutritional reports that indicate breast milk to contain many natural benefits, which are not found in the infant formula products. Special mention has been on the nutrients and antibodies that are passed to the baby during breastfeeding and the releasing of hormones into the body of the mother that stimulates the production or relevant chemicals that the child requires.  In such way, Nestle boycotters argue that breastfed babies are protected albeit in varying degrees from several illnesses that are rampant in countries with poor sanitation including diarrhea, bacterial meningitis, gastroenteritis, ear infection, and respiratory infection. In addition, Brady (5) infant formula lacks the rightful amount of the nutrients that are necessary for brain and nerve development. A further argument against infant formula is that the products prevent the development of the baby and mother bond that is strengthened through breastfeeding. The need to prolong the fertility levels among women is also an issue that continues to be of concern to the opponents of infant formula since lactating mothers are believed to delay their return to fertility. Morbidity and mortality in core and peripheral countries According to Nickel (48), the reinforcement of Nestle boycott emanates from numerous studies that have indicated disparities in the health of children in peripheral and core countries. Many studies have documented the increase in morbidity and mortality in developing countries resulting from the continued and prolonged use of infant formula by mothers. For instance, Nickel (53) in the analysis of 18 studies from the developing world, compared infant formula with restricted or predominant breastfeeding and found that the comparative risk of dying from diarrhea in the first 5 months of life was 10.52 (95% CI 2.79 to 39.6). This comparative risk was still 2.18 (95% CI 1.14 to 4.16) from 6 to 12 months. The studies indicated that Pakistan was among the countries that had high death rates among children who were fed on infant formula with 21.3 (95% CI 7.9 to 57.7). Early initiations of breastfeeding in controlled studies have shown that this rate significantly dropped even when other factors were held constant. Conversely, studies in core countries revealed that infant formula and other breast feeding substitutes did have minimal effects on the mortality even though notable short-term and long-term effects were recorded in the morbidity. In particular, a number of studies did not find high death rates in children who were using infant formula but instead established higher cases of gastrointestinal disease, acute respiratory tract infection in infant children and development of leukemia in older children who were fed on breastfeeding substitutes like infant formula from Nestle. Nestle’s Utilization of Media as a Tool to Capture Third World Consumer Market: The World Systems Theory As argued by Sklair (517), the disadvantages of infant formula from Nestle in least developed countries are evident to even Nestle itself. However, the need to allow world systems to take control of social, cultural and economic factors coupled with the company’s ability to muzzle the media has allowed continued selling of these harmful products. As an international conglomerate making millions in annual profits, Nestle has the capacity to control the weaker governments and media institutions in least developed countries and allow relaxation of regulations and rules that govern the selling of baby foods (Palmer, p. 106). Evidently, Nestle’s resource capacity has enabled in to engage in indirect marketing practices in countries where it becomes difficult to bend policies because of active Nestle boycott groups. For instance, infant formula in China’s Nestle factory was found to contain unacceptable levels of melamine, which promptly led to the withdrawal of infant stock from the shelves. However, after things cooled down the company is aggressively marketing its products to the Chinese population through sponsorship of events and sports. The Nestle Company is the main sponsor of Chinese Annual Music Festival for ten years consecutively. Through these sponsorships, the company is able to market its products directly to the targeted consumers even though this is explicitly in conflict with its own policy of marketing. The Nestle boycott finds its impetus in the fact that the marketing strategies and targeted consumers concentrate on the less economically developed countries despite the fact that they bear the biggest brunt of infant formula to the society (Leslie, 20). Most of these countries have been dependant of a culture of breastfeeding where breast milk was the only available and recommendable food in infancy. As a continuation of the world system theory, Nestle target countries with governments and large populations like Nigeria where children are reported to have died after they were fed on infant formula. In addition, the company has the resources that it has always used to manipulate the media by sponsoring corporate activities in which the media is invited to attend and broadcast such events. Ultimately, this exposes the entire population to the products that Nestle sells which finally end up in the hands of the mothers. Contrary to what the Nestle boycott groups’ claims; Nestle continues to engage in denial activities using social media and other channels to exonerate itself from being responsible for the death of young children in peripheral countries (Palmer, p. 107). The company has always indicated that advertisement serves very little purpose on the decision that consumers make before they before they pick a product from the supermarkets. The same applies to mothers who Nestle claims that they are not influenced in any way on how they make choices in what to feed their children with when they are born. In essence, by claiming that it markets infant formula “ethically and responsibly,” Nestle asserts that it is the responsibility of mothers to feed their babies in a healthy way and should be charged with negligence if they cannot breast-feed their children on the pretense that the company has provided options. Ultimately, this standpoint aims at vindicating Nestle from bearing the blame of causing deaths of countless infants across the world and especially in peripheral countries. The company presents that it is in full compliance with the International Code and presents the fact that it is majorly involved in product promotion to help them in increasing the sales of their products worldwide without targeting any individual group in the societal makeup (Wheelwright, p. 3). Possible Objections to the above Arguments The major possible objection to the argument above is that Nestle products might not be solely the contributor of high death rates among infants in poor and least developed countries. There are other companies that manufacture baby foods in these countries and therefore differences in manufacturing standards can lead to widespread effect in one region and this will be most likely be associated with Nestle. Similarly, it is unlikely that poor mothers in peripheral countries can afford to substitute breastfeeding with infant formula because of cost related issues. The mothers do not have enough money to buy infant formula regularly, and whatever little they are likely to get is spent on their own food so that they can breastfeed their children. In addition, Nestle’s participation in corporate social activities has brought more information to the mothers in peripheral countries where newborn babies were being given solid foods soon after they are born and therefore jeopardizing their health. Nestle is aggressively involved in educational programs, where mothers are taught the importance of breastfeeding their babies for six months before giving them solid food. Further, it is the policy of Nestle to advocate for breastfeeding as the best food for babies. Conclusion The resource endowment that Nestle has put it in a position to control some of the policies that govern marketing in peripheral countries. As such, the company will continue to market infant formula to mothers in poor countries. Evidently, Nestle will dedicate millions of dollars to be able to defeat any attempt to stop it from marketing infant formula. The social and cultural conditions of mothers in peripheral countries continue to put these mothers into direct contact with infant formula products. From the above discussion Nestle boycott will continue to be upheld by those organizations that believe Nestle is responsible for the death of infants in peripheral countries. Despite the existing policies, that the company insists encourage mothers to breast-feed their children, an engagement in indirect marketing strategies like corporate responsibility and sponsorship will continue to expose children to infant formula. However, a careful analysis of Nestle’s activities in peripheral countries might reveal opposite results as mothers get breastfeeding and nutritional information from the seminars that the company organizes. Definitely, this has the effect of improving mothers’ condition in terms of nutrition provision for their children References McDermott, Patrice. "Internationalizing core curriculum." Women's Studies Quarterly 26.3/4 (1998): 88-98. Leslie, D. A. "Global scan: The globalization of advertising agencies, concepts, and campaigns." Economic Geography 71.4 (1995): 402-25. Sklair, Leslie. "Social movements for global capitalism: The transnational capitalist class in action." Review of International Political Economy 4.3 (1997): 514-38. Wheelwright, E. L. Consumers, transnational corporations, and development. Transnational Corporations Research Project, University of Sydney, 2006. Frantz, Edwin T. "Stouffer's defense of Nestle." American Libraries 10.5 (1984): 241 Brady, June Pauline. Marketing breast milk substitutes: problems and perils throughout the world. Archives of Disease in Childhood. Retrieved 27 October 2012 from: http://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/13/archdischild-2011-301299.full Solomon, Stephen. The controversy over infant formula. The New York Times. Retrieved 27 October 2012 from: http://www.nytimes.com/1981/12/06/magazine/the-controversy-over-infant-formula.html?pagewanted=all Media Centre. Infant and young child feeding. World Health Organization. Retrieved 27 October 2012 from: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs342/en/index.html Emma, Thomasson. Insight: At Nestle, interacting with the online enemy. Reuters. Retrieved 27 October 2012 from: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/26/us-nestle-online-water-idUSBRE89P07S20121026 Palmer, Grace. The industrial revolution in Britain: the era of progress? In: The Politics of Breastfeeding. London: Pinter and Martin 2009:205–7 Read More