unethical food company

[tracymort]

how is it that a certain company (famous for coffee, white chocolate and cereals) who have caused deaths of babies for the last century almost can still get away with it and that people still buy their stuff? we all sympathise and feel terrible when we see sick and poor children on tv yet give our money to a big company who cause this. i am confused how they have not been stopped.

[andy hughes]

It's a matter of prrof. Here, as anywhere in the public domain, you have to be very careful of what you accuse individuals, or more importanly, large and litigious multi-national companies, because without proof that will stand up against a barrage of highly expert highly paid legal defences, you can find yourself on the wrong end of a libel action. I do not know of the cases of which you speak, although I am equally keen to avoid naming the company, but if there is evidence, I am sure it will be investigated. Beware of the hysteria generated when a certain Fried Chicken outlet abbreviated its name, purely to disavow patrons of the notion that fried chicken was the sum total of its menu. The Net grew a massive conspiracy theory that the company was legally prevented from using the term 'chicken' because it was growing millions mutated birds with no feathers or beaks or claws, which turned out to be utter nonsense! Sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[RCP]

You should not always believe what you hear/read (especially on the mostly unregulated internet). Half truths & unsubstantiated rumours gain legs & the more they are re-told the more they gain credence as people hear the same thing from several sources so assume its veracity. It would be best to stick to information from credible organisations (such as Amnesty Int'l) before you form opinions which may be based on misinformation.

[tracymort]

its definately true - the national childbirth trust and many famous people like ricky tomlinson (refused to do an advert for them), mark thomas did a programme about them, rob newman boycotted their comedy wards, emma thompson, victoria wood.... all support the boycott against them. there is a good book called "the politics of breastfeeding" which pretty much lists what they have been up to. its quite shocking.

[Gef]

Shoot me down if I am wrong but I think the problem goes something like this. Accepted medical opinion is that 'breast is best'. However, for many (working?) mums this is not possible and so the baby is bottle fed This is not as good but no real problem in say UK and USA where water supplies and general hygene are generally safe and reliable. However, in many third world countries the water supply is not safe and sterilisation of bottles etc much more difficult. There is nothing basically wrong with the milk powder (it's just the same as in the UK) but the chances of infection through the water supply or non-sterilised bottles are much greater. It is the aggresive marketing policies of the company which are the target of the boycott not the product itself.

[Gef]

to tracyh - apologies but I didn't really answer your question in my last post. I suppose many people will not be aware of the boycott. Even those who are (including myself) can be very fickle - well one more jar won't make a difference. If everybody stopped buying all of the company's products then that would make a difference but it won't happen. Governments could make a difference by highlighting the problem but they won't for various reasons (job losses, MPs as company directors etc, etc.). What it really needs is high profile publicity whist avoiding possible litigation. Is there another Bob Geldof out there?