"When people try to dismiss those who ask big questions as being emotional, it is a strategy to avoid debate. Why should we be scared of being angry? Why should we be scared of our feelings if they're based on facts? The whole framework of reason versus passion is ridiculous, because often passion is based on reason. Passion is not always unreasonable. Anger is based on reason. They're not two different things. I feel it's very important to defend that.”
The above passage is by one of my heroes, Arundhati Roy. I felt no need to repeat the sentiment, as I doubt there is any reason and any way to express it better. It is common for people to react to activists in this way. To pass them off as passionate and idealistic. In my opinion, these are good emotions. These are emotions that create change. But for some reason emotional arguments lose credibility.
But as said above, passion and anger are borne from real experiences and real facts. So why do people do this? They do this to protect their guilt conscience, because you know what? Its tiring to care. Its tiring and inconvenient to care.
But I don’t feel like I’m here to protect people guilt consciences anymore. I used to hate being called self righteous, idealistic and naïve. Now Im okay with it, because there are things I have to say, things I have learnt that outrage me. These are things that I know the good, decent people reading this blog will want to know, if they don’t already. Because as my very clever friend Sneha says “These things, once learnt, cannot be ignored”
Its so difficult to be ethical. People boycott all sorts of things, for all sorts of reasons. So why do they do it? The reason I personally do it- is so people will ask why. I don’t do it because I think Nestle will go under if I stop drinking Nescafe, or that Pfizer will stop producing useless doctor paraphernalia if I resist the urge to snatch up one of the hundreds of drug company pens available to all drs and med students out there. Its about awareness.
Its so people will ask me questions, and I can tell these stories…
Spattered across the world, there will be people who refuse to drink Nescafe. This is a form of boycott of Nestle. Nescafe was chosen because Nestle being the massive MNC it is, has products far and wide, and it is extraordinarily difficult to boycott all nestle products, but I can assure you there are people who go to these lengths. It was also chosen because of its undeniable association to Nestle, whereas Maggi or Milo (god forbid) has less of an obvious association. So why the hullabaloo?
In a nutshell, Nestle promotes Lactogen (baby formula) as a superior alternative to breast feeding in developing communiies- In health circles, this is pure evil- there is no superior option to breastfeeding except in specific cases. There are significant reasons that range from health to economic reasons for this. Nestle also distributes these products with NO CLEAR instructions on the formation of the milk- These business strategies of Nestle resulted in inordinate rates of malnutrition, diarrhea and subsequently a rise in mortality rates in these communities.
The worse thing of all is that this issue has been happening since the early 1970s! Since then, many struggles against this have been made. A guideline was introduced on introduction of milk products in developing countries- but with the companies not having any real incentive to follow them. As part of their business strategy, Nestle also gives free or low cost samples to begin with, which raises the incentive for consumers, with the added thought that this is the healther option for their children. So on one hand, you have nestle almost giving away milk product that is detrimental to infant health, and on the other hand you have major pharma companies denying these same communities a lower price for HIV/AIDs medication. If that is not evil, Im not sure what is. But that’s for another day!
Nestle is not the only company that does this, other companies like KLIM (did you know, that’s milk spelt backwardsJ) advertised their milk powder to new mothers, without further explaining that it was a milk substitute not a specific formula for babies. I watched on a documentary once, that these multi- national companies are able to do these things, because not one person was responsible for actions – there was no collective (or individual) conscience held responsible for actions. Hence here was a massive strength/power/resource, with no one individual to be held accountable for any atrocities that may occur under the companys name. Hence a form of invincibility is created. This is what these boycotts are trying to do- trying to say – No, you are not invincible, No you WILL be held accountable. But this hasn’t happened. People are not angry enough. Children are dying. When will they be angry enough?
There are many more- McDonalds, Starbucks, Conflict diamonds (watch Blood Diamond!)… if you don’t want to join in these Boycotts, struggle with us in other ways, tell people about it, discuss it, think about it- Anything.
When I first started thinking about these things, I decided I wouldn’t boycott. Didn’t think there would be enough of an impact for me to sacrifice things I had come to enjoy. Frankly though, every time I order a Nescafe tarik – it simply tastes like shit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
UNICEF has produced a documentary which details the problems with Nestle and baby formula more generally in the Phillipines. You can check it out on youtube or my blog at http://peculiarjulia.blogspot.com/
Thanks Vee!!
Hey Vee, glad you wrote something about this, since I've always only known the very vague details. It made me remember a Foreign Correspondant episode I watched, about mothers and children in PNG, which gave an interesting look into a dilemma that these people face. It talked about how HIV women who do not pass the virus to their children have to decide on whether to risk it and breast-feed or to bottle-feed, which is, of course, a huge risk in itself. The water there is filthy and about 35 kids are dying every day from things like dysentery and cholera -the stuff that the developed world was last suffering from about a hundred yeas ago. Doctors and nurses over there are trying to encourage mothers to breast-feed instead through workshops and by getting the powers that be to put a ban on selling baby bottles, unless specifically prescribed by a doctor. The FC team showed that you could just waltz in and buy one without any trouble anyway -so much for the ban. Anyway, to relate to this whole Nestle thing, it's just sickening that a company like that would not only sell a product that is clearly a poor substitute for breast-milk, but would also so grotesquely take advantage of the fact that mothers are worried about passing on HIV. Now that is pure evil -offering a death sentence dressed as an alternative solution.
And their coffee tastes like flavoured mud, though probably less nutritious.
Lis
Post a Comment