What an awful thing to do to babies

[tallybee]

Just been through the whole thread. I was aware of this, thought most people were tbh - the nestle thing is so shocking and been going on so long but they still manage to keep it hidden from enough people that they carry on regardless...

Nestle owns or part-owns what seems like nearly everything, which means boycotting is made difficult as often you have to really dig to find their name attached to products. It does make sense to get an idea in your head of the main ones that would be things you would buy so alternatives can be found

As far as I'm concerned, big companies are all somewhat dirty in their dealings. That's how they get to be big companies that rake in billions. None of it surprises me any more. In fact it surprises me that it surprises folk, iykwim...

We do try and shop ethically but as PPs have said it would become something approaching a full-time job and very expensive to keep absolutely everything we buy ethically sound. We do use large supermarkets for some of our things, because there isn't always an affordable, better alternative. We use the local market when we can. But I will never claim to be an ethical consumer or anything like that because it is barely even possible in this day and age unfortunately.

I do agree that changing what we can is good news though -- if everyone did, it would be a big change and at the end of the day these companies exist for money only and stopping spending so much of ours on their products is the only way to affect them... ethical pleas will never have any impact.

 

[lily123]

awful.
This is why i boycott Nesle and have done for two years now

 

[GeorgeyGal]

I have read a few posts, please excuse me for not reading the whole thing, this may already have been explained, but what strikes me is, why would Nestle trap these women when they know these women cannot afford to buy the formula anyway so wont make any profit anyhow? Whats their logic? Of course theres no denying its evil I just dont understand how they would think there is profit to be made when clearly these women cannot afford it. Just something thats been playing on my mind...

 

[smokey]

I have read a few posts, please excuse me for not reading the whole thing, this may already have been explained, but what strikes me is, why would Nestle trap these women when they know these women cannot afford to buy the formula anyway so wont make any profit anyhow? Whats their logic? Of course theres no denying its evil I just dont understand how they would think there is profit to be made when clearly these women cannot afford it. Just something thats been playing on my mind...

This is exactly why I have never realy understood it all.
It makes no profit sense at all to "trick" (for want of a better word) women with free samples knowing they cant afford the product after or will buy minimal amounts and dilute it.

 

[Dopeyjopey]

Because even if they only buy one tin of formula, that's one more than they would have sold otherwise!

 

[Dopeyjopey]

and that's what makes it all the more evil to me.

 

[elephant29]

Nestle know that even one or two tubs of formula bought by these women will still make them more of a profit than if they BF. They know it wont bankroll them yet they still do it. They know the money they'll get from it will be minimal but they don't care!

xxx

 

[summer rain]

I've heard they sell formula for considerably more than what it costs to produce; lets say 3 times more (I did read this ratio somewhere but cannot remember where now so lets for arguments sake just say its an example figure), and a typical tin of formula costs £4 to produce and they sell it for £12, so that is £8 profit and they sell just 1 million tins to poor mothers in developing countries (I am sure the figure is considerably more than that; but again its an example) that is £8 million quid in their pocket; its not a huge figure for a massive corporation like nestle but it is £8m they would not have made if those ladies had only BF and not been swayed to give infant formula at all.

 

[GeorgeyGal]

Bloody hell!! For a multibillion industry that just sounds absurd, surely the public backlash, loss of reputation, boycott is not worth the minority of tins actually sold in this case. Makes my blood boil!!! Who ever is responsible should be tried for murder!!!

 

[Laura2919]

Nestlé own things people dont even know they own so you might think your boycotting them but I bet at least 50% of those who are boycotting still have something to do with Nestlé.

I dont really know too much about what Nestlé have done but people who say they are boycotting them, Nestlé dont care, they still earn millions and millions and thats all they care about, in fact thats all every company thinks about.

 

[tallybee]

Nestlé own things people dont even know they own so you might think your boycotting them but I bet at least 50% of those who are boycotting still have something to do with Nestlé.

I dont really know too much about what Nestlé have done but people who say they are boycotting them, Nestlé dont care, they still earn millions and millions and thats all they care about, in fact thats all every company thinks about.

You are quite right. But if more people educated themselves about this kind of thing and made changes to their buying habits that's when it'd hurt the company finances. Too many people remain blinkered to it and that's why nothing changes

 

[PeanutBean]

Buying cosmetics made in the UK cuts out the animal testing as it has been illegal to test of use ingredients tested on animals in the UK since Labour changed the law shortly after coming into power in 1997. Of course if, like me, you use the minimum of cosmetics/toiletries it's easier to be more selective of what you use.

P&G own pretty much everything Nestle don't so I agree they are even harder to boycott! I don't just boycott Nestle because of the baby stuff but because of their overall lack of ethics. I also don't use Asda and Tesck because if their ethics/political stance.

It's all a good argument for buying local and fresh. For preparing your own things and using products with natural ingredients. I think in this day and age it must require a Good Life level of commitment to get anywhere near overall ethical shopping.

Can you elaborate on Asda and Tesco please? I'd be really interested as they're my two local stores. There's a Sainsburys a bit further away that I'd switch to if it turns out Asda and Tesco are up to no good too! X

Sorry not to have replied, I've been on holiday with limited signal. Tesco have links to the Tories which bothers my political outlook. Asda are extremely aggressive and open stores in areas targeted to close local shops. They're owned by the American Walmart. I generally disapprove of them. To my knowledge Sainsburys is generally more ethical. I'd rather shop at Co-op but we don't have any near enough.

I'll look up the animal testing stuff when I'm at a computer. There are links in an animal testing thread on the debate section I think as I looked this up before. It's true Loreal own Body Shop and are a horrible company. But Body Shop items must have to be developed in a different way. I was so shocked when I heard Anita Roddick had sold it. Makes no sense. Like when Cadburys bought out Green and Blacks and now it's all owned by Kraft!

 

[tallybee]

^ Peanutbean, I totally agree with you, to build up an ethical company profile and then sell it to the enemy (so to speak) is just

Presumably this is the definition of 'sellout'... they sell it for the big bucks to bigwig sketchy corps who benefit from the 'ethical' connotation they get to gain from it.

 

[Dopeyjopey]

Nestle have links to The Body Shop, I feel gutted every time i walk past the shop because it smells amazing!

 

[PeanutBean]

OK just been looking in the animal testing thread I posted in yonks ago. Annoyingly I didn't include the links I'd gone through but googling now even Wikipedia has the info about the ban: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testing_cosmetics_on_animals

European Union bans

Testing of cosmetics on animals is banned in the Netherlands, Belgium, and the United Kingdom, and in 2002, after 13 years of discussion, the European Union (EU) agreed to phase in a near-total ban on the sale of animal-tested cosmetics throughout the EU from 2009, and to ban all cosmetics-related animal testing.[1]

France, which is home to the world's largest cosmetics company, L'Oréal, has protested the proposed ban by lodging a case at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, asking that the ban be quashed. The ban is also opposed by the European Federation for Cosmetics Ingredients, which represents 70 companies in Switzerland, Belgium, France, Germany and Italy.[1]

UK position

Although the British Home Office stopped giving licences to test finished cosmetic products in 1998, compounds that have both cosmetic and medical uses, such as those in the "anti-wrinkle" preparations Zyderm, Restylane and Botox, are still bound by the regulations requiring animal testing. According to activists, a raid on a laboratory in 2004 revealed that the LD50 test is still used on every batch of Botox (a toxin that, when administered intravenously, is lethal to humans) to establish potency [3] [4] [5].

Presumably the latter are classed as medicines therefore are subject to the regulations for drug development.

 

[summer rain]

Nestlé own things people dont even know they own so you might think your boycotting them but I bet at least 50% of those who are boycotting still have something to do with Nestlé.

I dont really know too much about what Nestlé have done but people who say they are boycotting them, Nestlé dont care, they still earn millions and millions and thats all they care about, in fact thats all every company thinks about.

I am not boycotting them solely that they may stand up and notice all these people boycotting; but more for my own personal conscience. Nestle will not be making any profit from my household and that is all I can do really.

 

[Midnight_Fairy]

I would love not to shop at Tesco but its just impracticable