If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Ok but what's not consuming their products gonna do about the whole thing.
Boycotts, while good natured are pointless.
I do buy organic free range eggs, i buy free range meat if i can afford it, avoid products tested on animals and i try and buy a lot of my food from the local farmers market place (which is amazing!).
The World Health Organization estimates the overall combined risk of HIV transmission to be 20-35% if breastfed to 6 months of age (which, incidentally, is their advice even to HIV positive women). Read about it by downloading the document I linked to.
Nestle make like... 8000 products or something.
Here's one...
Have you actually bothered to look into it? For goodness' sake, in their response Nestle says it employs three people in that country.
Do you boycott Ford because of George Bush? I think you are directing your legitimate wrath at the wrong target.
Actually Ford donate to human rights charities according to my lecturer.
I also believe Nestle test the carcinogen level of some of its coffee on mice. I can't get behind an irresponsible company like that; regardless of how much they may (or may not) have cleaned up their act re: baby milk.
I'm by no means perfect when it comes to buying the "right things", but I think doing your best to avoid the products of Nestle (and friends) is a good way to go.
So... don't fill up at Esso stations... unless you're running literally on empty and in the middle of the desert.
It feels like Shell and BP are far more common than they used to be, whereas Esso are slowly disappearing.
Nestle violate advertising laws by misleading vulnerable and uneducated people.
They still work within Burma, they still try and supply their milk to women thereand do business (the link is down grr but I have this ).
If something worries UNICEF then isn't it important?
UNICEF may well have things to say about child health in the developing world (that is their job afterall), but your link provides no detail whatsoever. And you fail to back up your assertions about Myanmar.
ps Do you even know what the arguments against Fairtrade are?
Am still looking for a better link on Burma, I did have one.
As for arguements against fair trade... I think that perhaps some companies might realise the potential of money making from slapping a fair trade label on something and whilst the workers are treated better, allowed access to unions and better working conditions and pay, it's suspected that a lot of farmers may lose out on better wages because whilst farms and companies make money, not a great dealof it would be handed down to the workers.
As for example textiles and certain products there's the issue of ar miles on them if they can be made in the UK.
To name a few.
But that was all a long long time ago, and the people that still boycott Nestle for these reasons have just jumped on a populist bandwagon. They feel a bit better about themselves for their boycott but make absolutely no difference to Nestle. Not really. Fairtrade has quite rigorous rules for workers' rights and pay. And yes, companies like Percol, Clipper and CafeDirect make a lot of money, but that's business and you can't on the one hand demand third world development through trade and then expect that trade to be run on charity. It's not sustainable. The argument is that the inflated price or minimum guaranteed price set by the Fairtrade organisations actually increase the supply of the crop (in this case coffee) by providing an incentive for farmers of other crops to go into that market. The overall effect, therefore, is to decrease the global market price of the crop. In other words, we end up with an oversupply which has been artificially created by the price paid through Fairtrade. This oversupply would not happen in an open market.
It's a strong argument, but of course it falls down when you consider the subsidies provided by Western governments to native farmers (e.g. sugar) which distort the market even more.
Then again, if we argue that we should be buying more local produce, it's hard to support developing world farmers.
It's a complex issue and there's certainly a lot more to it than refusing to buy products from one particular company.
That and boycotts on a large enough scale do make changes, they shame companies and deprive them of a part of their market. Nothing is simple as far as ethical consumerism is concerned... Local produce is normally more environmentally friendly, but takes away trade from developing countries as you've said, if you buy Coca Cola or example you're supporting them assasinating union workers in South America, but then when you go out most bars serve Coca Cola and before Pepsico pulled out from funding Burma, you'd be fucked for a Jack and coke if you were that commited to ethical shopping.
When you look at it, with corrupt capitalism, if you arent a part of the problem, you are a part of the solution. They need you, not necissarily you specifically, but you do make up a part of a market, and you can influence your friends and such (though my pals generally ignore me on this)