25. The Formula (Nestlé Boycott of 1977)

Support for swindled comes from Simply Safe.

For the longest time, I thought home security meant an alarm going off after someone broke in.

But if the alarm is already blaring, it's too late.

The damage is done.

That's a reactive approach, and it leaves you with that awful feeling of violation, even if the intruder runs away.

That's why I switched to Simply Safe.

They've completely changed the game with Active Guard outdoor protection.

designed to stop crime before it starts.

Their smart, AI-powered cameras don't just detect motion.

They can tell you when there's a person lurking on your property.

That instantly alerts SimplySafe's professional monitoring agents in real time.

And here's the game changer.

The agents can actually intervene while the intruder is still outside.

Talk to them through two-way audio, hit them with a loud siren and spotlight.

and call 911 if needed.

It's proactive security, and that's real security.

I trust SimplySafe because there are no long-term contracts, no hidden fees, and a 60-day money-back guarantee.

They've been named the best home security systems by U.S.

News and World Report for five years in a row, and I can see why.

Get 50% off your new SimplySafe system at simplysafe.com/slash swindled.

That's 50% off your new SimplySafe system by visiting simplysafe.com/slash swindled.

There's no safe like SimplySafe

for a limited time at McDonald's, get a Big Mac extra-value meal for $8.

That means two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun, and medium fries, and a drink.

We may need to change that jingle.

Prices and participation may vary.

High up on the desolate plateau of northwestern China, 20 families live in this remote village in earthen caves.

It's isolated, but not insulated from the outside world.

Liu Ling wanted the best for her first baby, a son.

So she purchased the San Lu Milk Powder, a national brand of fancy product for this poor household.

It was all her son Xu Chen Chen ever drank for eight months until he died.

Doctors in China were perplexed as to why there was a sudden increase of sick infants during the winter months of late 2006, early 2007.

Emergency rooms across the country were filled with worried mothers and fathers and their young children who were howling in pain.

All of the children had similar kidney-related ailments.

Their stomachs were extremely bloated and many of them had developed kidney stones and were urinating blood that was thick and granulated like sand and water.

And not only were their conditions painful, they were potentially fatal.

From discussions with the parents, doctors learned that all of the sick children had one thing in common.

All of the children had been formula-fed from an early age.

Hospital personnel obtained samples of the baby formulas from the parents and immediately alerted San Liu, one of China's largest and most trusted dairy companies, about the situation.

But San Liu did not investigate the matter until May 2008, six months after the initial complaints.

Tests revealed that the baby milk being consumed by infants all over China had been contaminated with an industrial chemical called melamine.

Melamine is typically used to manufacture plastics and fertilizer.

It has no approved use as an ingredient in any food meant for consumption by humans or animals.

Needless to say, melamine should not be an ingredient in a baby's milk.

But when it is, melamine can disguise milk that has been diluted.

Melamine's high concentration of nitrogen makes the protein levels of milk look normal in quality tests when, in reality, the milk has been completely watered down.

And milk is watered down when dairy farmers are trying to stretch their inventories and fatten their profit margins.

In small amounts, melamine is actually not harmful to humans.

However, Sanlu found that its milk contained more than 4,000 times the tolerable daily intake of the chemical.

The company began quietly recalling most of its products, and they notified the Chinese government about its findings, and again, nothing happened.

No national emergency.

No public announcement.

Nothing.

The Chinese government did not want to make a fuss over a bunch of sick and dying babies, because at the time, officials were very concerned about the country's image on the world stage.

In less than a month, Beijing would be hosting the Summer Olympics, so the Chinese government did what the Chinese government does best.

They concealed the problem and controlled the media.

Until September 2008.

That's when a New Zealand company by the name of Fonterra, who had partnered with Sanlu in 2005 to break into the Chinese market, became aware of the situation and contacted the Chinese government, who pretended pretended like it was their first time hearing about it.

But now that the secret was out, Chinese officials had to take action.

A massive baby formula recall is rocking China this morning.

Contaminated milk powder has claimed at least one baby's life.

The cause is familiar to US consumers.

The cause was familiar to US consumers because less than a year earlier, this had happened.

More than 300 dogs and cats died in the US and Canada after eating contaminated pet food.

Companies recalled thousands of kinds of pet food and treats that had been imported from China.

Melamine-tainted wheat gluten and rice protein used in the manufacturing of pet foods had made its way to the States and into the homes of loving pet owners.

Over 60 million containers of 180 different brands of pet food and treats were removed from the shelves in what became the largest pet food recall in U.S.

history.

In fact, the only reason China began testing its food products for melamine was because of the pet food recall.

Although the Americans had been mostly spared from this latest Chinese milk scare, the rest of the world were taking precautions.

Dairy products from 22 Chinese companies were recalled since many of them shared the same supplier.

And instead of disposing of those recalled products properly, In China, some of the dairy products recalled for melamine testing are not being destroyed.

A portion of them are being sold to university students.

That's right.

Students were voluntarily buying the tainted dairy products at half price just to save a few bucks.

The Chinese milk scandal now goes beyond China and it goes beyond milk.

In Taiwan, soup and canned coffee are coming off the shelves.

In Japan, five cake products have been dumped.

In Singapore, it's candies that tested positive for melamine from the Chinese milk used as an ingredient.

The Swiss giant Nestle says it is confident in its milk products, despite Hong Kong authorities reporting that one of its products tested positive for a small amount of melamine.

In total, six children died from being exposed to the tainted milk.

Another 300,000 children, 80% of whom were younger than two years old, had been affected.

Many of them were treated at home and recovered fully in the following years, but at least 13,000 children had been admitted to the hospital.

many of whom would never be able to live normal lives.

Children like Ren Chin, who was now 13 years old.

Chin had consumed the milk when he was a baby, and at three years old, his kidneys had become riddled with kidney stones.

He underwent multiple operations to alleviate the situation and has required two additional operations since then.

Even now, Rin Chin requires dialysis three times a week.

He's in so much constant pain that on multiple occasions, he has reportedly asked his mother, quote, Why did you bring me into the world just to suffer?

The melamine contamination was eventually traced back to two men.

One man, a salesman, had produced, distributed, and sold over 600 tons of melamine-laced protein powder to dairy farmers.

And a second man, one of those dairy farmers, used the powder to dilute and sell more than 900 tons of milk to larger dairy companies like San Lu, whose quality testers accepted bribes to look the other way.

The two men claimed that the rising cost of feed, fuel, and labor, along with demanding production schedules, had forced them to to maximize their profit until safety became secondary.

An unfortunate side effect of China's new and improved capitalistic economic machine, a machine that had no intention of slowing down.

It's an enormous blight on China's record as a quality manufacturer of food and a quality manufacturer in general.

The government needs to take it very, very seriously.

The Chinese government had every intention of taking it seriously.

They needed to send a message to its own people and to the the rest of the world that incidents of this nature would not be tolerated.

China has executed these two men for their roles in a tainted milk scandal that killed at least six children and sickened more than 300,000 others.

In November 2009, the two men responsible for the milk scandal were executed less than a year after their convictions, even after one of the men fell to his knees in court and begged for forgiveness.

The chairwoman of San Liu was sentenced to life in prison for failing to stop the production and sale of the milk.

Three other managers at San Lu, one of whom was bound to a wheelchair after a failed suicide attempt, were sentenced to 5 to 15 years in prison.

Sanlu, the company itself, was fined the equivalent of 7 million US dollars and was declared bankrupt and shut down.

The Chinese government further demonstrated its seriousness by passing the food safety law, which prohibits unauthorized food additives, And it forced the 22 companies that were part of the Dairy Recall to create a fund to compensate the victims' families.

Although that fund only contained about $97 million,

which, when split between hundreds of thousands of families, is not nearly enough to cover a lifetime of care.

And on top of that, victims are only entitled to that pittance if they are recognized as victims.

Many families have reported being denied compensation because they cannot provide medical records that specifically list melamine as the cause of illness.

Parents and activists that have protested this injustice have been arrested and detained.

They have been followed and monitored by government security agencies.

Their internet forum and blog posts have been censored.

They have been silenced, essentially, by a government that has taken every measure not to upset consumer confidence.

In fact, it was revealed that in 2006, almost two years before the milk recall, the Chinese government ignored a report by by an operator of a dairy company who claimed that dairy farms were introducing dangerous chemicals into their milk products.

Presumably, the government had failed to act on that tip for the same reasons it had ignored all of the other warnings.

Massive health emergencies aren't good for business, and neither are whistleblowers.

The man who first alerted authorities to what would become the melamine-tainted milk scandal has been murdered.

Jiang Wei Suo, 44, was attacked by an unidentified man in Xiang City two weeks ago.

On Friday, he passed away from his womb.

Three years after the scandal, before it became public knowledge that someone had alerted the government about the situation years before it happened, before everyone realized the entire situation could have been avoided if the government had just acted timely and appropriately, and before the whistleblower could say another word, That whistleblower was stabbed to death in his home in front of multiple witnesses, including his wife.

No arrests have ever been made.

And despite the new regulations and the harsh sentences and the bloody murders, China continues to struggle with quality control.

Toy giant Mattel is recalling about 9 million Chinese-made toys.

Some have small magnets that children can swallow.

Others have lead paint, a health risk.

26 tons of melamine-tainted milk were seized in Chongqing just last week.

And last month, 16 Chinese government officials were charged with breach of duty in a case involving China's biggest producer of pork products.

Pigs were reported of being given an illegal supplement designed to make the meat leaner.

Its effects on humans include dizziness, nausea, and heart palpitations.

In this week's second toxic food report following pesticide-coated apples from the orchards of Yantai City, Inner Mongolia Yili Industrial Group company found unusually high levels of mercury in its baby formula.

And that's not even half of it.

Since the baby milk scandal of 2008, Chinese consumers are still wary of Chinese farmed milk, instead opting for Australian and European imports.

Some Chinese parents even fly overseas to buy out entire store inventories of baby milk products, an admirable and mild inconvenience for a healthy baby.

But still, how much safer is it, really?

French dairy group Black Talis, which is at the center of a baby milk scandal, says some of its products may have been tainted for over more than a decade.

We are all doomed.

But the real question is: why are so many children with healthy mothers capable of breastfeeding being bottle-fed in the first place?

The answer to that question is marketing.

One company's marketing, in particular, Nestle, the largest food and beverage company in the world.

A company that critics and environmentalists have labeled the most evil company in the world.

And this story is just one of the reasons why.

An international boycott ensues after a multinational corporation is accused of contributing to the deaths of millions of infants around the world on this episode of Swindled.

They bribed government officials to find accounting for clear violations of

state law and earlier they don't have the goal pay to plagiarism.

Support for Swindled comes from Simply Safe.

For the longest time, I thought home security meant an alarm going off after someone broke in.

But if the alarm is already blaring, it's too late.

The damage is done.

That's a reactive approach.

And it leaves you with that awful feeling of violation, even if the intruder runs away.

That's why I switched to SimplySafe.

They've completely changed the game with Active Guard outdoor protection designed to stop crime before it starts.

Their smart, AI-powered cameras don't just detect motion.

They can tell you when there's a person lurking on your property.

That instantly alerts SimplySafe's professional monitoring agents in real time.

And here's the game changer.

The agents can actually intervene while the intruder is still outside.

Talk to them through two-way audio, hit them with a loud siren and spotlight, and call 911 if needed.

It's proactive security, and that's real security.

I trust SimplySafe because there are no long-term contracts, no hidden fees, and a 60-day money-back guarantee.

They've been named best home security systems by U.S.

News and World Report for five years in a row, and I can see why.

Get 50% off your new SimplySafe system at simplysafe.com slash swindled.

That's 50% off your new SimplySafe system by visiting simplysafe.com slash swindled.

There's no safe like SimplySafe.

A dream come true after all the months of waiting.

Your baby, all yours.

So tiny, so helpless, so dependent on you.

To feel happy and secure, your baby needs you and the love you give him.

To be healthy, he needs the right kind of milk.

50 million babies have thrived happily on this form of milk.

Doctors know it is safe, easy for babies to digest, and of course fortified with vitamin D, the sunshine vitamin.

In 1867, a Swiss chemist named Henri Nestle created a nutritious food alternative for infants that could be used in cases where the mother was unable to breastfeed.

Nestle combined cow's milk, wheat flour, and sugar into an easily consumable formula and offered it to the world in hopes of decreasing the infant mortality rate.

Modern versions of Nestle's formula still include the cow's milk, but it's purified and the fat is removed and replaced with fat from vegetable oils, which is more easily digestible.

Vitamins and minerals and lactose are added, as are other ingredients depending on the manufacturer, and the concoction is solidified into a powdered form.

When purchased, the parent or caretaker could just add water to the mix, shake, and then feed it to a hungry infant.

By 1873, more than half a million boxes of Nestle's infant formula were being sold around the world every year.

It was the first commercially available product of its kind, but it did not take long for other companies to recognize the burgeoning market and introduce competition.

But Nestle has always held onto the largest share of the market.

And as that market continued to expand over the next 150 years, so too did the Nestle Company.

Today, with more than 400 factories worldwide and 2,000 brands under its umbrella, Nestle is considered the largest food company in the world.

In the post-war baby boom of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, as more women in the Western world were allowed to leave their houses to explore higher aspirations in life rather than just existing as Mrs.

John Smith, formula feeding became a popular supplement for the busy woman.

which was great, because women in the West could afford to buy it.

And while breast milk is unanimously considered to be the superior diet for babies, under certain conditions, the formula was a perfectly acceptable alternative.

Unfortunately, there are many places in the world where those certain conditions just don't exist.

But that did not stop Nestle and other baby milk companies from aggressively promoting their products in those places.

And it wasn't until the 1970s that the disastrous effects of that aggressive promotion would be revealed.

In 1974, a British non-governmental organization called the War on Want published a damning report titled The Baby Killer.

The report singled out Nestle's marketing tactics of infant formula in developing nations like Asia, Africa, and Latin America as a major contributing factor in the widespread malnutrition, illness, and death of infants in poverty-stricken communities.

Although the report contends that Nestle was not the the only company using these tactics, they were the largest and most egregious offender.

Nestle's advertisements for baby milk in places like Nigeria and Jamaica and other impoverished nations insinuated that formula fed babies would grow up to be healthier, happier, and stronger than their breastfed counterparts.

A blatant falsehood.

And unlike breast milk, the milk formula was not free.

In fact, it was quite expensive, and still is, especially for a family living on $7 US dollars a week, which is what the average Jamaican family earned at the time.

Some families were reportedly spending half of their entire incomes on feeding their newborns.

So many of those families found a way to save a little money by making the formula stretch a little further by diluting it with water, just like the more thrifty among us sometimes do with hand soap or laundry detergent.

In an article published by the New York Times, one Jamaican mother claimed that not only was she feeding two babies with the contents of one canister of formula, she was watering it down so much that it could provide three times as many servings than recommended.

And according to War on Want, this was a common and widespread practice in the third world.

When promoting the product, Nestle did not consider these families' long-term ability to afford the formula.

Its only focus was sucking every dime out of these communities, leaving it high and dry.

like it was a finite reservoir of water that could be bottled and sold.

We'll get to that later.

Children who were fed the diluted formula were not receiving nearly enough nutrients, which was leading to severe malnutrition.

Dr.

Alan Jackson, who operated a clinic in Kingston, Jamaica, recalled one mother who brought her two youngest children in to see him.

The woman's 18-month-old daughter weighed only 8 pounds, less than half of what an average girl at that age should typically weigh.

The woman's 4-month-old son only weighed 5 pounds, two less than he weighed at birth, and he had a big, bloated belly.

Both of them had been fed the diluted formula since the day they were born.

The woman's ten older children had been breastfed, and they grew up healthy and happy.

Compounding the problem was the water used to dilute the formula.

Many of those poor families did not have access to clean water.

Instead, they would tap into the communal, often unsanitary sources of water that sometimes doubled as the communal toilet to mix it with the baby's food.

With limited fuel to boil the water, no other tools for sterilization, and no refrigeration in a tropical climate, the trifecta was complete and the gates of bacterial hell would open.

In addition, all of the immunological protections inherent to breast milk are non-existent in formulas.

Essential antibodies that have been developed over millions of years of evolution that are passed from mother to child through breastfeeding can help stave off a bacterial onslaught.

Without those antibodies, children become much more susceptible to illness and disease.

Diarrhea, dehydration, and malnutrition is a deadly combination.

One doctor described caring for children whose bodies had, quote, wasted away until all that is left is a big head on top of the shriveled body of an old man.

And it wasn't just one child that died like this.

It wasn't just 50 or 100 or even 1,000.

According to the War on Once report, an estimated 1 million children were dying from conditions related to formula feeding every year, and had been for decades.

Their graves were often marked with empty cans of milk formula and discarded baby bottles.

In its report, War on Want accused Nestle of undermining a bodily function to create consumers for a need that did not exist.

The company's promotional materials often labeled breastfeeding as complicated and prone to failure.

In Africa, Nestle actually advertised its infant formula with the tagline, when breast milk fails.

Nestle played into the fears of these poor insecure mothers because it knew that fear and anxiety could actually stop lactation.

Nestle's marketing made these women so concerned about producing enough milk naturally that they would dry up as a result and not be able to produce enough milk naturally, thus creating a need for its product.

And again, Nestle wasn't alone.

Another formula product from a different company was advertised in the Congo with the help of a radio jingle.

The lyrics were, quote, the child is going to die because the mother's breast has given out.

Mama, oh mama, the child cries.

If you want your child to get well, give it clean milk.

Very catchy.

Nestle also played on the hopes and dreams of the third world mothers.

Waron wanted accused the company of performing a, quote, confidence trick on the poor by convincing women that not only would their babies be inferior without the formula, so would the mothers themselves.

Formula feeding had become symbolic for upward mobility, a representation of Western, urbanized society, the life that many women in impoverished nations were longing for.

Milk companies campaigned on the idea that breastfeeding was beneath a sophisticated woman, that it would make your breasts sag and make you ugly, that it was something that only peasants relied on, that it was not something a white woman would ever do, as evidenced by the white baby on the package.

As one World Health Organization nutrition specialist put it, quote, the massive propaganda of the milk companies is particularly effective in poor sectors of the population.

The milk companies are creating a magic belief in the white man's milk powder.

And once the formula feeding started, it was difficult to stop.

By the time the first can was empty, the mother's body had usually taken a hint and stopped producing milk.

And it was almost impossible to start again because the mothers themselves were also malnourished.

And the only reason the formula feeding started in the first place is because every mother was given a free sample pack containing formula and a bottle to take home when they were discharged from the hospital.

This was one of the most important marketing tactics employed by Nestle because they knew that 93% of the babies who left the hospital with their product would remain brand loyal.

Well, until they died of malnutrition, of course.

And free samples weren't the only thing Nestle was providing.

One of our investigators just wrote me from the Dominican Republic a few weeks ago, about a month ago, actually, where she was investigating the problem.

And right across the hall from the rehydration ward, which is where they bring back the sick babies, there was a classroom.

And outside the classroom was a little bronze plaque, and it said classroom donated by Nestle.

And inside, there were lots of posters, there was formula displayed, et cetera.

Nestle and almost all of its competitors spent untold millions of dollars on office space and furnishings, plane tickets, hotel rooms, conferences, and more for doctors and other medical professionals.

Many of the baby milk companies even offered free architectural services to hospitals for the design and renovation of their maternity facilities.

Most of the facilities designed by milk companies contained layouts that physically separated mothers from their newborns.

And instead of transporting the baby back and forth over long distances to the mother for feeding, nurses would conveniently administer the formula that had been so lovingly and unselfishly donated by the milk companies.

As for the babies and mothers who weren't hooked on the formula before they left the hospital, Nestle and others employed thousands of sales girls dressed in nurses' outfits to visit the new mothers at their homes to deliver samples and free bottles.

They would knock on every door that had a cloth diaper hanging on the clothesline.

After War on Once's baby killer report was published in the UK in 1974, the Byrne Third World Action Group translated the report for publication in Switzerland and retitled it to simply, Nestle Kills Babies.

Nestle had denied that their marketing had influenced the misuse of its products.

The company pointed out that the instructions on how to use the product were printed on the container, completely disregarding the fact that over half of the mothers in the Third World were illiterate.

After the publication of the translated report, Nestle refused to meet face to face with its critics and sued the publishers for libel.

And even though the judge would side with Nestle over the publication's title, it was actually a moral victory for the activists.

The judge slapped Byrne Third World Action Group with a minimum fine of $400 and strongly encouraged Nestle to, quote, modify its publicity methods fundamentally.

Even worse for Nestle, The two-year libel case and all of the bad publicity that came with it only attracted more attention to the company's behavior.

And right when the trial ended in 1977, social rights groups and religious organizations banded together to boycott all Nestle products.

The boycott, which launched in Minneapolis, Minnesota by the Infant Formula Action Coalition, soon spread to Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.

France, Finland, and Norway would soon follow.

The boycotters were demanding that Nestle cease all promotion of infant formulas in developing nations, including the use of the saleswomen disguised as nurses.

They demanded that Nestle cease the distribution of free samples and supplies.

And finally, they demanded that Nestle end its promotion to health professionals and institutions.

Support for Swindled comes from Quince.

Kohler temps are rolling in.

And as always, Quince is where I'm turning to for false staples that actually last.

From cashmere to denim to boots, the quality holds up.

and the price still blows me away.

Quince has the kind of fall essentials you'll wear on repeat.

Their 100% Mongolian cashmere sweaters are unbelievably soft and started just $60.

Their denim, durable, fits exactly how it should.

And I've been living in their leather jacket.

It's got that clean, classic look, but without the inflated price tag.

What makes Quince different is simple.

They partner directly with ethical factories and cut out the middleman.

So you get top-tier fabrics and craftsmanship at half the price of similar brands.

I've also started branching out beyond clothing.

Their bedding and travel accessories have been just as impressive.

Honestly, Quince has become my go-to for just about everything.

Keep it classic and cool this fall with long-lasting staples from Quince.

Go to quince.com/slash swindled for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns.

That's q-u-in-ce-e.com/slash swindled.

Free shipping and 365-day returns.

Quince.com/slash swindled.

A year later, the boycott successfully campaigned for a United States Senate hearing to look into Nestle's inappropriate marketing practices.

The hearing took place on May 23rd, 1978, and was chaired by Senator Ted Kennedy.

Today we'll focus on one small element of their problems.

We'll focus on the use of a product intended to nourish life, to enable infants to thrive and grow, and to see how it can have the unintended effects of fostering malnutrition and spreading disease.

We'll focus on the advertising, marketing, and promotion and the use of infant formula in developing nations.

Can a product which requires clean water, good sanitation, adequate family income, and a literate parent to follow printed instructions, be properly and safely used in areas where water is contaminated, sewage runs in the streets, poverty is severe, and illiteracy is high.

Health professionals and representatives from Peru, the Philippines, Jamaica, and other developing nations testified about their first-hand experience with the disastrous effects that formula marketing had afflicted on their communities.

Representatives like Reverend Daniel Driscoll, who was based in Venezuela, he described how the written instructions on formula packages did little to prevent the misuse of the product.

And yet, if you take a look at the kind of cans that are used in Caracas, and here I have the S26 formula can,

you'll see that the directions are in very small print.

The kind of print our people

never even look at, because

50% are illiterate, and another 20% would be functionally illiterate.

And these would be government statistics.

And all this can of S26 says is that you should mix this solution in water previamente ervida, previously boiled, a five-syllable word, and ervida they would understand.

But in that very small language, I doubt they would even read it.

Once again, you have a picture of a happy little boy here.

In a culture that is 70% mestizo,

he really is very white.

But the highlight of the hearing occurred when Senator Ted Kennedy questioned Nestle spokesperson Oswald Ballerine about whether the formula should be used in places with low rates of literacy and limited access to clean water.

The Nestle representative confirmed that it should not be used in those locations, but that ultimately literacy and access to clean water weren't the company's problem nor a concern.

Take a listen.

Would you agree with me that your products should not be used where there is

impure water?

Yes or no?

We give all the instructions.

Just answer.

What would you...

What is your question?

Of course not, but we cannot

cope with that.

Do you think that your product ought to be used in areas where there's

illiteracy, fast illiteracy?

What?

Where there is illiteracy?

Well, that's right.

People can't read.

Yes.

But that is very difficult to control, Senator, because you go in a region and they are not all illiterate.

They are somewhere.

How can you control that the product goes to one rather than to the

Well, as I understand what you say is where there's impure water, it should not be used.

Yes.

Where the people are so poor that they're not going to realistically be able to continue to purchase that, and which is going to mean that they're going to dilute it to a point, which is going to endanger the health, that it should not be used.

Yes.

I believe.

All right, now my final question is, is what do you do?

or what do you feel is your corporate responsibility to find out the extent of the the use of your product in those circumstances in the developing part of the world.

Do you feel that you have any responsibility?

We can't have that responsibility, sir.

May I make a reference to...

You can't have that responsibility?

No.

How can I be responsible for the

water system?

I'm not talking.

I'm talking about the use of your product in those areas.

But do you feel that the corporation has any responsibility to know whether your product is being just occasionally used in those or widely used in those areas?

Or do you feel that your corporation doesn't have any responsibility whatsoever?

With your permission, sir.

Even in the state of Sao Paulo, where we have 10 million people today, a great part of the water system is no good.

I can't help it.

Nestle continued to deny responsibility.

The company refused to consider how their actions were contributing to an ever-growing epidemic of infant malnutrition and had no intention of developing a strategy to stop the product from getting into the hands of people who shouldn't be using it.

Part of the problem with Nestle is that its management was completely decentralized.

The company relied on its managers and the locales where it was distributing its products to adhere to local cultures, and that wasn't happening.

And Nestle headquarters did little, if anything, to make sure that it happened.

At the hearing, Patricia Young from the United Presbyterian Church said it best.

And it is my conviction conviction that if you can reach the remote village by Cessna and Jungle Trail with the product, you can also reach it with control business ethics.

Furthermore, Nestle justified its marketing practices by pointing to the practices of similar companies.

Nestle said it was merely conforming to the social norm.

That they were only promoting their products that way because that's what their competitors were doing.

Such a lousy excuse.

Would Nestle jump off a bridge if its competition jumped first?

Doubtful.

Would Nestle promote its baby formula in a way that resulted in a million dead infants every year if its competition was doing the same thing?

Apparently, so.

I mean, you gotta keep those shareholders happy.

The Senate hearing only reaffirmed that there was a need for an international code that would regulate the marketing of infant formula.

So, in October 1979, the World Health Organization hosted hosted a meeting in Geneva to develop such a code, and it invited representatives of governments, health organizations, formula companies, and social rights groups to participate.

Resolution WHA 3422, the International Code of Marketing Breast Milk Substitutes, states that baby food companies may not promote products in hospitals, shops, or to the general public.

Companies may not give free samples to mothers or give free gifts to health workers.

Informational and educational materials were permitted so long as it contained scientific and factual information and included language about the superiority of breastfeeding.

In 1981, at the 34th World Health Assembly, every member country of the Assembly voted to adopt the code.

Every member country except one.

The United States of America, under the administration of Ronald Reagan, refused to adopt adopt the code, claiming that it was a violation of free speech.

Apparently, it's a corporation's First Amendment right to be able to advertise to you despite overwhelming evidence of its harmful effects.

This stance prompted two high-ranking health officials in the U.S.

to resign from their positions in disgust.

That same year, Ernest Lefevre, Reagan's nominee for Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights, was forced to withdraw his name from consideration for the position after it was disclosed that his think tank had received over $47,000 from Nestle.

Although 118 countries had adopted the code, it was not legally binding unless it was incorporated into those countries' national law.

As of today, it is national law in over 60 countries around the world.

The Nestle boycott of 1977 was the largest ever international campaign to expose and reverse exploitative corporate practices, and it had worked.

Nestle agreed to abide by the code, and the boycott was suspended.

But the goodwill did not last long.

This is Annalise Elaine, the founder of the International Baby Food Action Network.

When the code was adopted by over a hundred governments, we thought that they would finish the job, that they would take action at the national level.

But it was not to be.

Very few took action, and the NGOs had to keep on prodding and also monitoring what the industry was doing, what were the companies doing.

The show was sponsored by BetterHelp.

We've all been there vinting to the group chat, unloading on our barista, or oversharing with a stranger in a bathroom line.

And while those people are great listeners in the moment, let's be honest.

They're not trained to help us with anxiety, depression, or relationship issues.

That's where BetterHelp comes in.

BetterHelp has been helping people find their right match for over 10 years with a 4.9 rating across 1.7 million client session reviews.

Their therapists are fully licensed, clinically trained, and work under a strict code of conduct.

And instead of leaving it to chance, BetterHelp does the matching work for you.

using a quick questionnaire to connect you with one of over 30,000 therapists.

If it's not the right fit, you can switch at any time, no extra cost.

It's all online, totally flexible, and has already helped more than 5 million people worldwide.

Therapy when you need it, at the click of a button.

As the largest online therapy provider in the world, BetterHelp can provide access to mental health professionals with a diverse variety of expertise.

Find the one with BetterHelp.

Our listeners get 10% off the first month at betterhelp.com/slash swindled.

That's betterhelph-e-l-p.com/slash swindled.

By 1988, the boycott was relaunched when it was discovered that Nestle and other formula companies were continuing to flood health facilities in the developing world with free samples and supplies.

The boycott continues to this day because the practices that were globally condemned in 1984 are still as evident as ever.

They're the kind of allegations formula milk companies have faced before.

Six companies spend almost $7 billion a year on marketing, which deliberately undermines breastfeeding.

But a joint investigation this week by The Guardian newspaper and international charity Save the Children revealed major players in the industry are actually violating laws in the Philippines, offering free trips to doctors and midwives, handing out pamphlets in hospitals that look like medical advice.

In 2018, a report by the charity Save the Children, which was published by The Guardian, accused formula companies of, quote, systematically violating the MILC Code.

The report claimed that formula companies were spending £36 on marketing for every baby born worldwide, with one of the main targets being East Asia.

Save the Children found that in the Philippines, Nestle and other companies were still offering free trips, meals, movie tickets, and even gambling chips to doctors and other health workers in exchange for product loyalty and recommendations.

companies are still running commercials on television, claiming that it has been clinically proven that formula-fed infants develop higher IQs.

Every mother wants the best for their child, so you can hardly blame them for spending a reported 75% of their incomes on a formula that will supposedly benefit their families in the long run and potentially lift them out of poverty.

All of these marketing techniques are clear violations of Philippine law, and with the advent of targeted social media ads and paid mommy bloggers, regulating formula industry marketing is more difficult than ever, while formula industry marketing remains more effective than ever.

In the Philippines, only 34% of mothers exclusively breastfeed their children during the first six months of their lives.

In Mexico, 50% of mothers have reported having formula recommended by doctors.

In Chile, 75% of hospital staff that were interviewed said that they had been visited by representatives from formula companies.

And in Bangladesh, Bangladesh, infants, almost all of them formula-fed, make up 70% of all hospital admissions, a number that was almost zero less than 40 years ago.

Since the boycott of 1977, companies like Nestle have spent the following years exploiting loopholes in the code, or just ignoring it entirely, in an attempt to capture a larger slice of the infant formula market, which is estimated to reach $45 billion by the year 2025.

Yet they claim to be strictly following the international code this is former nestle ceo brad alford in 2009 describing the company's adherence

uh we have lived by that code from that day there are people that believe that we do not live by that code we sit down with the world health organization uh i don't know how many times four or five times a year

we look at any complaint that comes in and investigate it and we feel that we've lived by that now not everybody sees the world the same way we do.

Nestle also claims to be one of the largest proponents of the breast is best movement.

Yet according to Save the Children, Nestle hasn't exactly put its money where its mouth is.

In 2007, for every dollar Nestle spent on promoting breastfeeding, it spent $10 promoting its baby milk.

According to Save the Children, if Nestle wanted to do the right thing, and effectively promote breastfeeding, it could use its network of sales reps and advisors and efficient distribution channels to further the cause.

Don't hold your breath.

Besides, in recent years, Nestle has had a few other public relations nightmares to worry about.

The world's largest food company, Nestle, has found itself in trouble for bottling water in drought-stricken California.

And now to Michigan, where tonight the fight is once again over water.

The state just approved a new permit that would nearly double the amount that one global food giant is allowed to bottle and sell each year.

Meanwhile, some residents say their water levels are dropping as never before.

They've been going to South America, areas in places like Bolivia, they've been doing it in Mexico, they're going north, they're doing it in Ontario, Canada.

They're doing this all over the globe, usually in places where they can easily manipulate the government, pay them off, privatize the water, and then in many cases sell it back.

to the same villagers or locals.

Researchers have found that most bottled waters contain huge numbers of particles called microplastics, with Nestle's pure life bottled water containing a staggering, staggering 10,000 microplastic particles per liter.

Call it a meltdown at Canada's candy factories.

Three major chocolate makers have been charged with price fixing.

They're accused of collusion in what is a multi-billion dollar industry and now face criminal charges.

This week, a U.S.

federal appeals court reinstated a lawsuit alleging Nestle uses child labor to harvest its cocoa supply in Côte d'Ivoire.

Its year-long inquiry found that migrants from Myanmar and Cambodia were sold and duped into working in Thailand's seafood sector, kept in debt bondage and degrading conditions.

Nestle's been under mounting pressure facing two U.S.

lawsuits relating to alleged imports from sources using slave labor.

Holy shit.

Raping and pillaging water sources, price fixing, child labor, and slave labor.

Looks like I have some work to do.

Until then, remember, the boycott continues.

International Nestle Free Week takes place during the last week of October every year.

Join us, will you?

Nestle is still the biggest manufacturer of breast milk substitutes, and it is not at all abiding by the international recommendations from the World Health Assembly.

And every time it doesn't abide by those minimum recommendations, it's putting babies' lives at risk.

Swindled is written, researched, produced, and hosted by me, a concerned citizen, with music by Ethan Helfrich.

For more information about the show, visit swindledpodcast.com and follow us on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram at Swindled Podcast.

Corporations aren't exactly lining up to advertise on this show, especially after this one.

So I need your help.

You can support the show by going to patreon.com slash swindled.

For $5 a month, you will get early access to new episodes when possible, and exclusive access to bonus episodes.

If you sign up today, you will have instant access to bonus episodes about Martha Stewart and Y Clef Jean.

There's a new one coming out soon about a hilariously failed Tumblr convention.

Patreon supporters also receive free merchandise on a pretty regular basis.

For the show's one-year anniversary, we have been sending out 8.5 by 11-inch R prints with all of the past and present little episodic swindle people.

And it's not too late to claim yours.

You have until January 31st, 2019.

Patreon.com/slash swindled.

Or you can support the show another way by buying something at swindledpodcast.com/slash shop or by sending a one-time donation using the form on the homepage.

Anything is appreciated.

That's it.

Thanks for listening.

Thanks to Simply Safe for sponsoring the show.

Get 50% off your new SimplySafe system at simplysafe.com slash swindled.

That's 50% off your new SimplySafe system by visiting simplysafe.com slash swindled.

There's no safe like SimplySafe.

For quality window treatments, trust Rebart's Blinds Shades and Shutters.

Specializing in Hunter Douglas custom blinds and smart shades, Rebarts combines style, comfort, and automation to enhance any space.

The blinds and shades solution for your home is just a free consultation away.

Visit re-b-ar-t-s.com to schedule your free in-home consultation today.

Mention Spotify for 25% off.

That's 25% off mentioning Spotify at Rebarts.