Nestle's mixed messages / Take action on biofuels
2.Nestle's mixed messages
3.WE HAVE ALL BEEN HERE BEFORE
Nestle feeding the world on GMOs
4.Nestle and Ethiopia - insights from the baby milk campaign
NOTE: Items 3 and 4 relate to other controversies in which Peter Brabeck adn other Nestle execs have been involved.
EXTRACT: Mr. Brabeck's love-GM-food but hate-GM-corn [for ethanol] message is not hard to figure out. The big food companies would love to see more GM food crops.
If GM crops become ubiquitous .., the organic food companies that have eaten into their market might politely wither and die. At the same time, the end of GM crops used to make biofuels would free up millions of acres of land for food production. Prices would fall. Lower input costs would translate into higher profit margins for Nestle and its rivals. (item 2)
1.TAKE ACTION ON "BIOFUELS"
The EU is debating plans to expand "biofuels". Encourage MEPs to vote against biofuel targets and instead support an immediate EU moratorium on agrofuels, by signing this letter at
2.Nestle's mixed messages
Globe and Mail, 25 June 2008
The bosses of Nestle, the world's biggest packaged foods company (Gerber, Perrier, Stouffer's, Nescafe, LeanCuisine, Butterfinger), have always been masters, in their typically reserved Swiss-German manner, of saying little. Peter Brabeck-Letmathe has been the exception. He had strong opinions about food and the environment before he stepped down as CEO in April. Since then, as chairman, he has become even more vocal.
He's a complicated man, though, possibly reflecting the food giant's varied interests. Earlier this week, he urged the European Union to drop its opposition to genetically modified crops the EU has not approved a GM seed in a decade.
But Mr. Brabeck doesn't like all GM products. Most of the corn grown in the United States is GM, and fully one-third of that crop is devoted to biofuel production. In a comment piece carried earlier this month in the Wall Street Journal and other papers around the world, he said: “Biofuels are economic nonsense, ecologically useless and ethically indefensible.”
Strong language indeed. He doesn't buy the U.S. line, oft promoted by agriculture secretary Edward Schafer, that biofuel production has raised prices by only about 3 per cent (other estimates put the figure at 30 per cent or more). He doesn't buy the line that biofuel production is environmentally benign. He notes that the U.S. Department of Energy calculates that 10,000 litres of water are required to produce 5 litres of ethanol or 1 to 2 litres of biodiesel. “The biofuel madness is contributing to water shortages that are already endemic,” he wrote. “Great aquifers, whether in the Sahara or in the southwestern U.S., are being depleted rapidly. This is water that dates from thousands of years ago. Like oil, once gone, it is lost forever.”
Mr. Brabeck's love-GM-food but hate-GM-corn message is not hard to figure out. The big food companies would love to see more GM food crops. If GM crops become ubiquitous and are deemed ethically correct because they potentially raise yields in a suddenly food-short world, the organic food companies that have eaten into their market might politely wither and die. At the same time, the end of GM crops used to make biofuels would free up millions of acres of land for food production. Prices would fall. Lower input costs would translate into higher profit margins for Nestle and its rivals.
Whatever you think about Mr. Brabeck's GM food stance, there is no doubt he's on point when he says the prolific use of water is a global catastrophe in the making.
A few years ago, he said the idea of water as a basic human right was "extreme" it should have a market value like any food product. He has since modified his view somewhat. In a recent interview with the Swiss newspaper NZZ am Sonntag, he agreed that water was human right, but only to sustain life and for hygiene. "But water is not a human right if I use it to fill the swimming pool," he said.
Or, he might add, make ethanol to fill your SUV tank.
3.WE HAVE ALL BEEN HERE BEFORE
Nestle feeding the world on GMOs
NGIN (GM Watch), 13 September 2000 [extract]
Nestle the company which, through its unethical promotion of its baby milk formulas, has caused so much suffering in the developing world, is now giving us all lectures on how the poor are suffering through being deprived of GMOs!
Nestle executive vice-president Michael Garrett has told delegates at the Asia Pacific Economic Summit of the World Economic Forum in Melbourne that prolonged debate on the risks of biotechnology was inappropriate when millions of deaths could be prevented by much-needed new products. [September 13, 2000 - Nestle says poor suffer while GM foods debate rages
Mr Garrett said people were dying while well-fed activists in developed nations debated the finer points of genetically modified food. That's the kind of humanism we're used to from a company like Nestle...
Every 30 seconds a baby dies because it was not breastfed, but Nestle has been exposed time and time again for promoting breastmilk substitutes around the world in ways that totally violate the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and even Nestle's own charter on the subject, as well as for engaging in other forms of corporate deception to promote its interests. [see: http://www.babymilkaction.org/update/update27feature.html ]
This is what Syed Aamar Raza who worked for Nestle Milkpak as a Medical Delegate in Pakistan has said about the company's practices and how they violate even its own standards:
"I was confused when I read the 'Charter'. It said Nestlé does not give gifts to doctors, but we did this. My bosses signed the cheques.
It said we did not make direct contact with mothers, but we held baby shows and in clinics we used Cerelac samples as a way of striking up conversations to push the milks. The "Charter" says Nestle does not pay staff by incentives, but my salary revisions signed by Mr. Roland, Marketing Manager, includes incentives. Infant formula received the most points in the scheme. My bosses told me to do all
these things which the 'Charter' says we do not do."
Nestle has been shown to engage in such malpractice in pursuit of profit throughout both the developing and developed world [see: http://www.babymilkaction.org/ ]
4.Nestle and Ethiopia - insights from the baby milk campaign
NGIN, 9 January 2003
At the end of December there was a great deal of media coverage about Nestle's attempt to extract US$6 million dollars from the Ethiopian Government at a time when 11 million people are at risk of famine.
Baby Milk Action supports Oxfam's call for Nestle to reconsider its claim and at the very least limit it to the US$1.5 million offered by the Government.
In a briefing on our website (text included below) we examine the background to Nestle's claim and its attempt to manage the news as the story ran out of its control. The tactics and personalities are familiar from the baby milk campaign.
The famine continues, as does Nestle's claim against the Ethiopian government. Yet another reason to boycott Nestle.
See the on-line version for links to supporting documents - see
Nestlé and the Ethiopian Government -
How Nestle tried to rescue itself from yet another PR disaster
7th January 2003
2002 closed with Nestle being exposed by an Oxfam campaign for pursuing the Ethiopian Government for US$6 million as the country attempts to tackle a famine affecting 11 million people. Nestle has rejected US$1.5 million offered by the government following the nationalization of a company in 1975. Nestle did not even own the company at that time.
Following the Public Relations (PR) disaster, Nestle Chief Executive Officer, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, is attempting to distance Nestle's Swiss Headquarters from the scandalous lack of sensitivity for the people of Ethiopia and has pledged to donate the proceeds of its claim to famine relief efforts. Yet his attempt to extract Nestle from yet another round of critical headlines has exposed once again Nestle's contempt for the truth and appalling lack of business ethics. Here we describe how the story unfolded and Nestle's bungled attempts at news management.
The famine continues, as does Nestle's claim against the Government. Yet another reason for boycotting Nestle.
The long history of the negotiation
Oxfam launched its campaign for Nestle to accept the sum offered by the government with a press release and a demonstration at Nestle (UK) Headquarters in Croydon on 19th December 2002. However, negotiations between Nestle and the Ethiopian government had been going on for some time, with the World Bank acting as intermediaries, something Mr. Brabeck fails to mention when claiming the issue was sprung on an unsuspecting Nestle.
Following elections in 1995, the Ethiopian Government attempted to improve its relationship with international business and aimed to resolve the issue of compensation for rationalizations conducted under past regimes. Nestlé was contacted as the present owners of Schweisfurth Group, a German company which had been the major shareholder of the Ethiopian Livestock Development Company, nationalized in 1975.
Nestlé was offered the value of the initial shareholding, with compound interest of 6%. The basis of Nestlé's claim against the Ethiopian Government is that it wants the settlement valued in US dollars at the exchange rate in force at the time of the nationalization, as this gives it a far greater sum. (Why Nestlé should require payment in dollars rather than the Ethiopian currency is unclear - Nestlé operates in Ethiopia today and could presumably make use of the Ethiopian currency - the Birr - particularly as it claimed it would invest the money in Ethiopia. Nestlé's home country is Switzerland and its accounts are presented in Swiss Francs. The subsidiary more directly involved is German, operating in Euros. It appears that Nestlé is selecting a currency and a time to set the exchange rate to maximise its income).
Nestlé slammed in the headlines again
Nestlé is no stranger to headlines exposing its malpractice, be it relating to its aggressive marketing of breastmilk substitutes, union busting in developing countries, tax evasion or paying less than cost price for coffee beans. Faced with another scandal, it reacted in typical manner, claiming that it was doing nothing wrong, it was following the laws that are in place and its actions actually benefit the people it is accused of harming. In The Guardian on 19th December, a Nestlé spokesman claimed that pursuing the extra compensation was a "matter of principle" and stated:
"In the interest of continued flows of foreign direct investment which is critical for developing countries, it is highly desirable that conflicts are resolved according to international law and in a spirit of fairness,"
The bad headlines kept on coming and past spin came back to haunt Nestlé. Earlier in the year economics journalists at The Guardian published an article suggesting that the boycott should be called off after being fed untrue information by Nestlé (see Your Questions Answered). This article was used by Peter Brabeck-Letmathé at the 2001 shareholder meeting when Nestlé's baby food marketing malpractice again dominated proceedings. It is also used by Nestlé's Head of Corporate Affairs, Hilary Parsons, as she desperately tries to break support for the boycott at universities and amongst trade unions. The authors of that article returned to the issue on 21st December noting Mr. Brabeck's use of their earlier article:
"Nestlé's chief executive, Peter Brabeck, chose to project a blown-up copy of the article across the podium at the company's annual meeting, goading all the activists present. It was deeply embarrassing stuff..." And commenting on Nestlé's handling of the Ethiopian 'affair' as follows:
"Most importantly for Nestlé, this distasteful affair exposes blind incompetence at the top of the company. If its executives are not alive to the sensitivities and subtleties required to run a modern multinational, they need to be replaced. If Mr Brabeck wants a display for his next shareholder meeting, we'll happily forward our thoughts in PowerPoint format."
Swiss headquarters pours petrol on the flames
At times of crisis, Nestlé often dispatches its Communications Director, Francois Perroud. He is well known to the baby milk campaign. For example, in 1999 he succeeded in halting a German television programme about a Nestle whistleblower's exposé of Nestlé's malpractice in Pakistan, including evidence implicating staff at the highest level of bribing of doctors. Mr. Perroud claimed to have an "illegally obtained" tape recording of a telephone conversation implicating the whistleblower in attempting to blackmail the company. Despite repeated requests the tape has still not been released by Nestlé. The respected investigative programme, on air for 30 years, that had produced the investigation into Nestlé in Pakistan was axed shortly afterwards. (For more on this story see Update 27).
Mr. Perroud was interviewed on the BBC Today programme on 19th December 2002. Speaking on behalf of Nestlé Swiss Headquarters he attempted to justify the claim, stating that international laws must be respected as "I do believe it is in the interest of developing countries to have a continued flow of foreign direct investment... ".
He stated: "We are in a negotiation process that started in 19.."
Interviewer John Humphries interrupted to ask: "And you are going to get this money whether people starve as a result of it or not? That's the long and the short of it, right?"
FP: "That is not at all the case"
JH: "But it is. You are saying you won't accept US$1.5 million, you are demanding US$6 million and that's the end of it, isn't it?"
FP: "I can't quite understand your hostility."
JH: "But there are starving people in Ethiopia. That's where the hostility, as you put it, comes from."
FP: "If you let me finish my sentence I might point out that this negotiation process is long from being concluded and it would be totally presumptuous now to say what the outcome will be and if, as it happens, in many cases before there is an appeal by the Ethiopian authorities for help for the problems they are facing now, Nestlé will, as always, be ready to help and to help significantly."
Point of interest: Mr. Perroud demonstrated his flair for media management to a journalist from The Independent just a few days later when he described a report highlighting the impact of Nestlé's milk business in Pakistan in exacerbating rural poverty as "bovine excrement". See The Independent 22 December 2002.
Mr. Brabeck steps in - and supports the claim
Nestle was forced to hold an emergency meeting and Chief Executive Officer, Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, issued a statement, published on the Nestlé website on 23rd December 2002. Mr. Brabeck defends the claim and indicates that it will continue. He states:
"First, we do think it1s important for the long-term welfare of the people of Africa that their governments demonstrate a capacity to comply with international law, but we are not interested in taking money from the country of Ethiopia when it is in such a desperate state of human need.
"We will therefore devote any money received from this settlement to both public and private efforts to relieve hunger in Ethiopia. This will take the form of both short-term relief aid and longer term food security.
"As the Ethiopian government has already offered US$1.6 million, we will immediately make this sum available upon receipt for famine relief in Ethiopia. We will do the same with any additional sums resulting from a final settlement."
The final settlement may well be US$6 million, if Nestlé succeeds with setting the currency and exchange rate it wishes.
In the past Nestlé has had no qualms about threatening to disinvest from a country if it dislikes the stance taken by its politicians. When Zimbabwe was introducing regulations for the marketing of breastmilk substitutes in 1998, "[Nestlé] called a meeting...to try and tell Parliamentarians that if we went ahead with putting the Code into regulation they would remove themselves from Zimbabwe. We knew this to be an idle threat." Timothy Stamps, then Minister of Health, Zimbabwe in an interview with Mark Thomas (see Boycott News 26).
Nestlé and the Red Cross/Crescent
Mr. Brabeck's statement implies that any money obtained from its claim will be routed for famine relief via the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies:
"We have recently initiated inquiries with the representatives of the International Federation of the Red Cross/Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) as to how best to direct these funds (Nestlé has a relationship with the IFRC through being the founding corporate sponsor of the IFRC Africa Health Initiative, aimed at fighting HIV and other life-threatening diseases in Africa)."
We have been informed by the IFRC that no decision about such involvement has yet been taken. (For information on Nestlé's exploitation of the HIV crisis to promote infant formula, see the Campaign for Ethical Marketing).
Nestlé has a long history of invoking the name of the Red Cross/Crescent when faced with a Public Relations disaster. In 1999 the UK Advertising Standards Authority upheld all of Baby Milk Action's complaints against a Nestlé anti-boycott advertisement in which the company claimed to market infant formula "ethically and responsibly". PR experts Saatchi and Saatchi suggested that Nestlé should counter the bad publicity by advertising its contributions to charities, particularly those involving children. Shortly afterwards Nestlé donated £250,000 to the British Red Cross in a deal specifically linked to Nescafé, the principal target of the boycott, and later signed a substantial deal with the IFRC.
Marjorie Thompson of Saatchi and Saatchi explained the strategy in Marketing Week (11 February 1999), where she said: "You are building a surplus account for the times when you have a crisis."
While its use of the Red Cross name now and in the past may have benefited the company, the British Red Cross is widely viewed to have been harmed by its link with the company and has not renewed its deal with the company. The UK Charity Commissioners recently warned that charities should be extremely careful about how they link with commercial enterprises (see Update 32).
Nestlé and Oxfam
Mr. Brabeck was critical of Oxfam for publicising the company's activities in Ethiopia and attempted to distance himself from Mr. Perroud's knowledge of the negotiations, stating:
"Last Wednesday morning, our Nestlé United Kingdom headquarters was confronted by a surprise demonstration at its front door. The demonstrators charged that Nestlé was pressuring the Ethiopian government for US$6 million in compensation for a business owned by Nestlé Germany that had been seized by a previous regime in Ethiopia (we are one of many companies involved in the case). The point of the demonstration was that this was a heartless act at a time when Ethiopia, a very poor country, is in a state of famine.
"We in Switzerland were also taken by surprise, as the charges were simultaneously spread in a pre-planned media campaign before we were given any opportunity whatsoever to investigate and discuss the situation with the NGO involved. This made things especially difficult for us to respond immediately, as an external Ethiopian lawyer engaged by a small subsidiary of Nestlé Germany is handling the sporadic negotiations and with whom neither we in Switzerland nor in the UK have any direct contact."
It is ironic that while Mr. Brabeck goes on the offensive against Oxfam, Nestlé's Head of Corporate Affairs, Hilary Parsons, has claimed in presentations to students, attempting to convince them to drop their support for the Nestlé boycott, that Nestlé is working in partnership with Oxfam. Ms. Parsons misleading claim refers to her participation in a public meeting targeting the poor prices Nestlé and its competitors pay for coffee beans. Nestlé misuse of Oxfam's invitation to take part in the meeting reveals the need for extreme care in dealing with Nestlé management.
Mr. Brabeck's search for trust
Mention has been made in media reports of a booklet called "The Search for Trust", the text of a presentation Mr. Brabeck made at Oxford University, published with the University seal on the cover. The booklet does not mention that only 20 students where in the audience as the presentation was conducted in secrecy to avoid demonstrations. Mark Thomas, the comedian/investigative journalist, managed to gain access to the presentation and filmed the event for one of his television programmes on Nestlé baby food marketing malpractice.
At the time of the publication of "The Search for Trust" Baby Milk Action made 10 suggestions, which unfortunately Mr. Brabeck has yet to heed. See Boycott News 27.