Boycotting nestle

Foehammer2003 · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:27

badgermonkey said:
I boycott KFC having seen the video on www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com

(Think the link is safe)

Makes ya think... honestly found that quite horrific to watch, but then is it any different for other suppliers? Just that they dont get the same coverage that KFC do, i hope not as i dont wanna cut myself off from chicken entirely, but dont wanna feel guilty when tucking into my chicken supreme with lettuce and mayo either!

As for Nestlé cant we just educate the people affected? They are not like the chickens above, they actually have a say and choice in what happens to some extent. Sorry but as much as Nestlé is questionable in its actions, so is our inaction.

[DOD]Asprilla · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:28

penski said:
Because 99% of the time they could either do a lot more or they have fallen into the trend of anticapitalism which, going back to my earlier post, was thrust into the mainstream psyche by the launch of miss Klein's book.

I didn't assume, that's why I asked a question rather then making a statement. You didn't put your beliefs in context and I wanted clarification.

Your figure of 99% is an assumption though.

Even if it were true though it's still a good thing, means to an end and all that. If I refused to act on everything I was cynical about I'd probably be inert.

alexthecheese · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:32

Why is it against Nescafe in particular? What's that about? I've never liked the taste of Nescafe myself but I'm intrigued.

jpmonkey69 · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:32

Mr Joshua said:
I would but I'm too addicted to Gold Blend.

Try DoUwe Egberts continental gold/dark instead. Much nicer

Cuchulain · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:32

I'm losing track, can someone remind me who it's cool to boycott this week?

penski · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:32

Zinath said:
Take some more lithium and feel sorry for yourself some more.

No thanks. I've never felt sorry for myself; I'm ****ing awesome and life is fantastic.

Now run along, child.

*n

penski · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:35

[DOD]Asprilla said:
I didn't assume, that's why I asked a question rather then making a statement. You didn't put your beliefs in context and I wanted clarification.

Your second paragraph opened with "I doubt it", turning your question into a rhetorical one and a projection of a statement which made an assupmtion.

Your figure of 99% is an assumption though.

Based on personal experience. Nearly everyone I meet is boycotting this, that or the other for whatever reason but people who actually act out, protest or try to enact change? one in a hundred if not rarer.

*n

ChroniC · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:36

Chuckie and penski both have valid points.

Its just to hard in todays society to be helping a cause 100%, we are but so small on such a grand scale.
There is nothing wrong with trying, because at the end of the day if everyone held that attitude then they could be a force to recon with.
Its just to hard to escape.

Is it the thought that counts? If we all tried would it have an effect.

I personally dont think it works like that, we supposedly live in a democracy, i dont think we do, its a better place than some, but when has my government ever listened to me?

penski · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:38

$loth said:
And what is so damaging to the world about anticampitalism?

Nothing? If that's your bag, go for it - put all your energy into it and do sopmething

If you actually read my post as opposed to merely scanning over it, you would have noticed that I said.....

"The trend of anticapitalism."

See that word there? 'Trend'?

To reiterate as you might miss it again: The trend of anticapitalism.

Say what you will but it is fashionable amongst the phony-left to expunge on whichever 'cause' they read about last whilst going about their lives as if nothing had changed.

*n

Dave M · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:41

$loth said:
And what is so damaging to the world about anticampitalism?

Graham Norton must be taken off our airwaves, think of the children!

penski · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:41

Telescopi said:
Graham Norton must be taken off our airwaves, think of the children!

I love you.

*n

Jaap74 · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:44

perhaps Nestle giving out free powdered milk isn't the real problem ? how about millions of people breeding with absolutely no hope of feeding their children........... theres too many people in this world , particularly Africa.... perhaps use your energies to help with contraception programs for the Third World ?

alexakasloth · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:45

penski said:
I love you.

*n

I fully agree with you on this (about grahman norton, not the love part).

Una · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:47

Jaap74 said:
perhaps Nestle giving out free powdered milk isn't the real problem ? how about millions of people breeding with absolutely no hope of feeding their children........... theres too many people in this world , particularly Africa.... perhaps use your energies to help with contraception programs for the Third World ?

Breastfeeding also delays the return of fertility in most women, providing a natural contraceptive. This is important for women in developing countries who may not have access to alternative forms of contraception.

badgermonkey · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:48

Foehammer2003 said:
Makes ya think... honestly found that quite horrific to watch, but then is it any different for other suppliers? Just that they dont get the same coverage that KFC do, i hope not as i dont wanna cut myself off from chicken entirely, but dont wanna feel guilty when tucking into my chicken supreme with lettuce and mayo either!
.

My problem is that no matter the conditions, i still LIKE the food!

Having seen that i can boycott KFC, and even though i know it's pretty much the same for others (eg mcD) i haven't had the opportunity of seeing it guaranteed.

If that makes me a pretentious stuck up hypocrite, well fine that's your view penski... but personally I know of the ccompanies and dont like it, but aren't going to do anything about it because it doeesnt affect me. KFC though, seeing the film DID affect me. So am i a hypocrite or pretentious or scum in your eyes? Because having read some of your comments you certainly dont rate to highly in my eyes, and i dont care whether you give a **** about what i think or not.

Mr Mag00 · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:48

I refuse to indulge in the rhetoric spouted by pretentious, hypocritical little oiks who whinge about Nike, Nestle, P&G et cetera whilst simultaneously reaping the benefits of their commercial indulgences, sipping their coffee, reading the Guardian, professing that they care so much about so many causes (after all, they filled out that anti-Starbucks petition online didn't they?) and heaving neither the wherewithall nor the testicular fortitude to actually do something for the causes they purport to support.

perhaps you should go and meet some people who are actually doing something about it.
Well i'm glad i dont fall into the catergories and labeling you so broad brush strokingly gather them all in to in your postings. and there is nobody more pretentious than those who post with large words attempting to go over the heads of other posters.

jimmyjimmyo · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:53

Jaap74 said:
perhaps Nestle giving out free powdered milk isn't the real problem ? how about millions of people breeding with absolutely no hope of feeding their children........... theres too many people in this world , particularly Africa.... perhaps use your energies to help with contraception programs for the Third World ?

Exactly, Aids is only an epidemic because infected people lack either the education or ability to realise that running around banging anything that moves without due care will spread the condition.

kitten_caboodle · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:57

[DOD]Asprilla said:
Also, isn't there a very strong chance that if the mother has AIDS then the baby is going to have it anyway?

I know that transmission during pregnacy isn't 100% and that infant immune system does a much better job of fighting AIDS that in adults but I'd love to see the statistical evidence to support baby powder preventing AIDS infection.

The transmission of HIV from a mother to her baby depends on many factors, such as the viral load in the mother’s blood at the time of pregnancy (or breastfeeding).

Viral load is very high (and the CD4 count low) shortly after infection (during the acute phase) and again in the final stage of AIDS.

A pregnant woman is more likely to transmit the virus to her foetus during pregnancy if she becomes infected just before or during pregnancy (when she is in the acute phase), or if she has Aids (final stage).

The viral load in breastmilk is also higher in these phases. HIV can also transmit easier to a baby through breastfeeding if the mother’s nipples are cracked, or if the baby has oral thrush.

In cases like these, the World Health Organisation still recommends breastfeeding to prevent babies from dying from gastro-enteritis and malnutrition.

However, if the mother has access to formula milk and clean water, she should rather be advised to bottle-feed her baby.

looks like it's dependent on the situation.

kitten_caboodle · 22 Sep 2006 at 16:00

jimmyjimmyo said:
Exactly, Aids is only an epidemic because infected people lack either the education or ability to realise that running around banging anything that moves without due care will spread the condition.

Yeah lets completely ignore:

* sharing needles and/or syringes (primarily for drug injection) with someone who is infected,
* through transfusions of infected blood or blood clotting factors.
* Babies born to HIV-infected women may become infected before or during birth or through breast-feeding after birth.
* health workers who have been infected with HIV after being stuck with needles containing HIV-infected blood or,
* health workers after infected blood gets into a worker’s open cut or a mucous membrane (for example, the eyes or inside of the nose)
* rape victims

Mr Mag00 · 22 Sep 2006 at 16:09

Yes AIDS is a problem but this thread is actually about Nestle and the fact is they actively promoted formula milk to the third world countries as the western worlds milk formula market was saturated. Especially African nations and the fact that they deliberately handed out freebies encouraging mothers to abandon breast feeding, which, fact gives many micro nutrients and anti bodies to babies which cannot be gotten from formula. Once the mother has stopped lactating they are then hooked into formula until the baby weans. Some people find this an atrocious marketing move and wish to boycott it.

Part of the probelm in Africa is they honestly believe that having sex with virgins and the younger the better will prevent or cure AIDS thus accelerating the problem.