Nestle tries to co-opt the good reputation of others

Nestlé opened nominations for its Creating Shared Value prize this February 2011. The company could improve its public image by accepting Baby Milk Action's four-point plan for saving infant lives and ultimately ending the boycott - but instead it is opening its cheque book to try to buy itself some good publicity by co-opting the good reputation of others. However, there is a risk that anyone supporting Nestlé's Creating Shared Value award will find they are dragged down by association with one of the world's four most boycotted companies. And as news breaks in the UK about companies infiltrating environmental groups, we should remember that Nestlé is being pursued through the courts in Switzerland after spying on campaigners there.

Nestlé is 'widely boycotted' according to its Global Public Affairs Manager and ranks poorly in public polls of corporate responsibility (for example, receiving a 'positivity' score in social media of just 12 out of 100 in an audit by Yomego Social Media Reputation, according to PR week). So the company launched the Nestlé Prize in Creating Shared Value in 2009 which "seeks to encourage and reward innovative approaches to the problems of nutrition, water, and rural development." A request for nominations is being publicised currently with a prize of CHF 500,000 (approximately US$ 480,000).

Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action said: "Nestlé seems to think this PR stunt is a good investment to try to improve its abysmal image. It does not want to change the marketing practices that boost its profits while contributing to the problems of nutrition, water and rural development and lead to its poor reputation. It falls to members of the public to show they are not taken in. The more people support the Nestlé boycott - and tell Nestlé they are doing so - the more success we have in forcing it to change its practices."

Nestlé whole concept of Creating Shared Value is a Public Relations (PR) strategy to divert criticism of its business practices. Baby Milk Action and other Nestlé Critics have registered complaints about the misleading nature of the company's Creating Shared Value reports with the United Nations Global Compact Office, which posts the reports on its website. While refusing to investigate the complaints, the UN Global Compact Office continues to highlight Nestlé reports and accepted it as a Patron Sponsor of its 10th birthday conference in New York last year.

So in calling for nominations from initiatives that are no doubt doing good work, Nestlé is trying to cover itself with their reputation and convince people that it is somehow driving forward good practice in tackling problems of nutrition, water and rural development. Make no mistake, at the same time as violating international human rights and environmental standards, Nestlé is also trying to set the agenda on how corporations should be regulated at international fora, such as the World Economic Forum, and nation by nation. Nestlé opposes binding regulations as a 'straitjacket' on the 'engineers of wealth' and demands to be trusted to do the right thing because of its 'values'.

Nestlé has demonstrated time and again that it is not worthy of trust. While claiming to abide by the marketing requirements for baby foods, it is continue to systematically violate those standards. Its current global marketing strategy is to claim that its formula 'protects' babies when, in reality, babies fed on formula are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. After receiving thousands of emails from campaign supporters, Nestlé has admitted that there is 'no proven benefit' from adding ingredients such as DHA to formula, but refuses to end the marketing campaign based upon these ingredients, which mislead parents and health workers. More emails are needed - click here.

Nestlé only changes its practices when forced to do so by regulations or the pressure of public campaigns. Although still defending its logos, Nestlé has said it has discontinued a leaflet Baby Milk Action exposed that claims its formula is 'The new "Gold Standard" in infant nutrition' - a leaflet that should never have been produced in the first place. Campaigning does work - and with enough pressure Nestlé will be persuaded to drop its logos and other misleading claims, such as the claim its formula reduces diarrhoea (left - in reality, babies fed on formula are more likely to suffer from diarrhoea than breastfed babies).

For Nestlé it is a cost/benefit analysis: how much does its malpractice fuel the boycott versus how much extra sales these methods generate. To try to improve the ratio in its favour, executives invests heavily in PR stunts such as the Creating Shared Value prize and sponsorship of good causes. For example, it has entered into a secret deal with the Virgin London Marathon to promote its Pure Life bottled water - the organisers have refused to reveal their criteria for accepting sponsors, in breach of Charity Commission guidance. Nestlé's marketing of Pure Life bottled water has been criticised from Pakistan to Brazil for its impact on municipal water supplies and local communities - it had to stop pumping in Brazil under the threat of daily fines after a ten-year battle by the community affected by its bottling plant (famously Nestlé claimed its so-called independent auditors, Bureau Veritas, cleared it of any wrong-doing in Brazil, but Bureau Veritas admitted to Baby Milk Action they weren't even aware Nestlé had been taken to court by the public prosecutor and their work was not a legal audit).

Nestlé hopes to gain kudos from its support of the London Marathon with the Pure Life brand - and as no alternative water is on offer, boycott supporters entering the event either have to break their personal boycotts or endanger their health. Nestlé's Chairman has ridiculed the idea of giving back to society stating to business leaders in Boston, according to the Boston Herald: "companies should only pursue charitable endeavors with an underlying intention of making money for investors."

While those who are working on the ground to have a positive impact may be tempted by Nestlé's prize money, they should be aware of how they are being used by Nestlé and if they allow their reputations to be co-opted are, willingly or not, helping the company to deflect criticism.

In a less obvious way, Nestlé tries to improve its image through activity on the internet, reportedly recruiting PR companies to defend its reputation in social media and paying celebrities to post positive tweet about it. It has taken parenting bloggers on all-expenses-paid trips to luxury hotels and offered all-expenses-paid trips to Switzerland to health journalists.

In the UK it is being reported today that companies have infiltrated environmental groups. In so many areas, Nestlé has been there first: it employed a former MI6 officer to run a spying network in Switzerland that infiltrated Attac Switzerland, gathering information not only on the baby milk campaign, but on water campaigners in Brazil and trade unionists in Colombia whose members had been targeted by paramilitary death squads after organising at Nestlé factories.

Nestlé likes to talk of Creating Shared Value - and wants the media and public to do so to as it tries to associate Nestlé with positive stories. But Nestlé's real concern is Creating Shareholder Value, putting its own profits before health, human rights and the truth.

Virgin London Marathon keeps sponsorship policy confidential - but welcomes Nestle back for 2011

Baby Milk Action asked the Virgin London Marathon for its sponsorship policy and a public statement on Nestlé's sponsorship.

We have been told:

"Nestle will continue as one of the sponsors to the Virgin London Marathon next year (2011).

"The London Marathon’s sponsorship policy is confidential to the organisation of the event including the Race Director, CEO, Board of Directors and Trustees."

We have asked why the sponsorship policy is confidential. Many organisations do make their sponsorship policy publicly available. The better organisations are also prepared to consult on their policies or welcome feedback on them.

Obviously we are also concerned to learn that Virgin London Marathon has a sponsorship policy that allows a company as unethical as Nestlé to pass as a sponsor. We have asked what consideration was given, if any, to ethical concerns over Nestlé's practices and the promotion of its name, particularly given it is the most boycotted company in the UK and this has an impact on many who wish to support the London Marathon.

Organisations such as Nelson Mandela's Children's Fund and Breakthrough Breast Cancer have turned down donations (of £250,000 and £1 million respectively) from Nestlé because it conflicts with their funding policies. Nestlé's current Chairman, Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, has clearly stated that the purpose of supporting good causes is to benefit shareholders. Putting those who wish to run the London Marathon, often in support of a charity themselves, in the position where they have to break their boycott or put their health at risk is a pretty disgusting strategy. For further analysis of Mr. Brabeck's view of good causes see:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/03/nestle-generosity-to-good-causes.html

Nestlé is targeted with boycott action over its marketing of baby milk. In its current global marketing campaign, it is claiming its baby milk 'protects' babies and is 'The new "Gold Standard" in infant nutrition'. Babies fed on baby milk rather than breastfed are at greater risk of becoming ill and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. Members of the public are emailing Nestlé, but the company has indicated it will continue this strategy, which violates the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes. See the Email Nestlé campaign.

Nestlé is also specifically criticised over its bottled water businesses, as explained in our press release for the London Marathon in 2010.

Nestlé is one of the companies people can vote into the Corporate Hall of Shame in 2010. The nomination states:

"Nestlé – for undermining the human right to water and aggressively expanding its environmentally destructive water bottling operations over the objections of communities globally."

Baby Milk Action would welcome the organisers of the Virgin London Marathon being open about their sponsorship policy and allow people who wish ethical standards to be applied to comment.

Anyone who wishes to register their concern over Nestlé being promoted as a sponsor of the London Marathon, can join the Facebook group: "We want Nestlé out of the London Marathon". See:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=134180279931568

Update 22 July 2010 - The Virgin London Marathon has already responded by saying 'no further comment' to our questions regarding why the sponsorship policy is being kept confidential and what consideration was given to concerns about Nestlé's suitability.

We want Nestle out of the London Marathon - Facebook group

Nestle is sponsoring the London Marathon with its controversial Pure Life brand of bottled water. The next London Marathon will take place on 17 April 2011. If you would like there to be alternative supplies, you can join the Facebook group: "We want Nestlé out of the London Marathon". See:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=134180279931568&v=info

Nestle is the most boycotted company in the UK and its strategy it to try to improve its image and put boycott supporters and other campaigners in a predicament: withdraw from the marathon, endanger their health by not accepting water or break their boycott.

Members of this group are calling for alternative water to be provided and want Nestle out of the London Marathon. You can give your views on the London Marathon Facebook discussion board:

http://www.facebook.com/virginlondonmarathon?ref=ts

Nestle is the target of a boycott (and one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet) because the way it pushes baby milk. It breaks international marketing standards adopted by the World Health Assembly, undermines breastfeeding and puts babies that have to be fed on formula at risk.

Nestle pretends this is an issue of the past, but its current global marketing strategy is to promote its baby milk with the claim it 'protects' babies. Nestle knows that babies fed on its formula are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. Its claims undermine the obligatory 'breastmilk is best for babies' message that the boycott helped to bring in. You can send a message to Nestle about this at:

http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog260510

Nestle is also refusing to warn on labels that powdered formula is not a sterile product and the simple steps required to reduce risks of possible contamination with bacteria. Even babies fed on baby milk in the best conditions have died of such contamination. The World Health Organisation has issued guidelines for reconstituting formula to reduce the risk, but Nestle refuses to change its labels. See: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/micro/pif2007/en/index.html

Nestle bottled water business is the target of campaigners around the world for the harm it causes to their communities. In Brazil, Nestle's bottling of Pure Life water damaged an historic water park, prompting residents, dependent on the park for their livelihoods, to petition the public prosecutor to take action. Nestle was taken to court and eventually stopped pumping under the threat of daily fines - but it took 10 years of campaigning. See:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press2march06.html

For concerns about Nestle's bottling in other countries, particularly the United States, see the water section of the Nestle Critics website:

http://www.nestlecritics.org/

The Nestle Critics site also has information from groups campaigning about Nestle failure to deliver on its promise to end child slavery in its cocoa supply chain by 2006, its use of palm oil implicated in destroying Indonesian rainforest (Nestle has said it will stop this following a Greenpeace campaign - but only by 2015), trade union busting, spying on campaigners and other concerns.

Supporting the campaign to remove Nestle from the sponsors of the London Marathon will help draw attention to its malpractice and add to the pressure for it to change.

Most people who run the Marathon do so because they want to contribute to good causes.

Nestle is not an appropriate sponsor.

Nestle's Chairman, Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, has stated clearly that companies should only pursue charitable endeavors with an underlying intention of making money for investors (see Boston Herald).

How Nestle spins when it gives into campaigners' demands - Greenpeace campaign update

Greenpeace is reporting that Nestlé has agreed to all of its demands regarding its sourcing of palm oil from suppliers accused of destroying Indonesian rainforest to produce it. Nestlé had earlier resisted calls to change its policies and practices and received many thousands of messages and Greenpeace campaigners dropped in - literally - on its shareholder meeting in Switzerland last April. From our own success in holding Nestlé to account, we know that its Public Relations team will be swinging into action to portray this as 'Nestlé taking the lead' - ignoring the great efforts campaigners have had to go to and using its climb down to divert attention from other concerns about it awful management behaviour.

We have several examples from the Baby Milk Action campaign we can cite. For example, we campaigned for three years over Nestlé's refusal to translate labels into the national language of the country where they were sold and prompted Nestlé to review its labels after getting this onto national UK television (The Mark Thomas Product).

This was portrayed by Nestlé in its 'Code Action Report' (left) as if it was unilaterally taking action. While it did indeed put out new labels in Malawi, one of the examples cited, these were rejected by the Government as inadequate. Although they have since been changed, Nestlé has added a logo claiming its formula 'protects' babies, when in truth babies fed on it are more likely to become sick and, in conditions of poverty as exist in Malawi, are more likely to die. This is the target of a current Baby Milk Action campaign - click here to send a message to Nestlé.

So don't be surprised if Nestlé puts out statements and pamphlets about it tightening its requirements for sourcing palm oil - without acknowledging it was forced to do so. Greenpeace is right to say that Nestlé must be closely monitored to see if it delivers on its undertaking.

In another example, we campaigned for 9 years to force Nestlé to accept a 1994 World Health Assembly (WHA) Resolution saying that complementary feeding should be fostered from 6 months of age - Nestlé routinely promoted such foods for use from 4 months of age or even less. It took bringing the Resolution into law and policies in many countries, further Resolutions at the Assembly and, finally, national demonstrations in the UK to prompt change. During the course of the week of demonstrations in 2003, which were filmed by Swiss television, Nestlé contacted Baby Milk Action to say it was accepting the WHA Resolutions - but again it spun this as Nestlé 'taking the lead', the headline in the 7th edition of its 'Code Action Report', shown left. Again, it has not lived up to its claim to change its practices and continues to push complementary foods from too early an age. A recent example was given on the PhDinParenting blog a couple of weeks ago.

Nestlé's Code Action Report has a curious history - Nestlé launched it in October 1999, with the claim:

"This is the first edition of a monthly report, issued by Nestlé to interested parties around the world, which is designed to be a reliable and authoritative source of information on implementation of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes, including its Aims, Principles and Articles.

"This new initiative is intended to encourage meaningful dialogue with all interested parties concerned with infant feeding and nutrition, the encouragement of breast-feeding and the promotion of the WHO International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes."

Baby Milk Action took Nestlé at its word and entered into this 'dialogue' - as a result Nestlé had to publish corrections and apologies in subsequent issues of the Code Action Report, including a full-page right-to-reply from Baby Milk Action after it disputed our evidence regarding its use of community health workers to promote baby milks in the Philippines. It apologised to the Danish and other governments in the pages of the report for misrepresenting letters Nestlé claimed were official verification that it was abiding by the Code and Resolutions. For full analysis of this PR disaster surrounding these letters, see our 1999 briefing, Don't Judge a Book by its Cover.

So Nestlé decided that 'meaningful dialogue' was not such a good idea. The sequence of 'monthly' Code Action Reports, posted to Nestlé's anti-boycott website, are as follows:

Number 1: October 1999

Number 2: November 1999

Number 3: January 2000

Number 4: April 2000 (They are starting to come a little more slowly now)

Number 5: August 2000 (Now more than a year to wait..)

Number 6: October 2001 (And if you can believe it, an even longer wait..)

Number 7: June 2003 .. the newest edition on the site - no new report for nearly 7 years!

We are not alone in finding that when Nestlé backs down it tries to spin this to its own advantage.

In 2003 Oxfam launched a campaign against Nestlé's attempt to extract US$ 6 million from the Ethiopian Government at a time the country was experiencing famine. The compensation claim related to a factory that had been nationalised 27 years before, prior to Nestlé owning the company that had owned the factory. The Government offered US$ 1.5 million compensation, but Nestlé tried an accounting trick to increase this four-fold. Its Global Head of Communications, Francois Perroud, went on the radio claiming it was in the Government's interest to settle if it was to attract future investment. People sent messages and packs of rice to Nestlé and eventually it agreed to settle for US$ 1.5 million and donate this to initiatives in Ethiopia (history here). But Nestlé has no shame - the following year, when the Guardian newspaper reported that Breakthrough Breast Cancer had refused a £1 million donation from Nestlé on ethical grounds, Nestlé sent a letter to the newspaper dismissing criticism of its baby food marketing and claimed it was a force for good in the world, citing the donation made to Ethiopia - of course, it did not mention that that the donation came about not because of Nestlé altruism, but because of campaign protest. In addition, Nestlé's Chairman has made it very clear that any donations to good causes have to benefit shareholders.

So well done to everyone who campaigned on Nestlé's sourcing of palm oil. The company needs to be monitored to see it it delivers. Greenpeace is now moving on to target another company in its palm oil campaign.

Those who are concerned about Nestlé practices should not be misled if Nestlé now claims to be taking the lead on palm oil - this is a PR response and it has not changed its business ethos. Continued pressure is need to stop it claiming its baby milk 'protects' babies and other malpractice. Click here to send a message to Nestlé. The Greenpeace victory - as with our past victories - show that if we make enough noise, then Nestlé will judge it is in its own best interests to change.

You can help to make some noise by demonstrating at Nestlé UK (HQ) in Croydon on 22 May 11:00 - 12:00 or another Nestlé site or location where Nestlé products are sold. For further information on this and other future events, see our Diary Dates page.

People power

There are two reasons why Nestlé is the most boycotted company in the UK and one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet (findings of an independent poll conducted by GMIPoll and reported in The Guardian http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/businessinsight/archives/2005/09/01/branded.html).

Because Nestlé is so bad and because you, campaign supporters, are so good.

The decision of children's food author Annabel Karmel, to withdraw from a link-up with Nestlé last month demonstrates this clearly.

Nestlé is the worst of the baby food companies, pushing its products in breach of international standards and contributing to the unnecessary death and suffering of babies around the world. Although the boycott has forced some changes to Nestlé policies and practices, it still refuses to sign up to Baby Milk Action's four-point plan for saving lives and ending the boycott. Its attitude is demonstrated by its latest global monitoring strategy, claiming its formula 'protects' babies - a disgraceful practice that it is defending even though it knows babies fed on the formula are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. It will take further pressure to force Nestlé to stop this. Click here to send Nestlé a message.

While Nestlé spends billions of pounds promoting its products and image around the world, its PR team is surprisingly inept at countering criticism. Nestlé had a 'positivity' score in social media of just 12 out of 100 in an audit by Yomego Social Media Reputation, according to PR Week reporting in February on Nestlé throwing more money at PR experts to try to counter this. Nestlé is also amongst the top ten companies criticised for social and environmental practices, according to ECOFACT. Greenpeace, targeting Nestlé over its sourcing policies for palm oil used in products like Fairtrade KitKat, found Nestlé's PR experts scored an own goal by using legal threats to force youtube to remove a spoof KitKat advertisement exposing how rainforests in Indonesia are being destroyed, contributing to climate change and endangering orang-utans. The clip went viral on other sites and youtube reinstated it. You can watch it here.

It is public support and action that makes all the difference. People like you spreading the word and sending messages to company executives.

Last year Nestlé's PR experts took 20 parenting bloggers to stay in a 5-star hotel in California, complete with celebrity chef, to co-opt them as cheerleaders for the company. Campaign supporters wrote blogs calling on them not to go. Some dropped out. Others went and some offered to take questions on the Twitter channel that Nestlé had set up for the event. This became a full-blow PR disaster for Nestlé that fuelled International Nestlé-Free Week in the US (during Halloween) and made it into the mainstream media. Baby Milk Action became aware of the event because of the surge in traffic to our sites from people posting links and we joined in, providing information and offering to debate with Nestlé on Twitter (not taken up). 

The point is, there is no way that Baby Milk Action could have achieved this alone. Nor would we want to have to try to do so. This is a mass campaign and it relies on the many thousands of boycott supporters around the world looking for opportunities to promote the boycott . We can provide information and support as best we can - supported by the network of campaigners, the majority volunteers, in the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), who monitor what Nestlé and other companies are doing around the world.

The recent case of Annabel Karmel shows how important supporters are in spreading this information (or raising awareness as campaigners like to say).

Annabel Karmel is a best-selling author of recipe books for children's food. She teamed up with Nestlé to promote its 'whole grain' cereals. There are concerns about Nestlé's cereals as they are criticised for having high salt and sugar levels, except for Shredded Wheat, the only 100% whole grain cereal which is used as a marketing balloon to hang the less healthy cereals on. The bigger concern was that Annabel put a statement defending the link up onto her website, which appeared to have been drafted by Nestlé's PR team as it suggested that evidence showed that Nestlé supported breastfeeding and complied with the relevant marketing requirements. People very quickly started leaving comments on the website and on Annabel's facebook fan page pointing to the evidence showing that, in truth, Nestlé systematically violates the World Health Assembly marketing requirements.

Baby Milk Action was tipped off and I added my comments and contacted Annabel and her media person for a response to the evidence of malpractice, including Nestlé's latest global 'protect' claims used to market baby milk. All I received was a standard response about the importance of eating whole grain cereal - the defence of Nestlé's baby food marketing given on the website was not repeated in this message, perhaps a sign of the embarrassment of trying to defend it. However, the email said: "I know you expressed concerns about the company and I have forwarded these to Nestle who will respond to you directly."

I posted on the Annabel Facebook page warning people that their details would be sent directly to Nestlé if they raised concerns - though I think that is not good practice from a data protection point of view, a check of the privacy statement on Annabel's site showed she is warning she might pass on data to companies.

Then on 25 March Annabel made a welcome statement on her Facebook page:

"We have had a few enquiries about my association on the Nestlé whole grain cereals campaign. I was initially happy to work with them on a range of healthy cereals which met my ideals on nutrition. However after listening to people’s comments, I have made the decision not to continue my association with Nestle. Annabel"

The link to the past statement defending Nestlé is now dead. 

So the upshot is that Annabel, many of her 5,000 Facebook fans and lots of people who visited will have come across the concerns. As a secondary impact, we have had lots of traffic to our sites, more people joining our email lists to keep updated and perhaps even some of the recent members have joined as a result.

I think this reinforces Baby Milk Action's approach of trying to contact celebrities and public figures who defend Nestlé to try to put them right before trying to shame them. We did eventually go public over George Clooney as he has passed on Nestlé's misinformation to others even after we provided evidence showing he had been misled. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press31jan09.html 

There are various boycott groups and events that have been set up on Facebook and other social networking sites. It is impossible for Baby Milk Action to monitor them all, though we have our own official group on Facebook at:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=4978994961

We welcome people promoting the boycott and other campaigns themselves. Please put a link to our website and be careful to use the explanations for the campaign as given here or feel free to send text to me for checking. Anything we produce is legally water-tight and we shall step in if there is a challenge - but we cannot be held responsible if incorrect statements are made in editing our information.

If you have your own site or blog, you can even use a banner advertisement or logo that will link to our site. See:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/nestlefree

We also welcome help in promoting the campaign at events, whether to do with infant feeding, development or other issues. For example, we have a leaflet for promoting the boycott at Fair Trade events, explaining why Fairtrade KitKat has been added to the boycott list. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2010/02/boycott-fairtrade-kitkat.html

If you would like a Baby Milk Action stall at an event or a guest speaker, please contact us. We have a network of area contacts who are able to provide support and I try to take up invitations to speak when I can, such as at the recent La Leche League Ireland Conference. 

With the General Election just called in the UK, we have the opportunity to ask politicians to pledge to strengthen the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations. The UK law is very weak, allowing companies to advertise breastmilk substitutes, such as follow-on formula, widely. The Government's own review has called for steps to be taken to strengthen the law. So do ask candidates on the doorstep if they will do this. We have written to the party leaders and will add a campaign for the election to this site shortly.

Baby Milk Action does need income to provide this support, of course. Though our annual budget is less than the cost of one Nestlé television advertisement, we have to work hard to raise what we do spend. So please do remember to encourage people to join Baby Milk Action and to visit our online Virtual Shop for information, merchandise and to make a donation. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/ 

The boycott led directly to the World Health Assembly introducing marketing standards for baby milk and we have had a lot of success in bringing these into legislation around the world. But where there is no legislation or it is not enforced, companies continue to push their products in ways that endanger health. The boycott and our campaigns targeting other companies remain essential. With enough public support and pressure we will force Nestlé to stop it latest global 'protect' marketing strategy. The label from Malawi that is pictured on our campaign sheet to illustrate this strategy also shows the power of the boycott, because Nestlé refused to translate this label into the national language of the country until campaign pressure let to it being exposed on national television. Every person you tell, every link you post, every message you send to Nestlé helps to hold companies to account and to protect babies.

Greenpeace shames Nestle over source of palm oil in products like Fairtrade KitKat

Thousands of copies of our new leaflet have been downloaded, exposing Nestlé's attempts to undermine the boycott over its baby milk marketing and improve its image using its token Fairtrade KitKat product - which involves just 1% of its cocoa purchase. Nestlé is also criticised for failing to deliver on a promise to end child slavery in its cocoa supply chain.

We need to update the leaflet now to include information from Greenpeace's campaign, exposing the source of plam oil in Nestlé products. Greenpeace states on its site today:

We have new evidence which shows that Nestlé - the makers of Kit Kat - are using palm oil produced in areas where the orang-utans' rainforests once grew. Even worse, the company doesn't seem to care.

Greenpeace are organising a protest at Nestlé (UK) HQ today and have released the youtube clip below.

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/kitkat

Click here for Nestlé's response - it says, "we have made a commitment to using only "Certified Sustainable Palm Oil" by 2015."

Sounds a bit like its commitment in 2001 to end child slavery in its cocoa supply chain by 2005. Nestlé has not only failed to deliver on this and an extended deadline of 2008, it has been obstructive to the process. Let's hope its statement on palm oil is not also an empty promise to diffuse bad publicity.

The protest comes as Nestlé launches its latest 'Creating Shared Value' report boasting of its claimed beneficial impact around the world. The previous report prompted a complaint by leading experts on Nestlé to the office of the UN Global Compact, which publishes the reports on its website. See:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press17june09.html

I note from Nestlé's press release that Hilary Parsons, formerly of Nestlé (UK), has been promoted to Nestlé S.A. Public Affairs Manager. A few years ago Hilary lost a series of debates with me on Nestlé's baby milk marketing activities, despite her best efforts to mislead people. Nestlé now refuses to even speak if Baby Milk Action is present. While some may question Hilary's effectiveness at PR when Nestlé is the most boycotted company in the UK and one of the four most boycotted on the planet, her promotion indicates to me once again what Nestlé's real values are.

A tale of two logos: The Fairtrade mark added to KitKat while Nestlé tells mothers its formula will 'protect' their babies

The Independent newspaper has picked up a quote from me in an article today on "The great KitKat debate: is it fair?" See:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/house-and-home/the-great-kitkat-debate-is-it-fair-1881971.html

They invite comments, so feel free to give your views.

For the concerns over the way Nestlé is using the Fairtrade mark to divert criticism of unethical business practices, such as its pushing of baby milk, see my past blogs, such as:

http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2009/12/nestle-kitkat-minister.html

It is ironic that as the Fairtrade logo appears on Nestlé KitKats, we continue to campaign for Nestlé to remove a logo from its infant formula labels that claims Nestlé formula 'protects' babies. It does not - babies fed on it are more likely to become ill than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, to die. You can send a message to Nestlé about this via our Campaign for Ethical Marketing action sheet, which shows a tin from Malawi, one of the world's poorest countries:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/CEM/cemjuly09.html

While Nestlé is gaining worldwide publicity, much of it good, for its decision to source 1% of its cocoa from farmers within the Fairtrade scheme, Green and Black's has today announced it is going 100% Fairtrade. See:

http://www.ausfoodnews.com.au/2010/01/28/green-blacks-continues-fairtrade-push.html

US Fair Trade organisations have said they think far more should have been demanded of Nestlé, particularly as it has failed to deliver on its promise to end child slavery in its cocoa supply chain by 2006. See:

http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2009/12/nestle-fairtrade-kitkat-usresponse.html

While we have added Fairtrade KitKat to the Nestlé boycott list, that does not mean we are anti-Fairtrade. Indeed, Fairtrade fortnight is coming up in the UK from 22 February to 7 March. You can find ideas to support it at:

http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/thebigswap/about_the_big_swap/

If you are planning a stall or event, then feel free to contact Baby Milk Action for leaflets explaining why Nestlé Fairtrade KitKat is on our boycott list.

We need all the help we can get to stop practices such as Nestlé telling mothers around the world that its formula will 'protect' their babies. According to UNICEF: "Improved breastfeeding practices and reduction of artificial feeding could save an estimated 1.5 million children a year."

We have tried to enlist the help of the UN Global Compact Office and the offices responsible for overseeing the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, but they are unprepared to do anything other than encourage us to 'dialogue' with Nestlé. We have been in 'dialogue' with Nestlé for decades and what we have learned is that Nestlé acts when it is pressure or shamed, particularly if it believes its profits and its image (which impacts on its profits) will be harmed.

So please do consider sending a message to Nestlé and reminding friends and colleagues of Nestlé malpractice. The launch of Fairtrade KitKat presents an ideal opportunity.

Nestlé spends millions on trying to improve its image. But with your help we are able to put the other side of the story into the national press, as with the article in The Independent today.

You might also like to consider becoming a member of Baby Milk Action, if you are not already, or sending us a donation. See:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/membership.html

Brabeck attacks 'well-fed' activists as he tries to set food security agenda

Think of Nestlé and the fact it is one of the world's four most boycotted companies will likely come to mind. You may think of how it pushes baby milk in breach of international standards, undermining breastfeeding and contributing to the unnecessary death and suffering of babies around the world.

You may think how it competes with the most locally produced and sustainable food there is - breastmilk - making processed cow's milk, packaging it and transporting around the world to market it with untrue claims and inducements and jollies for health workers.

You may think of the food miles the company's strategy of promoting processed foods over local foods generates, the resources consumed, the green house gases emitted.

You may think of its impact on water supplies and the campaigns around the world by people who do not want Nestlé bottling their water and transporting that large distances to make a vast profit.

You may think of its promotion of Genetically Modified Organisms and the campaigns that have been waged in countries around the world to stop these being used.

You may think of the national dairy industries that have been destroyed or are under attack in places such as Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Brazil. You may think of the dairy farmers and coffee farmers who have had their livelihoods destroyed by Nestlé sourcing strategies.

You may think of the children forced to work on the cocoa farms that provide Nestlé with cocoa and its failure to live up to its public assurances it will address this problem.

You can find information on these and other concerns about Nestlé practices at:

http://www.nestlecritics.org/

Nestlé's Chairman, and former CEO, Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, wants you to think of none of these things. The man who is at the cutting edge of undermining local food security, wants “well-fed activists” to shut up.

As reported in today's Financial Times, Mr. Brabeck argues it is those: "whose hostility to new food technologies was exacerbating a global food crisis by holding back agricultural productivity."

Mr. Brabeck is trying to set the agenda at an international meeting on food security. From the Financial Times report:

"It is disheartening to see how easily a group of well-intentioned and well-fed activists can decide about new technologies at the expense of those who are starving,” he told a conference in Milan aimed at bringing the private sector into the debate on global food security."

Well, it has never been easy exposing Mr. Brabeck's dishonesty and the corrupt practices of the company he runs - remember he claimed to investigate any hint of a violation of the baby food marketing requirements, yet oversaw some of the most aggressive practices ever documented. Remember the claim that formula prevents diarrhoea, Mr. Brabeck? Or the claim you are currently putting on labels claiming formula 'protects'? It doesn't - babies fed on it are more likely to be ill than breastfed babies and in the poor countries where you do not fail to push these products, they are more likely to die.

Mr. Brabeck neglects to mention that it is in developing countries where you will find strong opposition to Nestlé practices. Those of us in Europe have a responsibility to try to carry their voice to Nestlé's doorstep and to the seat of the powers that should be holding Nestlé to account.

The article continues: "'Food security is not a short-term issue,' he said. 'It will affect [many] more than 1bn people if we do not change radically how we handle the world’s water.'"

Should the Food and Agriculture Organisation really be taking lessons from Mr. Brabeck?

Consider that Nestlé exploitation of water resources has generated opposition around the world. In the Brazilian town of São Lourenço Nestlé's water-bottling operation broke federal law according to a federal prosecutor, but it took a 10-year campaign and finally the threat of daily fines to stop it pumping. Here's a map from the case showing how Nestlé's pumping operation was operating in the area of maximum environmental vulnerability.

This was raised at shareholder meetings and directly with Mr. Brabeck, but still Nestlé refused to stop pumping until a settlement in a court case brought following a petition raised by the people of the spa town who were seeing their livelihoods from tourism destroyed. See:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press2march06.html

It is a petty jibe at 'well-fed activists', particularly coming from a man whose basic salary was reported at the shareholder meeting as US$ 5 million per year, boosted to US$ 16 million by shareholdings. Such wealth and power gives Mr. Brabeck preferential access to those who will decide how food security will be addressed. If he has his way, you can bet sugary, salty breakfast cereals, junk food and breastmilk substitutes will be a key part of it and Nestlé will use its participation in the current meeting in Milan and any 'partnerships' that emerge from this cosying up to such bodies in its strategy for undermining the influence of civil society still further.

For an overview of what governments and international bodies should be doing to protect food security, see the book produced by a Task Force of the UN System Standing Committee on Nutrition, called Global Obligations for the Right to Food. I wrote the chapter on holding corporations to account.

http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/02/global-obligations.html

Interview on Nestlé's UN Global Compact cover up

I recently gave an interview to a Sheffield Live! radio station as part of an international student initiative in the build up to the next G8 summit. This has appeared on various websites, where you can listen to in online, including:

http://www.canstream.co.uk/sheffieldlive/index.php?id=16726

This included an exclusive on the launch of our report: Nestlé's UN Global Compact cover up. This report exposes how Nestlé breaches human rights and environmental standards and the strategies it uses to divert criticism. Amongst these is using the UN voluntary Corporate Social Responsibility initiative, the Global Compact, to portray its impact as wholly beneficial. We and colleagues who contribute to the Nestlé Critics site have lodged a formal complaint calling for Nestlé to be expelled from the initiative. See our press release for information at:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press17june09.html

It is possible to download the report from the above link.

Update on Nestle, chocolate and children

An update on child labour and trafficking in its cocoa supply chain has been posted on the Nestle Critics website. See:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=7&id=29&Itemid=58

Nestlé Critics website exposes abuse of trade union rights in the Philippines

Information from trade unionists in the Philippines has been posted on the Nestlé Critics website today. See:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=36&Itemid=73

This relates to a long-running dispute, where Nestlé has refused to abide by Supreme Court rulings calling for it to negotiate with the trade union on retirement benefits. The dispute has been running for 7 years. During that time, Nestlé has boasted of its support for the UN Global Compact. Principle 3 of this voluntary initiative states that: "Businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining."

Nestlé does not do so, even when ordered by the courts that it should.

Those who went on strike for their rights have been dismissed and they complain that: "The lawful, peaceful picket at Nestlé’s Cabuyao factory is sometimes violently dispersed the police and military, measures Nestlé has encouraged and been fully complicit with."

Two trade union leaders have been assassinated. In 2006 I interviewed the General Secretary of one of the trade unions, to highlight these concerns at a time when Nestlé was invited to hold a reception at the UK Trade Union Congress (TUC) and Labour Party Conference. You can listen to the interview at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press20sept06.html

Ironically one of the unions that hosted Nestlé, the GMB, soon after was complaining about Nestlé failure to consult adequately before laying off workers in York. While not showing solidarity with colleagues in the Philippines when it joined with Nestlé in a champagne reception at the TUC, it said: "In particular, GMB will seek to invoke the agreement with our international IUF trade union colleagues in Nestlé to prevent job losses."

The International Union of Foodworkers very strongly condemns Nestlé activities in the Philippines and elsewhere. In fact, the IUF has a site dedicated to Nestlé:
http://www.nestlewatch.org/

The Philippines is a dangerous place to be seen to oppose powerful vested interests. In 2006 when the pharmaceutical companies were taking the government to court to try to have baby food regulations struck down, and Nestlé was calling for the country heads of UNICEF and WHO to be removed for supporting the measures, the Assistant Solicitor General Nestor J. Ballocillo and his son were shot dead.

I was surprised - and shocked - at the suggestion that this murder may have been linked to the 'Milk Code' case. According to the Philippines Daily Inquirer, see text and link at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press14dec06.html

---
Solicitor General Antonio Eduardo Nachura said that the killing of Ballocillo—as well as his son Benedict—may have something to do with the expropriation of the controversial Ninoy Aquino International Airport terminal 3 (Naia 3) and the Milk Code case that the elder Ballocillo was handling.
---

When officials and trade union leaders are assassinated, when corporations ignore rulings from the courts, those who suffer need the rest of the world to pay attention. I hope that by raising these issues here, additional people will hear their pleas.

Sometimes it is suggested that the boycott of Nestlé that Baby Milk Action is a threat to Nestlé employees, but my view is that they have far more to fear from Nestlé management when it comes to job security and workers' rights.

Campaigners appeal in Nestlé spying case. Nestlé appeals in abuse of power in the coffee industry case.

IBFAN figures in the report passed by a spy to her control at Nestlé, a former MI6 officer. The spy had infiltrated the Swiss group, ATTAC, which was developing a book looking at different aspects of Nestlé malpractice. I attended the launch of that book to speak on the baby milk issue in 2004. So I've been interested to follow the case from a distance. Today there is a report saying that a Swiss Judge has thrown the case out on the grounds that it is not against the law for corporations to spy on people! See:
http://genevalunch.com/2009/02/13/attacs-case-against-nestle-dropped-by-judge/

It is ironic if the courts accept a corporation can pass someone off as a campaigner to infiltrate an organisation and gather sensitive and confidential information. When the Nestlé Critics website was being launched last year, Nestlé's lawyers wrote to Baby Milk Action threatening legal action on the absurd basis that the site was "passing off" as a company site, despite the text making it clear it was an analysis of Nestlé's claims, with a prominent link to Nestlé's own site for information from the company. The metadata, which appears in search engine listings, also made it clear it was a site with information from Nestlé's critics. See:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=55&Itemid=1

Nestlé demanded we hand the original domain name (nestlesa.org) over to it, which we refused to do, as it has already been published and we had reasonable grounds to suspect Nestlé might put something on the domain "passing off" as a campaign site to dupe campaigners into sharing information, just as its spy had done.

So on the one hand Nestlé thinks it is fine to infiltrate organisations with a spy, but thinks it is outrageous that an organisation should have a domain with the Nestlé name in it, less someone visit it looking for information on the company. The court has sided with Nestlé on the spy. We have heard no more from the lawyers about the domain name.

ATTAC Switzerland is appealing against the Judge's decision.

Coincidently, today we learn that Nestlé is also going to court to appeal a decision, in this case in Greece. Greece's competition watchdog has levied of EUR29 million fine against Nestlé. According to the AFP news agency, the company said, "We deem this decision unfair and reject the charges". The Greek authorities accused "Nestle of taking steps to shoulder out other coffee providers in its deals with supermarkets, restaurants and distributors."

Aggressive marketing practices from Nestlé are all too well known for those of us monitoring its behaviour in the baby food industry. This is also the company that misled George Clooney over its baby food marketing practices to persuade him to appear in Nespresso advertisements. See our briefing at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press31jan09.html

And it ran a national advertising campaign in the UK portraying it as having a positive impact on coffee farmers when it launched a Fairtrade-certified brand, neglecting to say that the Fairtrade brand only involved 0.1% of the coffee farmers dependent on the company and that it had been strongly criticised for its negative impact on the other 99.9%. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/resources/yqsanswered/yqanestle07.html

It will be interesting to see who gets furtherst with their appeal: ATTAC Switzerland or Nestlé.

Happy Nestlé-Free Week : 4 - 10 October

The 4 October marks the 20th anniversary of the launch of the current boycott of Nestlé over its aggressive marketing of baby foods in the US. So tomorrow has been selected as the start of International Nestlé-Free Week this year. For ideas on how to promote it see:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/08/be-change.html

What is Nestlé-Free Week? It is a week to tell people about the boycott. If you are a boycotter, you will probably know people who say they can't give up one or other Nestlé product. Ask them to do so just for Nestlé-Free Week, this year and every year until Nestlé makes the required changes to its marketing policies and practices. If you don't boycott all Nestlé products yourself (the focus in the UK is on Nescafé coffee) then give it a try during Nestlé-Free Week. You and your friends and colleagues may find alternatives that you will stick with. Fairly traded products are a good way to go as Nestlé is also criticised over its treatment of coffee farmers and for failing to act on child slavery in its cocoa supply chain.

To mark Nestlé-Free Week this year, we planned the launch of a website to serve as a portal to expert information on all aspects of Nestlé business. Because of the boycott people come to us with concerns other than baby food marketing, so this seemed a good way to make different campaigns mutually supportive (and not counter-productive), while giving us an easy resource to direct people too. I've been talking about this new site, which has the theme "Nestlé's Actions speak louder than its words" on this blog for the past couple of months. Nestlé must have been worried as it tried to hi-jack the site by demanding we hand over the Nestlé's Actions domain name by Monday, 29 September. We refused and the launch has gone ahead, with the site now being promoted as the Nestlé Critics website. Find details of the hi-jack attempt on the site itself at:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=55&Itemid=1

If Nestlé thought it would manage to intimidate us into taking the site down so people would not have access to the information, then its strategy badly misfired. With our announcement of the hi-jack attempt, we had over 3,000 visitors to the site in the first 48 hours. You can help to make it even more popular by promoting it as a source of independent information on Nestlé. If you have a website or blog, please link to the address:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/

Recent information there includes Nestlé hiring someone to pass themselves off as a campaigner to infiltrate the Swiss ATTAC campaign group to gather sensitive and confidential information on campaigners. See:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=54&Itemid=106

You'll also find the analysis I also posted on this blog yesterday examining Nestlé's claim about its products in China: 'no melamine found'. That wasn't true at the time, as a Nestlé milk product was on the contaminated list in Hong Kong. Nestlé also used the argument that this toxin (which has led to thousands of babies being hospitalized and four deaths due to high levels in the formula of a competitor - Sanlu/Fonterra), is found in most foods at 'safe' levels. In Taiwan the authorities have called for Nestlé to remove products found with melamine, arguing that there are no acceptable levels for toxins. Nestlé says it: "fails to understand temporary delisting request". See:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=56&Itemid=106

While there are many concerns raised about Nestlé practices, the boycott we promote concerns its baby food marketing practices. In the past 20 years the boycott has been instrumental in stopping many cases of aggressive marketing designed by the company to persuade mothers to buy the company formula, regardless of the impact on health. The biological norm of breastfeeding provides all a baby needs for the first 6 months of life and continues to provide protection and nutrition alongside other foods beyond this. Infants fed on formula are more likely to suffer short and long-term illness. Around the world 1.5 million infants die every year because they are not adequately breastfed (click here for sources of this statistic).

In the past Nestlé promoted its formula with pictures of chubby babies on labels and by sending marketing staff dressed as nurses into hospitals. Today these practices have changed, thanks to marketing requirements adopted by the World Health Assembly, legislation implementing these measures and our work with our partners in monitoring company behaviour and promoting the boycott. Yet Nestlé's latest practices are only slightly more subtle. It presents its formula as containing 'brain building blocks' and suggests that it 'protects' babies, all the time knowing that infants fed on formula do not develop the same as breastfed infants and miss out on the protection provided by the living anti-bodies and other protective factors in breastmilk. They are more likely to become sick and in conditions of poverty, they are more likely to die.

Global monitoring conducted by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) finds Nestlé to be the worst of the companies. And as market leader it sets trends others follow and so drives down standards. As we have exposed recently, in South Africa not only the Department of Health was critical of its marketing practices, but also its competitors, who filed a complaint with the Advertising Standards Authority - they lost and may feel compelled to resort to push similar promotional tactics through the regulatory loophole Nestlé has created. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/07/nestle-driving-standards-down.html

It is regrettable that the boycott continues to be a necessary tool to put pressure on Nestlé and to raise awareness of its marketing malpractice. But the new Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Paul Bulcke, has, like his predecessor, rejected the plan put to Nestlé for saving infant lives and ultimately ending the boycott. Instead Nestlé tries to divert criticism with expensive Public Relations initiatives and underhand methods such as those described above. The changes it makes are grudging. More boycott action will help to persuade it. Last year, after denying for years that the boycott had support, Nestlé's Global Public Affairs Manager owned up to Nestlé being 'widely boycotted'. Independent research has found it to be one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press6july07.html

The parallel strategy to the boycott is bringing in legislation. In the case of South Africa, for example, we ran a campaign of international solidarity earlier this year as it seeks to bring in stronger regulations to stop the type of promotion we have exposed. Over 70 countries have brought in measures, some of which are proving to be very effective and breastfeeding rates are increasing.

Parents who use formula, for whatever reason, also need protecting and we continue to call on Nestlé to make changes, such as improving instructions and stopping promoting powdered whole milk alongside more expensive infant formula in supermarkets and pharmacies. It knows that poor mothers are more likely to use the whole milk because it is much cheaper, but has even greater risks.

So happy Nestlé-Free Week. Have fun spreading the word and seeking out non-Nestlé alternatives for the coming week and, hopefully, beyond.

Although there is no willingness from Nestlé to accept the plan for ending the boycott at present, other companies have come to us because they are willing to change their marketing practices and want advice on how best to comply with the World Health Assembly requirements.

One day Nestlé will realise it is best for its business and for mothers and babies if it accepts it needs to change.

Nestle tries to hi-jack boycott site just days before Nestle-Free Week

Regular readers of this blog - which surely includes Nestlé - will know that we have prepared a website called "Nestlé's actions speak louder than its words", containing information from experts on different aspects of Nestlé's business. I've been writing about the site here since the beginning of August. You will also know that the site is to be launched on Saturday 4 October, the start of International Nestlé-Free Week.

What I can now tell you is that Nestlé's lawyers wrote to us last week threatening legal action over the site and demanding that we hand over the domain name to Nestlé by today, 29 September. So I've been a little distracted from writing this blog and other promotion for International Nestlé-Free Week. Which is surely the point of this being dropped on us with a deadline just days before the official launch of the site. Nestlé was using the pretence that the site was "passing off" as being from the company, yet as it stated its purpose clearly and directed people to Nestlé's own site, this is absurd and the launch goes ahead using the domain name:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/

Of greater concern is why Nestlé demanded the domain name. Perhaps to cost the campaign money in reprinting leaflets and re-doing websites. However, the domain name has only been publicised on this blog to date and the metadata for use in search engine listings makes it clear that it gives concerns about Nestlé practices. So anyone visiting the site will be well aware it is a campaign site. And that is the danger I see. If Nestlé takes over the domain name, we don't know what it would put on the site. Consider the fact that in Switzerland at the moment the media is full of the story of Nestlé hiring someone to pose as a campaigner to gain sensitive and confidential information from those with concerns about Nestlé and you will understand why I am worried about what Nestlé - or its secret agents - might put on the domain.

So we've replied to Nestlé's lawyers by their deadline of today explaining that we are not handing over the domain.

If Nestlé was genuinely concerned people might be confused by the domain name we were using, then that has been addressed with us publicising nestlecritics.org for the launch. If they continue to pursue their claim for the original domain then we will fight it because if anyone has genuine reason to fear the domain might be used to mislead people, then it is campaigners.

For additional information see the entry on the Nestlé Critics website - and bookmark it or subscribe to the RSS feed to keep updated on the wider concerns about Nestlé practices.

Former MI6 agent ran Nestlé spy operation

Swiss campaigners posted the following message on this blog and will be adding updates to the 'Nestlé's Actions' website. Nestlé's actions speak louder than its words. See:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/

For more on the spy story and how this impacted on Baby Milk Action see:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2008/07/nestle-spies.html

---Posted comments begins

NESTLE INFILTRATES AN NGO IN SWITZERLAND

On 12 June 2008, the very serious Swiss investigative reporters tv revealed that Nestlé paid Securitas,one of Switzerland's largest security firms, to plant a woman in a group of attac switzerland (my group) from the summer of 2003 until the summer of 2004. We were making conference and editing a book about Nestlé.

As a co-author she had complete access to the group's documentation and to all Attac's email contacts around the world, including information on union members in Colombia fighting for workers-rights in Nestle plants. Such information is potentially dangerous in the wrong hands; in the past people have been killed just for being active organizers especially in Colombia. Her regular reports and memos (physical descriptions, (political orientations, job.) about us and our activities, contacts were handed over to Nestlé, especially to the head of security of Nestle. The infiltrator met him at least one time. The name of the head of security of Nestlé is John Hedley, who in the past was working in the British secret services, the MI6.

We had a first audience in tribunal last week.

More of 150 newspapers (in Switzerland, Germany, Austria and France) have been writing papers on the matter.
http://www.suisse.attac.org/fr

Nestlé and trade unionist concerns in Japan

Experts on Nestlé's treatment of trade unionists in Japan have added information to the new 'Nestlé Critics' website:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/

A closer look at promoting CSR in Eastern Europe

Ethical Corporation are running a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) event in Prague. See:
http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=6035

I have posted the following comment to their news item on it (Nestlé has a confirmed speaker at the event, though this is not specifically mentioned in the above link):

---
Participants would do well to look at how CSR is abused and brought into disrepute by some of its leading proponents, such as Nestlé.

Nestlé produces many reports on its activities, particularly those that are subject to most criticism, such as its marketing of baby foods and exploitation of water resources. Analysis shows they do not stand up to the evidence.

So-called independent audits of them, by Bureau Veritas for example, are similarly shown to be flawed. On baby food, Bureau Veritas uses Nestlé's much criticised, restricted interpretation of international marketing standards and when it investigated Nestlé's water exploitation in Brazil was apparently unaware that the company had been taken to court by the Public Prosecutor.

It is hardly surprising that many question whether CSR is anything more than Public Relations to divert criticism. See:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/

Nestle is one of the world's most criticized companies

Nestlé is one of the top ten most environmentally and socially criticized companies, according to analysis conducted by the company ECOFACT.

This is how ECOFACT describes itself: "ECOFACT is a consulting boutique specialized in the management of environmental, social and reputational risks, mainly in the financial sector. ECOFACT is based in Zurich and leverages a global network of sector and issue specialists."

So it is coming from an industry perspective of how a company's image and, hence, value, is harmed by criticism. This shows the importance of campaigning, because company executives and investors take notice when a financial cost is put on their malpractice.

Nestlé is, of course, the target of an international boycott because independent monitoring finds it to be responsible for more violations of World Health Assembly baby food marketing standards than any other company. It is the largest company in the market and sets trends that drive down standards, as a recent case in South Africa demonstrates.

But Nestlé is not only criticised for its baby food marketing. There are many groups concerned about its business activities, informed by their experience of monitoring its impact on the ground.

To help bring this information together and provide a portal to the various campaigns, we have developed a new website with the theme: "Nestlé's Actions speak louder than its words". Nestlé is a leading exponent of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), which highlights voluntary action as a 'good corporate citizen'. Nestlé brings the concept into disrepute by using 'good works' and bogus claims about its impact in an attempt to divert criticism and undermine calls for binding regulations.

If you are interested in being an author for this website, please contact me. We will be launching it officially later in the year. You can find a preview - and a link to the ECOFACT press announcement - at:
http://www.nestlecritics.org/

A diverting campaign on obesity

Just a few facts....

In 2002 a report from UBS Warburg investment bank said that 46% of Nestlé income was from 'less healthy foods' and at risk if governments brought in regulations to tackle the epidemic of obesity.

Nestlé's Chairman and former Chief Executive, Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, decided to rebrand the firm as a Nutrition, Health and Wellness company.

Breastfed infants are less likely to be obese. Nestlé's aggressive marketing of formula undermines breastfeeding.

Nestlé is currently trying to enter the mass UK formula market, with the help of television celebrity, Dr. Miriam Stoppard. This is particularly bad news as Nestlé drives down formula marketing standards of the industry as a whole.

Nestlé cereals have been criticised for being high in salt and fat - Nestlé relies on Shredded Wheat, which is 100% wheat, to provide it cover. The UK Advertising Standards Authority ruled in June against a Nestlé cereal advertisement calling on people to eat three servings of 'whole grains' every day.

Regulations in Denmark have forced food companies to cut levels of transfats in foods, but Nestlé and the food industry as a whole is pressing for voluntary action elsewhere.

Nestlé sponsored a fringe meeting at the last Labour Party Conference and thereby shared a platform with the Minister for Public Health.

In May, The Independent on Sunday (IoS) reported: "An investigation by the IoS has uncovered strong ties between Nestlé, the world's largest baby milk manufacturer, and the Department of Health. Rosie Cooper, a parliamentary private secretary to the Health minister Ben Bradshaw, is undergoing a year-long Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship with Nestlé, and in February went for a week to South Africa as a guest of the group to oversee its corporate social responsibility activities." Where apparently she didn't notice Nestlé breaking South African regulations in the way it markets its formula there.

Nestlé sponsored a conference on obesity in July, attended by the Chief Medical Officer.

In October 2007, I queried how the government would respond to a report it had commissioned called Tackling Obesities: Future Choices. The Public Health Minister commented in her introduction: "As the report demonstrates, there is no quick and easy solution to tackling obesity." Would the government act on the recommendations for increasing breastfeeding rates by implementing the World Health Assembly marketing requirements for baby milks? The answer turned out to be no. It has not.

What about taking legislative action along the lines of Denmark? The book 'Global Obligations for the Right to Food' argues that it has human rights obligations to improve diets.

It seems not. Instead the government is embarking on an advertising campaign encouraging people to exercise more. Important, but it should not be a diversion.

Yet the government has 200 million reasons to be diverted. The campaign is being funded to the tune of £200 million by Coca-Cola, Kellogg's, Mars, Nestle and Tesco, all to some degree or other responsible for promoting 'less healthy foods'.

Nestle and other chocolate companies failing to act on plan to end child slavery

A couple of years ago I interviewed Bama Athreya, Director of the International Labour Rights Forum (ILRF) regarding Nestlé and child slavery. The interviewed occurred as Nestlé was refusing to participate in a meeting in the United States regarding its failure to meet commitments to a US Senate plan, called the Harkin-Engel Protocol. At the same time Nestlé was sponsoring a meeting at the UK Labour Party Conference about its commitment to ending child slavery. So in the UK it was trying to look good by buying itself a platform, but in the US was refusing to explain why its actions did not meet its words. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press28sept06.html

Now ILRF has produced a report, analysing what has happened since the Senate plan was introduced in 2001. Its press release is included below. A more detailed briefing is available at:
http://www.laborrights.org/stop-child-labor/cocoa-campaign/resources/1552

Rather than engaging with government initiatives, the industry has promoted its own 'standards' and used these to claim great progress. Claims which do not stand up to scrutiny. This once again demonstrates the importance of independent monitoring of internationally-agree standards (as we have with the baby food marketing requirements). In the book Global Obligations for the Right to Food I discuss some of the ways to better hold corporations to account.

---ILRF press release
Cocoa Industry Fails to Deliver on July 1, 2008 Child Labor Commitments
ILRF Releases New Analysis of Industry’s Failure to Eliminate Child Labor

The chocolate industry has failed to provide consumers with a reasonable assurance that the chocolate they buy was made without exploited and trafficked child labor. Major chocolate companies signed what is referred to as the Harkin-Engel Protocol in 2001, promising to eliminate the worst forms of child labor from their supply chains, after media stories emerged depicting the widespread use of forced child labor and trafficking on West African cocoa farms. After failing to meet their July 1, 2005 commitments, the Protocol was weakened and extended to July 1, 2008. Once again, the industry has missed the deadline.

Bama Athreya, Executive Director of the International Labor Rights Forum, said, “The major chocolate companies are not able to prove the elimination of exploited child labor in their cocoa supply, nor show concrete improvements in West African farmers’ lives. Consumers cannot be assured today that their favorite chocolate candies are made without abusive child labor.”

In a new report issued today, titled “The Cocoa Protocol: Success or Failure,” the International Labor Rights Forum presented the following findings:

• The original intent of the ‘protocol’ has not been achieved, and consumers today have no more assurance than they did eight years ago that trafficked or exploited child labor was not used in the production of their chocolate;

• Industry is making false claims regarding certification;

• Industry may be assigning itself too much credit for activities that may in any case have resulted from bilateral and multilateral government engagement;

• ‘Verification’ has been rendered irrelevant by the fact that the process supported by industry no longer bears any relation to supply chain monitoring or certification;

• Industry-supported programs have not been properly evaluated and therefore the actual impacts of such programs are unknown;

• Industry has not adequately defined what it considers remediation;

• Reports from West Africa point to the continued use of the worst forms of child labor as well as trafficking of children.

The report presents the following recommendations*:

• Companies should establish traceability within their own supply chain to the farm or cooperative level;

• Companies should work through existing initiatives (for example, Fair Trade, Utz Certified and Rainforest Alliance) to develop stronger methodologies for labor standards monitoring and link these systems directly to the government processes with an incentive/sanction system;

• Companies should ensure that their own operations and their supply chains adhere to internationally established codes of practice, including the ILO Tripartite Declaration for Multinational Enterprises and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Corporations;

• The US Government should cease to protect the interests of chocolate companies and instead invest in funding multilateral initiatives through the ILO-IPEC program and through funding for the Education for All initiative, and should support revenue transparency in the cocoa sector.

Tim Newman of ILRF’s Campaigns Department stated, “Consumers should reward companies with ethical integrity in their supply chains and continue to demand that world’s largest chocolate companies answer the question of how consumers can be assured their chocolate is not produced using exploited child labor.”

*Note: Many of these recommendations are supported by the “Commitment to Ethical Cocoa Sourcing” document which has been endorsed by 60 chocolate companies and organizations.

The full report can be read online here:
http://www.laborrights.org/stop-child-labor/cocoa-campaign/resources/1552