tead (03/21/83)
The story I heard from a Nestle boycotter was that the company was offering a month's free trial of the baby food, free. Of course many mothers accepted and during the month of little use, their breasts began to dry up. This effectively forced them to continue using the artificial food now at regular prices, which was an economic hardship. Has anyone else been told this story, or have evidence either way? STAN
mark (03/22/83)
As I heard it (this is nth-hand), there were two problems. (1) The formula was distributed in powdered form, to be mixed with water. But the local water was often unsafe, resulting in lots of sick and dead babies. (2) The instructions said how much water to add, but since the stuff was expensive, the mothers often diluted it too much, and not enough nourishment reached the babies. Same result. This is very unclear in my memory, so I might either have the problems wrong or be talking about another situation entirely. Hopefully someone else knows for sure.
minow (03/23/83)
There were a number of issues involved in the Nestle's boycott: 1. Formula samples were given to new mothers in hospitals by people dressed in nurses uniforms. After using the free sample for a few weeks, mothers could no longer nurse their infants: they must continue to use formula. Formula was marketed as the modern way to nurse and the mothers could easily get the idea that their children would grow up tall and strong just like the Europeans and Americans. 2. The formula was expensive and, for poor people, it was often the case that it would be over-diluted, consequently undernourshing the infant. 3. Mothers milk transmits a range of hormones, enzimes, and antibodies which are lacking in powdered formula. Thus, the infant may have to acquire immunity to the endemic diseases "the hard way". Martin Minow decvax!minow
knight (03/23/83)
To add another two cents on this issue: There were/are other (American) companies that engaged in the same objectionable aggressive promotion of infant formula. (Specific names escape me--it's been awhile since I was active.) These other companies have stopped the practice due to pressure from concerned stockholders. Nestle's has been singled out for a boycott because they are a foreign-owned company with stock unavailable for public purchase. Hence, boycott is the only way to have any effect on Nestle's policy. Steve Knight ihnp4!stolaf!knight (Apologies if this is inaccurate; this is what I remember from INFACT literature several years back.)