Got Chocolate?

[Raymond Fries]

Interesting report on chocolate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQvEX2Xait4

It made me think about who is getting my money and who should be getting it. Maybe it is time for a brand change for me.

Thoughts and comments anyone?

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Raymond,

I have some serious doubt about the validity of that story.

One has to believe that the UN and it's children's organizations would keep this kind of story in front of the world daily if it was true.

Just because you find something on the internet makes it far from being truthful. The internet is the largest source of misinformation and lies in the world. There is no quality control for what you read on the internet.

[David Weaver]

I don't know about the validity of this story, but one of the originals (the baby formula issue) sticks in my mind any time I hear about the brand.

[Raymond Fries]

Ken,

I agree that there is alot of mis-information on the internet. But in this case, I believe it to be valid. There has been a law suit with Nestle from 2005 that was just re-opened for child labor on the ivory coast. Here is only one reference to it.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...ppeals-court-1

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Courts and media can be biased......until the lawsuit is settled, you are finding Nestle guilty until proven innocent?

Seems a little unfair and reactionary to me.

[Keith Outten]

I watched a show on the History Channel this morning about child labor that indicated there are over 250 million very young children working in the world today. There was also plenty of information concerning how horrible children were treated here in America during the early 1900's. When the first child protection act was passed it was overturned by the US Supreme Court and it was 22 years later before children were finally provided protection under the law which was in the mid 1920's.

Left to their own device big business has a track record of human abuse in America and indeed all over this planet. The Rockefeller and Carnegie dynasties owe a huge part of their acquired wealth and power from the abuse of children whom they paid almost nothing and worked in dangerous sweat shops. During the period children were not the only ones who were abused, adults also worked in sweat shops and paid less than the cost to feed themselves much less their families.

There is enough information to justify a legal suit against Nestle which has been shared publicly. The Courts will decide the outcome so I don't agree that Nestle is guilty at this point but they do deserve the chance to defend their business practices in court.
.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Keith,

If they are found guilty, then by all means they should pay the penalties!

However, in general, I think our society has become too cynical, to quick to publicly accuse and try socially in the media not only businesses but individuals before they are given their day in court. It's wrong for someone to accuse and suggest a business be financially kidnapped BEFORE they are found guilty of a crime. It's just as wrong for individuals to be tried in the court of public opinion before their day in court.

Beyond that, everyday there frivolous lawsuits are filed against corporations by individuals just trying to tap into those "deep pockets".

I can't help believe that if a corporation as large as Nestle was, indeed, that involved in forced child labor, humanitarian groups and the UN would keep it in the forefront of the news.

[Jason Roehl]

This story notwithstanding, I think we've probably gone too far in "protecting" children from work. Sure, low-to-no-pay sweatshops are horrendous--no argument there--but we've done so much to keep children from working, that I often see teenagers (and older young adults) who simply have no clue how to do many simple manual tasks, nor do they know how to complete a work day or job.

I guess I'm glad my folks both grew up on farms.

And, I agree with Ken--businesses get the legal shakedown far too often, along with the short end of the stick in the media by default.

[David Weaver]

IT doesn't appear that any of the accusations are actually in question, but more whether or not purchasers of the cocoa have any responsibility.

http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cn...r-battle-plan/

Nestle came up there. There is detail somewhere in there that says Ferrero (presume that's ferrero pan?) is committed to ending child slavery in cocoa production by 2020. So it's more a national problem than a company problem, and everyone buying cocoa from there has a similar stake in it? The UN has already opined on it, and has been doing so since the late 1990s at least.

It would seem the more relevant question is whose business is it to fix the problem? What kind of regulation exists on the ivory coast.

As for nestle, they've done worse things in the past, like encouraging mothers in africa in the 1970s (1980s?) to forgo breastfeeding their babies and advertising that feeding formula is healthier. When you read nestle's wiki, it appears that someone from the company managed to edit several of the criticisms because the last sentence will say something like (paraphrased) 'nestle advocates mothers breastfeed first'. Yeah, Ok, the criticism is about when they didn't, not what they're saying now.

There is a volume problem, though, too, in that any food company as large as nestle or pretty much anyone is going to have so much exposure in so many different markets that unsavory things are going to be done somewhere at some point - just by the volume of business that's done. When we get a list from critics or activists, it's never balanced. We have to read through all of it ourselves and make a decision.

[Frederick Skelly]

[QUOTE=
As for nestle, they've done worse things in the past, like encouraging mothers in africa in the 1970s (1980s?) to forgo breastfeeding their babies and advertising that feeding formula is healthier.

There is a volume problem, though, too, in that any food company as large as nestle or pretty much anyone is going to have so much exposure in so many different markets that unsavory things are going to be done somewhere at some point - just by the volume of business that's done. When we get a list from critics or activists, it's never balanced. We have to read through all of it ourselves and make a decision.[/QUOTE]

Well said.

+1

+1

[Ken Fitzgerald]

David,

Reading the article, it would appear that Nestle is the first major corporation to allow their chocolate supply chain to be mapped so that labor practices can be addressed in specific locations. It would also appear to me that the problem is the lack of labor laws and their enforcement within the individual countries involved and not anything in which Nestle was directly involved. The way I read that article, it's not the Nestle committed child labor violations but rather their suppliers in those other countries may have used forced child labor or slavery and whether or not Nestle should be held accountable.

If Wal-Mart buys products manufactured in other counties and a loss of business resulted in a loss of manufacturing jobs in this country, should the customers of Wal-Mart beheld responsible? Just asking? Nestle buys cocoa from suppliers who may be using child labor. We want to hold Nestle responsible for what happens. Should we be held responsible for shopping at Wal-Mart?

I am troubled by the ease at which companies and corporations are held to totally different standards than those to which the public holds themselves.


...........and as far as Nestlé's past.....even within the medical community there was argument for decades as to which was better.......formula or breastfeeding.......

[David Weaver]

David,

Reading the article, it would appear that Nestle is the first major corporation to allow their chocolate supply chain to be mapped so that labor practices can be addressed in specific locations. It would also appear to me that the problem is the lack of labor laws and their enforcement within the individual countries involved and not anything in which Nestle was directly involved. The way I read that article, it's not the Nestle committed child labor violations but rather their suppliers in those other countries may have used forced child labor or slavery and whether or not Nestle should be held accountable.

If Wal-Mart buys products manufactured in other counties and a loss of business resulted in a loss of manufacturing jobs in this country, should the customers of Wal-Mart beheld responsible? Just asking? Nestle buys cocoa from suppliers who may be using child labor. We want to hold Nestle responsible for what happens. Should we be held responsible for shopping at Wal-Mart?

I am troubled by the ease at which companies and corporations are held to totally different standards than those to which the public holds themselves.

As far as the formula incident, I don't think nestle's conduct was as neutral as a discussion between two physicians may have been 40 years ago. The wiki entry "nestle boycott" gives a pretty good discussion of the factors in it. Their behavior triggered Unicef and then WHA to introduce a code that regulated how you could market formula (as in it can't be marketed as a proper replacement or partial replacement for breast milk), and according to the cite, the Unicef was still presenting evidence for review that Nestle wasn't complying with the rules 19 years after they were implemented. No clue what they're doing now. It strikes me as they were in the wrong for quite a long time.
...........and as far as Nestlé's past.....even within the medical community there was argument for decades as to which was better.......formula or breastfeeding.......

Yeah, I don't really have a though yay or nay about whether or not I should boycott their chocolate, etc. it's naive to think that we can just take our ethics and practices and transpose them onto a third world country that may or may not have much ability to even regulate and say that those folks will be better off if we boycott. They may just go hungry instead.

The business model where we supposedly would have small companies going over there instead would definitely yield no significant change, as there may be a few like whole foods or trader joes that would insist on conditions being a certain way, but the bulk of the market would be like it is now with no customer being large enough to have any leverage to make changes that nestle, ferraro, etc, could make.

I saw a few more videos from that same "news" person and I don't like the way she presents things at all. It seems like a lot of it is almost like those automated blog posts that you see online where a bunch of words and "facts" are strung together, but they are either in the wrong context or lacking context so much so that they lack any meaning they would have originally had when they were printed or said. That kind of thing is devious.

[Rick Potter]

It isn't just food. Who actually assembled your I-Phone? Your Beany Baby? Your Persian/Turkish rug? Guess where the majority of girls (allowed to live) born to the lower Caste Indian families end up?

RP

[Jason Roehl]

I see a couple more points brought up here that are quite relevant--context and culture. I don't know about the Ivory Coast specifically, but my pastor has been doing mission work in Liberia for about 8 years (almost done with a month-long trip). Unemployment there is 80% (no typo--employment is about 20%). Granted, they endured two "civil wars" that ravaged the economy and infrastructure, but I suspect the underlying cultures are similar. Children are not treated well no matter where they are, so to say they're beaten if they don't perform the work doesn't give the whole picture--they'd probably be beaten at home for minor misbehavior if they weren't working. The fact that they have work, food and shelter may mean they're better off than if didn't have the work--because then they wouldn't have the food and shelter, either. Is it a GOOD situation? Not from our perspectives, but from theirs it may be better than most around them. And that doesn't mean nothing could be done to improve the situation.

[Raymond Fries]

I realize that this is a complicated issue and I try to be objective and not pass blame without good reason. In my opinion, this chocolate report is just another that plays the same tune as many others which cast shadows of doubt on Nestle and their business practices. They are a huge company with 275,000 employees and they own over 8,000 brands worldwide. Even if you want to boycott them, good luck. They own 70% of the world’s bottled water and a host of prepared food brands I am sure that will be familiar to you. They own names like Sara Lee, Banquet, Lean Cuisine, Stouffers, Tyson, Ore Ida, DiGiorno Pizza, Purina, Fancy Feast, and the list goes on and on.

They are a very aggressive company that is driven by increasing market share and making the most profit possible. This is the goal of most companies. I began to question them when I read about the Fryeburg lawsuit as can be read here: http://stopnestlewaters.org/2008/11/...ryeburg-me/293. Nestle sued the town because they felt their right to increase market share was greater than the town’s right to say no. Really?

Thinking about bottled water, there is the well they put in Pakistan. It lowered the water table so much that the locals are left with dirty water. You can read about it here: http://www.worldcrunch.com/poisoning...rands/c2s4503/

Is the media biased and trying to shed bad light on a fine company in good standing? Maybe, however when the global CEO of Nestle says that water is not a human right and it is a commodity that should be privatized it somehow seems to change the way you look at the media reports about Nestle. You can read about it here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-pri...-right/5332238


There is the infant formula issue that has already been mentioned.

Nestle was one of the leading organizations supporting the fight against Proposition 37. The proposition was to require food manufacturers to put GMO ingredients on the label. They won and manufactures can now include GMO food without telling you. Well I guess GMO foods are more cost effective to manufacture. I refuse to buy them based on lab studies that produced tumors in rats. Biased study?

I do not want to ramble on and on. Maybe you should do a google search on Nestle greed, read some of the many articles out there, and make your decision on how you view the company.