The Nestlé Boycotts Of 1977 And 1984

In our previous discussions, we began looking at the Nestle company and its role in the war on food – especially as it pertained to the Nestle Baby Formula scandal. In particular, we addressed how that since the company’s conception in 1867, Nestlé has convinced people its baby formula is better for infants than breast milk a claim that is categorically false. We also addressed that they placed particular focus on marketing in developing countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia during the 1970s, sending saleswomen dressed as nurses to convince mothers in these regions of the world that their baby formula was better for their children than their own breast milk.
Well, this not only resulted in a culture of numerous other companies producing harmful baby formula products, especially in countries like China, where baby milk tainted with an industrial chemical lead to over 300,000 illnesses and 6 deaths – BUT,, it also resulted in a massive action against the Nestle company.
So, a major food safety incident in China was made public in September 2008. Kidney and urinary tract effects, including kidney stones, affected about 300,000 Chinese infants and young children, with six reported deaths. Melamine had been deliberately added at milk-collecting stations to diluted raw milk ostensibly to boost its protein content. Subsequently, melamine has been detected in many milk and milk-containing products, as well as other food and feed products, which were also exported to many countries worldwide.
However, this event took place against the backdrop of a harmful culture or popularised narrative that baby formula was healthier for babies than breast milk, or even a safe option for mothers who were having a challenge breastfeeding. You’d recall that we previously discussed that Nestle used the propaganda tactics of Edward Barnays, which included manufacturing a narrative and gaslighting, to create the perception that their baby formula was better and safer. As a result of this, mothers in less developed countries continued to provide baby formula to their children even when for years, despite the categorically false claims from Nestle.
HOWEVER, Nestle was not immune to accountability. And this was especially made apparent when an entity called Corporate Accountability (which was then called ‘Infact’) launched the historic Nestlé Boycott in 1977. It was the first boycott to force a major corporation to heed the concerns of the global public and commit to major changes in its practices.
Nestlé, which was the world’s largest food corporation at the time, was aggressively marketing breast milk substitutes to mothers in the Global South as the most nutritious choice for their babies. Bent on selling infant formula to women who did not need — and indeed, were better off without — its products Nestlé, didn’t bother with the reality that these families wouldn’t be able to afford the formula in the long term. Nor did it acknowledge that it was pushing its product in situations where people had limited fuel and tools to sterilize bottles, refrigeration, and clean water to mix with the formula. All of this added up to hundreds of thousands infants dying — babies who would have survived had it not been for Nestlé and other corporations’ unethical marketing practices. AND this also led to another boycott in 1984.
The culpability of the Nestle company in the malnutrition of babies in countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America is not only that it sold what was an objectively least unhealthy milk option to these parents, but its is also in the fact that Nestle also lied to parents about the benefits of their milk formula product, and did not consider that in pushing mothers towards opting for milk formula (under the pretence that it was healthier), mothers who could not afford their products would go to extreme lengths to feed it t their children, much like the mothers who stretched a can intended for 1 child among three infants.