Henri Nestle and George Ham Page first founded Nestle in the 1860’s to promote the former’s revolutionary formula, which had saved the life of a premature baby who couldn’t tolerate his mother’s milk or any other milk.
Now, whether these guys had completely pure intentions with founding their companies is unclear, but what isn’t is their eventual merged company’s rather destructive impact on the world.
Based on the lengthy amount of evidence gathered here, it should not be considered scandalous to say that Nestle should not exist as a company. It has murdered and sickened millions of innocent people for profit. For a large chunk of its existence, Nestle has been the target of several boycotts and at the center of numerous controversies. Just a few of Nestle’s ongoing problems include aggressive marketing campaigns, bacteria-infested products, adding dangerous amounts of sugar to products intended for babies, and allowing safety rules to be broken.
Let’s get into that.
One of the longest lasting controversies that has scorned Nestle’s reputation is, ironically, their aggressive marketing of baby products in developing countries and the babies who died from it. Remember this for later.
This article notes of a common tactic used by Nestle to sell its products. “They gave gifts to health workers and used saleswomen dressed as ‘nurses’ to provide donations of formula and advice to mothers. Poverty, illiteracy and poor sanitation often led to improper formula preparation. Mortality in very young infants from malnutrition, diarrhoea and pneumonia—virtually unknown previously—increased dramatically.5 8”.
In other words, Nestle took advantage of young mothers using illegitimate healthcare workers to convince them that these products would be better for the baby than their own milk. Then, Nestle refused to accommodate the fact that many of these mothers were either illiterate or didn’t speak the language the instructions were printed in, which led to babies dying of various painful diseases.
But if you thought that Nestle would have learned their lessons on child safety, think again.
In 2022 , Buitoni (a brand of Nestle) recalled their frozen pizzas in France after 2 children died and over a dozen were injured after eating their Fraich Up line, which had been infected with E. coli. Experts noticed “a deterioration of food hygiene controls” and said “inspections had shown the presence of “rodents” and insufficient measures to prevent pests from contaminating a food production site” while at the Buitoni factory in Caudry.
Additionally, the survivors were sickened to such a bad degree that many of them had to get surgery and some are now facing lifelong health problems despite previously being in good health.
A horrific fact about this case is that there were signs of the factory being unclean from years before the outbreak.
During the outbreak, pictures of this factory started popping up that showed appalling conditions. These can be found on this French website, where photos of it were shared additionally by a legitimate lawyer who owns this blog.
These photos were taken in the same factory just a few years earlier. The photos included dirty machinery, ingredients dumped on the floor, plastic in the ingredients, and even worms and insects around various places in the factory. Additionally, there is proof of the factory being Buitoni affiliated with a photo showing complaints of glass and hair in the food dating back to 2019
Now, listen. Remember that formula scandal? Well, it’s not just the marketing that gets Nestle into hot water, it’s the ingredients too. In 2024, it was found that Nestle was adding sugar into its baby foods in lower-income countries. When the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) and Swiss watchdog Public Eye tested the popular baby cereal Cerelac, “The results of the testing found that “almost all” Cerelac wheat-based cereals by Nestlé in those regions, targeted at infants from six months of age, contained added sugar equivalent to an average of 4 grams per serving, or a sugar cube. The highest volume of sugar added to a product, at 7.3 grams per serving, was detected in the Philippines, followed by 6.8 grams in Nigeria and 5.9 grams in Senegal.” That means that almost 2 sugar cubes are eaten by a baby per meal in the Phillipines, and all other countries are feeding their babies at least one per meal.
They also found that “Nido powdered-milk products aimed at toddlers aged one to three contained almost two grams of added sugar per serving, with milk powder in Panama recording highs of 5.3 grams. This was followed by findings of 4.7 grams of sugar per portion in Nicaragua, and 1.8 grams in Mexico”. So while less sugar was found in this brand, it is still inexcusable.
These brands are supposed to be nutritional supplements for fragile and vulnerable beings who require extremely specific living conditions or else they would die. To not only lack those things but to add dangerous and addictive ingredients that are unnecessary to the well being of babies is a reprehensible action, especially because this is done intentionally.
It would not be cheaper if they added the sugar, like if it was a substitute for something. They intentionally look for countries with a lack of regulation on sugar and take advantage of them so that children can get addicted to their products. “The only reason why Nestlé does it is basically because they know that kids like sugar and they will come back and want their product,” says [Laurent] Gaberell, an agriculture and nutrition expert for Public Eye. “It’s just to increase the sales of their product.”
Finally, one crucial problem that plagues Nestle is that they break rules again and again constantly despite knowing that it would get them in trouble. As pointed out in the Buitoni controversy, there were problems in the factory since long before the E.coli breakout and still, no action was taken.
This aforementioned article further proved that Nestle could not care about anything other than money. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) drafted a code for marketing breast milk substitutes that was adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981.
The rules listed are as following:
No advertising to the public
No free samples or gifts to mothers
No promotion of products in healthcare facilities
No contact of mothers by company representatives
No gifts or samples to health workers
No baby pictures idealising formula
No unsuitable products such as sweetened condensed milk to be promoted for babies
Information to health workers to be scientific
All information to be objective and to explain the benefits and superiority of breastfeeding
Health professionals to disclose to their institution any fellowships, research grants, or conferences provided by baby food manufacturers
Manufacturers and distributors to comply with above even if country has not implemented the Code
Professional groups, non-governmental organizations and individuals to inform manufacturers, distributors and governments of activities violating the code.
Yet all of the evidence shows that Nestle disregarded all of that.
Some teachers at the iSchool were kind enough to provide their opinions on Nestle.
When asked what advice she would give to mothers buying formula, chemistry teacher Ms. Klimowicz said, “I know that for a lot of people, buying [baby] formula can be really expensive, so I don’t think that the responsibility is on the consumer. I think the responsibility is on the big companies that make the formula to make sure that all baby formulas are created equal and that are accessible for people”.
When Teacher Jabari was informed of added sugar in Nestle products in some regions, they expressed that “it’s actually kind of sick.”
History teacher Mr. Rodriguez was asked about an alternate universe in which Nestle didn’t have the influence on the world that it did. He said “I think we would have a lot more diversity in products and maybe even healthier products today.”
All of these people have expertise in topics that all relate to Nestle and it is unanimously agreed that these practices are unprofessional and dangerous, that there would be better futures without Nestle.
There is also data relating to the mortality rates in developing countries is appalling. “The relative risk of dying from diarrhea during the first 5 months of life was 10.52 (95% CI 2.79 to 39.6); from 6 to 12 months it was still 2.18 (95% CI 1.14 to 4.16). One of the highest death rates was seen in Pakistan, where the RR of dying from an infectious disease in the first month was 21.3 (95% CI 7.9 to 57.7).37 40 Early initiation of breastfeeding is critical. In a Ghanaian study, neonatal mortality in babies fed after the first 24 h was over twice that of those fed within the first hour (adjusted OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.87 to 4.42).38”. This can be found here.
Additionally, many were not informed of any rules. “In 1998 a study of 3442 mothers and health workers from Dhaka, Durban, Bangkok and Warsaw documented gifts of formula and information violating the Code.17 In a 2003 survey of 186 healthcare providers in 43 health facilities in Togo and Burkina Faso, 80% had never heard of the Code.18 In 2004 a survey of 850 mothers and 125 health workers in Uganda cited numerous violations.19 In 2008, 70% of 427 health professionals in Pakistan were unaware of their own breastfeeding laws and 80% unaware of the Code; 12% had received sponsorship from pharmaceutical companies for training sessions or attendance at conferences.20 “
Now, we don’t have a lot of hope. It’s harsh but it’s true. A true boycott could never happen simply because Nestle owns too many brands and it will only grow. But, we can still make an effort from what we have learned. If we can afford alternatives, we can buy it. If it’s stuff like chocolate milk or candy, we can not buy it. We can start getting Nestle out of our lives. One tiny step at a time.
