Monday, 28 June 2010

Neo-Nestle: Their Latest Sadistic Scam

A few years ago, a friend of mine linked me to a website which opened my eyes to the barbaric nature of Nestle. On reading, I was utterly horrified and vowed never to endorse the evil bastards again by giving them my money and I have stuck to this solidly (apart from one unintentional slip up in the form of a Fruit Pastel lolly which passed my unknowing lips).

This is what have as a suggested message for those trying to spread the word, like myself:

Take a minute to help stop Nestle's latest baby milk marketing scam.

You probably know about the Nestle boycott and the way Nestle pushes its baby milk around the world.

Nestle's latest global strategy is to promote its baby milk with the claim that it 'protects' babies, even though it knows babies fed on it are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. Nestle is claiming its baby milk aids brain and eye development and supports the immune system. It has added prominent, colourful logos to product labels in 120 countries, undermining the obligatory 'breastfeeding is best for babies' warnings that the boycott campaign helped to bring in. Nestle is also targeting health workers to promote its claims.

Nestle's claims do not stand up to scrutiny and break the international marketing standards introduced by the World Health Assembly.

According to UNICEF: "Improved breastfeeding practices and reduction of artificial feeding could save an estimated 1.5 million children a year". As UNICEF, the World Health Organisation, governments and health campaigners try to spread the message that breastfeeding protects babies, Nestle is using its massive resources to try to convince mothers and health workers that its baby milk 'protects'.

For further information and a message that takes ONE MINUTE to send to Nestlé, see:

I feel like this can sum up the facts in a perfectly concise and cohesive way, something which I cannot do due to the sheer amount of effing and blinding that gets regurgitated onto the screen in front of me. I am a tad hot-headed when it comes to Nestle.

I would like to say that I cannot believe that there are human beings in this world who could do such an evil and twisted thing. Human beings with mothers whom they cuddle and old love letters and embarrassing moments and secret indulgences and pictures of themselves with no front teeth and sports day awards and cinema stubs and favourite smells and unique blemishes and old frayed underwear that they refuse to throw out.

But in such a materialistic world where time is money, land is money, love is money, sex is money, kicking a ball in a pair of shorts is more money than I will probably earn in my entire life, everything is fucking mullah, of course some of us are going to abuse our positions in order to gain more of these heavenly pieces of paper. Even at the cost of several million babies. But how do they get away with it? If you killed a single baby, the justice system would make you pay. But what about if thousands of people all help to kill millions of infants. How is that different? Those poor, poor mothers. They have no idea. I feel restless and useless.

Please send this email - it is written for you, all you need to do is literally press send.


  1. I've emailed. How appalling. Good on you for publicizing this Chloe.

    Hope you're well x

  2. Enough digs about footballers salaries. I'm going to top myself if I read about that one more time today.

    Footballers get paid what they do because they're one of the few guys in the world who can do their sport as well as they do. No one's ever complained about Michael Schumacher's or Tiger Wood's salary (which is about $3.2 million a year). I reckon it's a class-snobbery issue if you ask me.

    Furthermore, you as a tax payer aren't forced to fund footballers salaries, yet you're forced to fund conservative businessmen/MPs (is there any difference?) who have estates worth many millions and yet the tax payer has to fund their cushy salary. Football players are at least funded by their clubs which are funded by their shareholders and fans.

    Okay, end-rant.

  3. Not sure where this came from; this is a blog about Nestle that has nothing to do with how overpaid footballers are. I mentioned their salary only in reference to the importance of money in our society. They get paid a lot. That is a fact, I was making no judgement.

    But now you mention it, I must say that I don't agree with you. You say they get paid due to how skilled they are. After the English performance, it's been proven that they do not perform to a standard worth their salary. So yes, they are horrifically overpaid. And British footballers get hundreds of thousands a week/month, so they earn more than 3 million a year. This is incomparable to Tiger Woods who is thought to be the best golfer in the world; he is exceptionally skilled. Unlike the English team, who proved themselves to be a complete sham.

  4. I know it's outdated now, Chloe, but I have to disagree about the footballers. What they get paid for England is irrelevant - when they get paid exorbitant sums, it is for their clubs, where they are clearly and demonstrably some of the best players in the world (Lampard, Gerrard, Rooney, Terry, Ashley Cole etc.). They perform to a consistently high standard in the Premiership week in, week out, and if anyone else could do the same or a better job for less, the clubs would snap them up in an instant. Their salaries are a reflection of the rarity of the skills required. This doesn't justify them, it is simply an explanation.

    As regards their England performances, if I were to take a bunch of amazing musicians from some great bands, with brilliant managers and agents, and shove them together, away from their bandmates with whom they have built a rapport, into a poorly run, rushed concert, and they performed badly, would you say that automatically made them bad musicians? That they didn't deserve respect or money for their performances with their proper bands, whom they spend all their time with?

    England's problems are manifold, footballers' salaries are absurd in comparison to nurses or teachers etc., and I won't derail this thread any further by going into it. But to dismiss the ability of every player in the England team on the basis of their poor performance for their country is simply poor judgement and counter to the facts.

  5. Once again, this blog really has no intention to step into the realm of the footballer pay debate; only when I was previously and randomly prompted did I share an opinion. I will continue to disagree with you Jimmy but what that has to do with the pressing matter at hand (Nestle), I do not know...

  6. Apologies, my dear, I was simply being a pedant. I also sent the email, if that's any consolation, and further apologies for derailing the conversation.