Case Discussion #2:Nestlé – the Infant Formula Controversy
Case Discussion 2 – Nestle: The Infant Formula Controversy
In this particular case, the issue was that Nestle Alimentana, one of the world’s largest food-processing companies had been the subject of an international boycott as a result of the accusations that the company was directly or indirectly responsible for the death of Third World infants. The charges were based on the sale of infant feeding formula, which supposedly caused the mass deaths of babies in the Third World.
The charges primarily focus on whether or not the advertising and marketing of these products discouraged breast feeding among Third World mothers and led to misuse of the products. For example, many mothers in Peru used the water which came from a highly contaminated river to dilute the formula, which in turn resulted in formula-fed babies to come down with recurring attacks of diarrhea and vomiting. In some cases, mothers throughout the Third World fill bottles up with a small amount of formula and a large amount of water, depriving babies of nutrients, resulting in extreme malnutrition and in other cases, these mothers relied solely on the formula to feed their children for excessively long amounts of time.
Although many mothers in Third World countries misused the formula, Nestle argued that the company never supported the idea of replacing breast milk with formula, although it plays a vital role in proper infant nutrition as a supplement. The formula was also better in comparison to other supplemental feedings that were harmful to infants, including herbal teas, rice water, corn water and sweetened, condensed milk as these feedings can also be prepared with contaminated water and served in unsanitary conditions.
In this case, Nestle displayed negligence and did not fulfill their corporate social responsibility to the public. The company’s marketing practices were unclear, which led to the misconception that formula was a good way to replace breast milk and other forms of nutrition
In this particular case, the issue was that Nestle Alimentana, one of the world’s largest food-processing companies had been the subject of an international boycott as a result of the accusations that the company was directly or indirectly responsible for the death of Third World infants. The charges were based on the sale of infant feeding formula, which supposedly caused the mass deaths of babies in the Third World.
The charges primarily focus on whether or not the advertising and marketing of these products discouraged breast feeding among Third World mothers and led to misuse of the products. For example, many mothers in Peru used the water which came from a highly contaminated river to dilute the formula, which in turn resulted in formula-fed babies to come down with recurring attacks of diarrhea and vomiting. In some cases, mothers throughout the Third World fill bottles up with a small amount of formula and a large amount of water, depriving babies of nutrients, resulting in extreme malnutrition and in other cases, these mothers relied solely on the formula to feed their children for excessively long amounts of time.
Although many mothers in Third World countries misused the formula, Nestle argued that the company never supported the idea of replacing breast milk with formula, although it plays a vital role in proper infant nutrition as a supplement. The formula was also better in comparison to other supplemental feedings that were harmful to infants, including herbal teas, rice water, corn water and sweetened, condensed milk as these feedings can also be prepared with contaminated water and served in unsanitary conditions.
In this case, Nestle displayed negligence and did not fulfill their corporate social responsibility to the public. The company’s marketing practices were unclear, which led to the misconception that formula was a good way to replace breast milk and other forms of nutrition