Nestle Essay

Nestle The Infant shape Incident Summary of Case and Results In response to a cusp entitled Nestle Kills Babies, published in 1974 by the Swiss consumer/ active comp both, Arbeitsgruppe Dritte Welt, Nestle Alimentana filed a four-count libel suit against members of the organization. The piece of land was a offprint of an earlier one entitled Bottled Babies, published by a connatural British group. Both alleged that false advertising had prompted mothers in LDCs to work infant rule instead of breast feeding, and consequently caused the deaths of thousands of children.However, the original pamphlet had not mentioned Nestle or any of the other companies by name, and thereof did not raise the issue of libel. Three of the charges, which Nestle subsequently withdrew, think to allegations made in the pamphlet about Nestles promotional methods in LDCs. The fourth charge, which led to a judgment against thirteen members of the group in June 1976, focused on the defamatory title Nest le Kills Babies. In his decision, the judge stated that the cause behind the injuries and deaths was not Nestles products rather, it was the unhygienic way they were prep atomic number 18d by end-users.Although Nestle won its eluding, the flyings victory was diluted by (1) having to pay one trinity of the court costs and (2) being told by the judge to change its merchandise methods to prevent further misuse of its products. The defendants were ordered to pay $120 to each one in damages to Nestle and two thirds of court costs. Suggestions Companies interchange consumable products (solid foods, beverages, pharmaceuticals) to LDCs require long recognized the contend to adapt their promotional techniques to their consumers who ar, by and large, poor and illiterate.In recent forms, one particular group of food producersthose firms making infant formula and other take out productshas come infra severe attack by various religious, consumer and governmental organizations. Crit icism focuses on two issues (1) that companies allegedly use false advertising to induce mothers to complete formula for their own milk, and (2) that firms atomic number 18 directly responsible when misuse of their products results in illness or death. The assault was dramatized in the recent Swiss case involving Nestle Alimentana.The responses of milk product manufacturers have ranged from writing corporate policies on LDC grocerying to organizing industry councils and holding meetings with pressure groups. But most significantly, companies have altered marketing practices in ways that other firms making consumable items should find instructive. These changes acknowledge Tightening up direct selling methods. A common practice is to have mother-craft nurses,local women who may be nurses, dietitians or midwivesvisit clinics and homes to encourage doctors and consumers to use infant formula.Critics charge that these women are very much unqualified to speak on nutrition and that t hey distort facts to make formula feeding more attractive than breast feeding. As a result, some(prenominal) firms instantaneously forbid representatives from discouraging breast feeding and demand that they go to clinics and homes only if invited or sent by a family doctor. Stressing nutritional training. Firms are improving the nutritional instruction given to representatives. In addition, promoters are providing consumers with educational presentations, including seminars, films and brochures.Such training not only combats misuse of products, but also benefits the manufacturer. For example, one corporation whose sales representatives in Indonesia conducted local demonstration on uses of a condensed-milk product found that the presentations accomplished several aims (1) alerted the representative to problems heap had in preparing and using the product, (2) served as a rough test market for the product and (3) helped to bolster the firms image. Controlling distributors promotio nal activities. Manufacturers selling milk products through distributors have often given them free rein in over local advertising.Some corporate executives worry about comme il faut too closely associated with distributors advertising, fearing possible liability for erroneous claims made by distributors. However, such liability would be difficult to avoid in any situation involving a companys trademarks and products. A few firms, recognizing this, are currently monitoring all new promotional campaigns of distributors. Curtailing mass media advertising. some(prenominal) corporations that formerly advertised infant formula on TV, radio, billboards and newspapers are now relying solely on sales representatives. Improving labeling and directions for use.Developing promotional/instructional materials to help low-literacy users. The International Council of Infant Food Industries, formed in 1975, is perusal ways to improve communication methods for use in areas of noble illiteracy. P ossibilities include cartoons, pictures, radio programs and even sound trucks. (Use of new informational materials would be subject to sycophancy of local authorities. ) Price of Social ResponsibilityFor some firms, the cost of maintaining ethical standards is high. One large food company actually closed muckle its milk-processing plant in Pakistan because pasteurization laws were not being enforced, and local firms selling unpasteurized milk were gaining a competitive edge. Additionally, the property of the firms product was tarnished by local consumers who frequently diluted the milk with dirty stream water to stretch it for their own use or for resale.In light of these problems, and otherssuch as the high cost of marketing and training, and the relatively low sales volumesome companies have contemplated withdrawing these products from LDC markets. However, the market probable for milk products in these countries is strong because of increasing populations and rising standa rds of living. In addition, the suppuration role of women in the labor force is creating a greater need for infant formulas. Thus, it appears that firms will remain in these markets.Every 30 seconds a baby dies from unsafe bottleful feeding, thats is approximately 1. 5 million babies a year, this is because formula milk companies provide free powder milk to mothers while in hospital in third world countries ensuring that babies are routinely bottle-fed and not breastfed. As a result babies gravel dependent on artificial milk. Despite the number of deaths formula milk companies continue to promote artificial feeding in ways that cave breastfeeding. Nestle made a profit of ? 2. 7 billion year 2007 from selling baby formula milk.In third world countries bottle feeding is dangerous due to unsafe water supplies and difficulties with keeping bottles sterile. be is also a problem, once out of hospital the milk is no longer free. Costing families up to 50% of their weekly income, due t o high costs, milk mixtures are over diluted and mothers buy cheaper, bad quality formula milk instead. This means the baby is inadequately fed take to malnutrition, diarrhea and often death. Formula milk companies make profit by exploiting vulnerable mothers.