Nestlé at it again

[Bryn]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4459520.stm

Yet more problems with Nestlé and baby milk.

[hr]

http://bryn.ipfox.com

[hopie]

Bring Nestle back to the Union NOW!

[hr]

Im not jesus christ, Ive come to accept that now....

[Humphrey]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/watchdog/productrecalls/

This kind of stuff happens the whole time, thats why its a good idea to keep an eye on product recalls.

[hr]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[Tweedle-Dum]

Not sure contaminating milk by accident (which sometimes just happens) is as bad as forcing powdered milk on people with poisoned water supplies.

[hr]

Live by the sword, die by the arrow.

[Bryn]

Quoting Tweedle-Dum from 15:25, 22nd Nov 2005
Not sure contaminating milk by accident (which sometimes just happens) is as bad as forcing powdered milk on people with poisoned water supplies.

No, but it's another thing on a long list of atrocities...

[hr]

http://bryn.ipfox.com

[bananaman]

I think the Nestle ban should be lifted by the Union and its products sold there.

My reasoning for this is that in a free market economy it is a much more powerful message if the Union does not stock Nestle products because there is no demand for them rather then simply through an imposed ban.

I would argue that stocking Nestle products would force the anti-nestle people to conduct a convincing town wide debate on the ethics of Nestle and therefore possibly lead to less shops generally stocking Nestle products, because people stop buying them.

Having a ban is lazy answer to the problem I think and does not force people to make a conscious choice on whether to eat Nestle products – especially if the referendum that banned Nestle products was not conducted in your time at university.

To me it is irrelevant what ‘crimes’ Nestle is accused of in this argument.

[Bryn]

Uhh, your argument makes no sense. If the Union is buying in Nestlé goods, how on earth can that be constituted as a boycott?

[hr]

http://bryn.ipfox.com

[bananaman]

Quoting Bryn from 16:06, 22nd Nov 2005
Uhh, your argument makes no sense. If the Union is buying in Nestlé goods, how on earth can that be constituted as a boycott?

[hr]

http://bryn.ipfox.com

Sorry, it should have said:


I think the Nestle ban should be lifted by the Union so that its products could be sold there.

My reasoning for this is that in a free market economy it is a much more powerful message if the Union does not stock Nestle products because there is no demand for them rather then simply through an imposed ban.

I would argue that the option to stock Nestle products would force the anti-nestle people to conduct a convincing town wide debate on the ethics of Nestle and therefore possibly lead to less shops generally stocking Nestle products, because people stop buying them.

Having a ban is lazy answer to the problem I think and does not force people to make a conscious choice on whether to eat Nestle products – especially if the referendum that banned Nestle products was not conducted in your time at university.

To me it is irrelevant what ‘crimes’ Nestle is accused of in this argument.

[Dave the Explosive Newt]

Quoting Bryn from 15:32, 22nd Nov 2005
No, but it's another thing on a long list of atrocities...

Are you implying that Nestle has been delibrately poisoning babies? As much as I like the metal image of a gang of fat cats, wearing three-piece pinstripe suits and gold rolexes tipping a large jar marked 'BABY POISON' into milk vats and cackling... no.

[hr]

Will Watson - half man, half beast. All awesome.

[Bryn]

Quoting Dave the Explosive Newt from 16:30, 22nd Nov 2005
Are you implying that Nestle has been delibrately poisoning babies? As much as I like the metal image of a gang of fat cats, wearing three-piece pinstripe suits and gold rolexes tipping a large jar marked 'BABY POISON' into milk vats and cackling... no.

No. It's more that they were more concerned with their own profit than the welfare of these babies or mothers. I'm not against powdered milk per sé, but they should have thought that the water in these towns would have been dangerous to the children, all mothers should be encouraged to breast feed because it builds up their baby's immune system. It's a classic example of why companies shouldn't be allowed to get involved in medical issues; why only medical professionals should be able to tell mother's in hospital the best course of action.

[hr]

http://bryn.ipfox.com

[themushroomgod]

Normally I'm all for capitalist bashing, but Bryn: your arguments reek of bullshit. In fact, as soon as I got to the main page, I sniffed the air, and said to myself "I smell shite!"

1) Nestle will be concerned with mother and baby wellfare - if they all died off, Nestle would have no baby powder market.

2) I thought the thread was about ink in powder. Let's not drag Nestle's past crimes into it just yet.

3)Mothers are already urged in the strongest possible terms to breast feed, in this country at least. Having worked in a docter's surgery for the past 3 summers, i know this. However, some mothers cannot, or choose not to breastfeed, and are perfectly entitled to do this.

[hr]

Ooh! A Monkey!

[Bryn]

Quoting themushroomgod from 17:18, 22nd Nov 2005
Normally I'm all for capitalist bashing, but Bryn: your arguments reek of bullshit. In fact, as soon as I got to the main page, I sniffed the air, and said to myself "I smell shite!"

I'm glad you took so much time to consider them

1) Nestle will be concerned with mother and baby wellfare - if they all died off, Nestle would have no baby powder market.

I guess if you take it to that extreme, then that's true. But I hardly think that's something they are considering, since it's particularly unlikely to happen.

2) I thought the thread was about ink in powder. Let's not drag Nestle's past crimes into it just yet.

Gees, sorry for looking at the big picture.

3)Mothers are already urged in the strongest possible terms to breast feed, in this country at least. Having worked in a docter's surgery for the past 3 summers, i know this. However, some mothers cannot, or choose not to breastfeed, and are perfectly entitled to do this.

In this country, yes, they are. Which is good. And sure, mothers are perfectly entitled to opt out. But the problem with Nestlé has always been their actions in third world countries, where the situation is slightly different. Sure, it may be a problem that the medical professionals out there don't have the means or sway to launch effictive breast-feeding campaigns, but surely it's illogical to blame them for Nestlé stepping in and pushing powdered milk on them?

[hr]

http://bryn.ipfox.com

[Ben Reilly]

Quoting themushroomgod from 17:18, 22nd Nov 2005
Normally I'm all for capitalist bashing, but Bryn: your arguments reek of bullshit. In fact, as soon as I got to the main page, I sniffed the air, and said to myself "I smell shite!"

1) Nestle will be concerned with mother and baby wellfare - if they all died off, Nestle would have no baby powder market.

You appear to have forgotten that babies, by their very nature, are consumers that are replaceable on a nine-month cycle...

[hr]

University of St Andrews Clothing - http://www.standrewsclothing.com

[ezra]

is the british medical journal impartial enough for you?

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/ ... 6/7381/113

oh, and note: higher infant mortality is correlated with higher birth rates (since mothers need to have more children in order to sustain a supporting family), so the demographic gets skewed towards the younger - *bottle feeding* - ages

[Dave the Explosive Newt]

Because the milk production by the mother's breast is sustained by the act of suckling, one can switch from breast milk to powdered milk, but not vice-versa. For the record, I do disagree with Nestle's unethical marketing of powdered milk in the third world - however I feel this particular case is a simple accident, and not an act of deliberate neglect. It mentions in the article that Nestle are recalling all potentially contaminated cartons of the product.

[hr]

Will Watson - half man, half beast. All awesome.

[flarewearer]

Ban such things as Coca Cola from the union? I mean if Nestlés practices are unethical and abhorrent to the liberal minds of the banning lot, how are they comfortable to stop there? Where's the campaign to ban all those other unethical products? Are those watching out for the union's ethics incapable of acting without having a bandwagon to clamber on and drive their campaign for them? I thought those sorts loved cutting people's freedom of choice in the name of some cause or another... Oh and while we're at it, ban alcohol as flogging that to people with all the trendy advertising and promos is surely unethical also.

[hr]

image:www.magnificentoctopus.com/x/elgar.png

[Senethro]

Thats it flayre, rage against the people who rage against the machine.

[ezra]

Flarewearer: Bristol has already done so. Cambridge has already done so (some Colleges, at least). Stop moaning and get a conscience, mate.

[David Bean]

Bryn, have you ever met a medic? They're all lunatics!

[hr]

I'm your Guardian Angel.

[Dave the Explosive Newt]

Oi.


[hr]

Will Watson - half man, half beast. All awesome.