Talk:Nestlé

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamcib (talk • contribs) 18:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes

"Its main rival is Cadbury Schweppes." I don't think so. Ansett 07:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• How about Unilever? Can someone get some info about this? Or perhaps the sentence could be changed to: "Its main rivals include.... (list of companies)." --JT 11:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The top food and beverages companies ranking (only on food and beverages) is: Nestlé, Kraft Foods, PepsiCo, Unilever, Coca-Cola, Mars, Danone, ConAgra Cadbury Schweppes, General Mills, Sara Lee and Kellogg's. Nevertheless the tougher competition comes from Unilever, Kraft Foods, Danone and Mars as they compete in several countries and their product portfolios overlap massively.

Boycott NPOV

I've never seen such a biased document in Wikipedia!!... the Nestle logo has the slogan included, which is "Good Food, Good Life" (it's in Nestle.com). I question the neutrality of the editors.

If Nestle really wanted everyone to know that they they cheated African mothers I'm sure they would change thier slogan to "cheat mothers kill babies" but they don't so they stick with the slogan you mentioned above. Stange isn't it?

After having read it I feel that the section Boycott is not being presented from an NPOV stance. Can anyone take a look and see if they can improve it? Nicholas 16:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I merged Nestlé and Nestlé boycott articles just to converge relevant information together. However, I agree with you that the section is not NPOV at all. If you agree, feel free to make changes. I will definitely make modifications to current information. --JM Robert 23:06, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

"* I disagree that the articles should have been merged. The length of the lists of nestlé products mean that the boycott section is essentially hidden, also there is a link to the boycott article which goes nowhere. As for NPOV, who do you think it is POV in favour of? --NicholasJones 20:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Do you suggest that we go back to two articles on Nestlé and Nestlé boycott? --JM Robert 23:26, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• At the very least, could someone please add something explaining why Nestle is/was being boycotted? What, exactly, is so unsafe about breast milk substitutes? If they're so unsafe, why aren't they banned in the United States? What is special about third world countries that makes these products dangerous? Why aren't there millions of baby deaths in the United States because of this? I'm not asking these questions rhetorically to support Nestle; I honestly could not find the answers to these questions in the article, and as someone unfamiliar with the situation, these things came to mind. --Birdhombre 03:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• As I understand it, the main reason breast milk substitutes are unsafe in Third World countries, much more so than in the United States, is that they have to be mixed with water, which is very frequently unsafe to drink in the Third World, unlike Western countries. --Angr/_(comhrá) 13:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• It becomes clear that Nestlé and Nestlé Boycott need to be separated. Nestlé will strictly about its business, brands, and history. While Nestlé Boycott will be about the movement. Also, I will add disambig links in the beginning of each articles. --JM Robert 23:00, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

• We need to discuss/establish a neutral rule on how (and how not) to present the unpleasant facts of a corporation's history before separating these articles - otherwise I predict we'll have a separate/reconnect dispute caused by the lack of clear guidelines. I think I'm also in favor of a separate page on the Nestlé Boycott, but (pending the discussion I'm trying to start) I don't think it would be NPOV to totally remove all reference to it, or reduce it to a mere link or single sentence. I've been doing a research project into the history of a handful of corporations, and when I look up their Wikipedia articles, the accurate negative information is absent, but the rest of the article sounds like advertising copy. One Wikipedia article (L'Oréal) said that a particular CEO "...sailed the company overseas..." which is so glorious that it makes me think some PR company wrote it - nobody human writes that way naturally. Leaving out accurate but unpleasant information, on any topic, is not NPOV.
• We can use Nestlé as a point of discussion, or other articles. The Boycott portion contains some sentences that follow a fairly neutral pattern: "In 19xx, the company did xxxxx. The following year, Group X said xxxx about the company." By itself, this seems neutral to me and appropriate to an article about that company, although I recognize that a particular context or content could make it biased.

• Perhaps there is a model policy or practice we can imitate. When other things (a nation, an individual, a religion) act in ways that some see as bad, how are these concerns balanced? Maybe it's a question of making the description of the "bad" thing of a length that appropriately gauges its importance, relative to the other activities of the company (or nation, or person, or religion). How can that be determined from an NPOV? Also, although I'm not exactly new to Wikipedia, I wouldn't claim grand expertise, either. Where/how would it be appropriate to put these thoughts as a request for comments that extend beyond the Nestlé article? These thoughts obviously have a much broader scope than any one article. I started a discussion at the Village Pump.Twestgard

• Separation is done...please edit as you see fit. The Nestlé article feels business-like, however, the Nestlé boycott probably needs some good editing. Thanks! --JM Robert 03:39, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I have always understood that the boycott was instituted to protest Nestle's practice of distributing free baby milk formula to women who had just given birth in clinics and hospitals in third-world countries. By the time the free formula had been used up, the mothers' breast milk had dried up and they then had no choice but to continue buying formula milk until their babies were weaned. The practice was condemned as unethical, for three reasons: (1) the mothers were not warned that their own breast milk would dry up; (2) no information about the comparative values of breast-feeding and bottle-feeding was given; and (3) the women were invariably poor, and were made significantly poorer by being tricked into buying a product they did not need and whose value they did not understand. Water quality is no doubt an issue, but is not the reason for the original boycott.

Wendy Collings 03:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensed on?

There must be a better phrase than "consensed on" to describe the marketing policy. 8-year-old boys will think that something dirty has happened to it. It's perfectly correct, but a bit of a stumbling block to those of us with limited vocabulary...

• I think the Boycott section is poorly written, such as word choice, presentation, etc. I'm going to re-write it soon. However, make changes if you see fit. --JM Robert 16:04, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with "consensed on". It comes from "consensus", so it's pretty easy to understand.

• Surely that would only work if "consensus" was a verb, ie "to consensus", which is not correct. M0RHI | Talk to me 11:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Logo endorsement?

Shouldn't there be some sort of text identifying the Nestle logo as such? Currently, it looks like the Wikipedia thinks Nestle is "Good food." Not so NPOV. 65.242.185.4 16:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see what needs to be done. It is a company logo with company slogan, pretty standard. --JM Robert 04:06, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Boycott advocacy posing conveniently as disambiguation message

Well, it is.

You're right. I removed it, because it's also mentioned in the article. -- Patrice 19:23, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Cereals

Do cereals count as "Main brands"? I know there's a lot of nestle products on the shelves over here (UK). If so then I will add a cereal section to the article. ::ZoFreX 04:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Does "212.35.34.236" have an agenda?

The anonymous user above has made several contributions; either to this article or to the Nestlé boycott article, but to nothing else.

Some of the edits appear to be qualifying 'definitive' statements so that they appear more ambiguous. In some cases, this may be fine, as the language replaced was perhaps more certain in its tone than it should have been.

However, I am sceptical that none of these changes are to the detriment of Nestle; and more notably, many of the additions positively benefit them or paint them in a better light; e.g.

However, all allegations are investigated and where substantiated are corrected. In 1982, Nestlé implemented the WHO Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes in developing countries. The instructions were reviewed and refined in 1984 in consultation with the WHO, UNICEF and the International Nestlé Boycott Committee.

This has a very polished 'PR' feel to it. Additionally, the above numerical address resolves to

proxy-be.sunrise.ch

and the ".ch" means that it is a proxy web-server (probably) located in Switzerland. So, the user is probably based in Switzerland too.

Nestle are, of course, a Swiss-based company. You can make of this what you will, because you know as much as I do now.

It may be a Nestle employee acting on his/her own. Or it may be a patriotic Swiss person supporting one of their own. It *may* just be an attempt to balance out perceived anti-Nestle biases amongst some contributors.

However, I think we should keep an eye on this, just in case.

You can read this user's contributions here.

Fourohfour 18:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for 'keeping an eye' on me. I have been editing the additions with an agenda, and that is to balance the facts by bringing the story to a conclusion and presenting the other side of the argument. You are quite right to point out that none of these changes were to the detriment of Nestlé - that comment sounds dangerously as if you would accept comments that were to the detriment of Nestlé. As such, my submissions certainly were aimed at balancing out what was evidently an anti-Nestlé bias. Or being neutral, in good Swiss fashion.

Well... "neutrality" is one of those concepts that sound great on paper, but are horribly difficult to establish in practice. Does adding pro-Nestle spiel to anti-Nestle spiel make it "neutral"? Who decides? Can one write a neutral article if one's *motivations* aren't neutral? With respect, it's your job to make Nestle look good, as you mention here:-

I am a Nestlé employee and I work in corporate communications at Nestlé headquarters in Vevey.

Thank you for being honest. Fourohfour 15:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I routinely connect to the web through a proxy server; for no reason more sinister than it gets the company network police off my back and I am not blocked by our internal rules from visiting anywhere;

The fact it was a proxy server wasn't a big deal; I wished to avoid implying that it was your computer, that's all. Many proxies are transparent anyway (my ISP does this to my requests), so I didn't even know if you'd have been aware of this. Fourohfour 15:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I spend most of my working day on-line (the internet is my day job). I guess I should end my anonymity and create an account with a nom-de-plume.

What I have been doing is trying to respect the spirit of Wikipedia (yes, I was at TED Global with Mr Wales) and add rather than edit wholesale. The facts as they stand are correct,

Working in "corporate communications", you should know better than anyone that the manner in which facts are presented (and which facts are omitted) is at least as important as the facts themselves. Fourohfour 15:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

and no-one wants to re-write history any more nowadays.

Rewrite history, or the version of history you wish to present? Fourohfour 15:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't help myself and did re-write some of the existing stuff to make it less shrill, as I recall. I believe that does neither side of the argument any good.

I never claimed all your edits were pro-Nestle. What I said was that none of them were to Nestle's detriment; an observation relating to your overall pattern of contributions. Some of those edits were (IMHO) quite fair. Fourohfour 15:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

FTR, there is nothing wrong with breastmilk subsitute per se, and the WHO agrees (to Birdhombre). By the way, Nestlé has a statement on its breastmilk substitute products that says that breastfeeding is best for babies. What is wrong with it is the old marketing practices in the devcloping world, which are no longer followed at Nestlé, and if there are allegations, we investigate them and fire the people responsible if proven; there is a WHO Code which we publicly support, and we have more to lose than to gain by breaking it.

This is a complex issue that covers such ground as HIV, governments' responsibilities for clean water supplies, and why the poorest governments spend the greatest proportion of their GNP on armaments and not health and education. And shareholders and free market capitalism, of course. It would be nice if it were simple, but it isn't.

My observation was regarding the motivation and nature of your contributions, rather than any specific issues. You may be right or wrong on the above. Fourohfour 15:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

My current beefs - and I was at the point of simply deleting the entries when I saw your message - are with Nestlé Water and Using slave-made cocoa. Frankly, neither of these entries deserve a place in the Wikipedia.

There is an issue with water, but the implication that Nestlé (or any other of the bottled water companies) are somehow 'taking control of the groundwater' belongs in the drawer marked 'conspiracy theories'. As a secondary point, it is a matter of record that industry (all industry) takes 20% of global freshwater withdrawal (you say 15%), and Nestlé Waters accounts for 0.0009% of the whole, ie, the 100%.

In my opinion,

You see? We're discussing facts, but things like this will always come down to opinion. What's important? What's not? Some might disagree at your assertion that the article gives "undue weight" to an "extremely local story". But, of course, this is in your line of work, and if you're remotely competent (which you probably are), you already know this. Fourohfour 15:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

the article on Mecosta County, Michigan, gives undue weight to an extremely local story which is in any case far from reaching a conclusion. It would, however, have a place in an article discussing the polemic in general and the business practices of bottled water companies.

Nestlé has been accused of using slave labour, true, but not of 'using cocoa beans made by slaves' - that is just illiterate. But the accusation should be refined, as it has been very well in the main Chocolate and slavery article in Wikipedia.

As it stands, it would seem that Nestlé bosses are riding their plantations with their whips, and this is far from the truth. What is true, and is a global shame, is that trafficking in humans, drugs and arms are among the world's biggest industries. It is a matter of record that Nestlé supports ILO as well as industry efforts to reduce slavery and child labour. As the article I cited above points out, Nestlé and other chocolate manufacturers buy their cocoa at exchanges where the beans have been mixed. And by the way - that ship allegedly carrying children slaves .... I do not believe the allegations were ever fully resolved, but I may be wrong.

For now I shall sign myself 212.35.34.236.

To make this clear; I'm not an anti-Nestle zealot. (If you look at the pattern of my contributions, you'll see they have nothing to do with the Nestle boycott). I have no doubt that such zealots *have* contributed to this article in the past, and will do so again; however, as they are not professional PR people, their agenda does tend to be more obvious at first glance.

Let me state again that my primary concern was with the pattern and nature of your contributions. As mentioned above, "facts"- even if correct, as you state- are no substitute for a neutral point-of-view. Of course, there is no such thing in real-life, but nevertheless, that is the ideal. Your *job* is to put a pro-Nestle gloss on things, and whilst this in no way renders your contributions invalid, it is certainly warrants consideration. Fourohfour 15:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'm glad we see eye to eye.

Well... "neutrality" is one of those concepts that sound great on paper, but are horribly difficult to establish in practice. Does adding pro-Nestle spiel to anti-Nestle spiel make it "neutral"?

No - but one way of achieving what I perceive to be the purpose of this work is to show that there are two sides and let the reader make his/her own mind up. In any case, these are matters of fact which are mostly able to be validated.

Thank you for being honest.

Now I do find that patronising. Why should I be anything else? I'm glad that 'some' of my edits were fair. Facts are sacred, comments are free as the man said.

My observation was regarding the motivation and nature of your contributions, rather than any specific issues. You may be right or wrong on the above.

If I (or anyone else) is right, isn't that motivation enough? Errors of fact are there to be corrected, or at least, missing facts to be added. Let's not omit facts. The manner in which they are omitted can give rise to an impression of bias, as you say - whichever way. If the Wikipedia is to keep any credibility, it should be as complete as possible.

You see? We're discussing facts, but things like this will always come down to opinion. What's important? What's not? Some might disagree at your assertion that the article gives "undue weight" to an "extremely local story".

This is aggressive, no? Some might indeed disagree; some might say, 'Where is Michigan?' This is covered in the NPOV section, as you know. My opinion, and I use that advisedly, because that is what is is, is that this article may well be valid somewhere else, as I said. That's not a fact. All discussion will always come down to opinion, and I would have thought that the wording of what I wrote made that evident.

I have not deleted either article in question, but I have given you my opinion on them. Your privilege is to ignore it or not as you see fit. Do either make you happy? Or are they both just soap-boxes for a un-neutral point of view?

Since you ended personally, I will too. I never thought you were an anti-Nestlé zealot. I have never met you, and I have never read any of your other contributions. I work in corporate communications, but I am not a spin doctor. My training and inclination is as a journalist, which is when I learned to prefer facts to comment. My 'job' is to be a person first and then do what I am paid for. I dislike the implication that this somehow includes lying, or a 'pro-Nestlé gloss' which I have to apply.

What sort of 'consideration' does my perceived motivation warrant? Being excluded from contributing? It seems to me that you can't arrive at any balanced conclusion without all the facts. Let's not leave any out. That would be a shame. Refute the facts if you can. I'm sure of mine.

As mentioned above, "facts"- even if correct, as you state- are no substitute for a neutral point-of-view.

No, I guess not. Facts are not relevant to a neutral point of view. Here, I'm afraid, you have lost me entirely.

My motivation in submitting was simply this: there were some articles which, as I stated before, were correct. However, they did not show the conclusion of the story. Uncomfortable as it may be, the conclusion is that Nestlé made some very big mistakes; all organisations have, but this doesn't make Nestlé's any less important. Further, the conclusion is that Nestlé has tried very hard to put them right, and this is an ongoing process with its ups and downs.

That's not to try to humanise the nature of the process. It's hard and takes concentration and a certain amount of dedication. The Wikipedia's aim is to be a repository of unbiased information, if I have understood correctly. You can't achieve that without either giving us a fair shout or making sure that all the facts are represented and correct. Up until now, no-one has given us a fair shout as far as the boycott is concerned, and why should they? It might be intellectually honest to do so - as long as that shout sticks to the facts. In my opinion.

• I agree that the line

Thank you for being honest.

came across as patronising. Truth be told, it was intended more along the lines of "thank you for at least coming straight out and admitting your position", which I wasn't sure if you would do.

Bear in mind that all *I* saw originally was (apparently) a user contributing anonymously and exclusively to this and the Nestle-boycott articles with "well-polished" material that came across as the work of a professional, and was notably *not* to the detriment of Nestle.

Well, I knew *nothing* about you personally at the time (and still know little), and I was aware of the *potential* of a competent PR person to subtlely change the tone of the article from mildly anti-Nestle to pro-Nestle (or whoever) propoganda over time. I'm sorry if that offends you, but as I said, I knew nothing about you at that time, and not all PR is impeccably honest or unbiased; its purpose, after all, is to paint the company in a good light. I never claimed that this was definitely the case; I merely observed that the pattern of behavior was worthy of note- as much for future potential as to what had already been included.

With respect, letting the reader "make his/her own mind up" is fair enough, but easier when the position of the person stating those facts is clear. Originally, this was not transparent.

To some extent, Wikipedia depends on trust for factual accuracy. If a person is in a position which *might* promote systemic or systematic bias, then their contributions *do* perhaps deserve more scrutiny. This would also apply if, for example, someone had a reputation for including badly-checked information.

This is aggressive, no? Some might indeed disagree; some might say, 'Where is Michigan?' This is covered in the NPOV section, as you know. My opinion, and I use that advisedly, because that is what is is, is that this article may well be valid somewhere else, as I said. That's not a fact. All discussion will always come down to opinion, and I would have thought that the wording of what I wrote made that evident.

You wrote that "the facts as they stand are correct", and that "no-one wants to re-write history any more nowadays. But later you said "the article on Mecosta County, Michigan, gives undue weight to an extremely local story". My point being that the inclusion/exclusion and presentation of facts *is* an issue, and that even if all facts in an article were 100% correct, this does not prevent bias. I was using that specific case to argue a general point; it was not intended to be aggressive, merely to suggest questions that (hypothetical) others *could* make.

Regarding the omission of facts; facts will always have to be omitted to keep an article to an acceptable length, as well as keeping it relevant to its main purpose. Their presentation also gives potential for subtle manipulation and bias. This happens on both sides; you altered some text which was (I agree) too definite in its tone; this may have been either a conscious or unconscious effort reflecting the previous contributor's personal opinion.

As I said before, my observations were regarding a pattern of *potentially* insidious behavior, and questioning it, rather than coming to any definite conclusions. I knew nothing, and still know little about you personally; the motivation behind the original post was healthy scepticism and raised awareness. Nothing more.

Fourohfour 13:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

(Following comment is not- as far as I can tell- intended as a response to my comment above. However, it (probably inadvertantly) comes over this way. To avoid this, I've placed it in a separate subsection.) Fourohfour 16:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"It's me again, 212.35.34.236"

It's me again, 212.35.34.236 .... Nestlé Partners Blend coffee receives Fair Trade status; fine. It is audited. Checked and everything; recognised. And then it is dismissed by 'an un-named Colombian trade union activist as a Big Joke'.

Now ... where do you start? Do you really care at all about this work? As a former editor, I would dismiss as a big joke stories that included an interview with a taxi driver, the cardinal sign of idleness in a reporter. Frankly, including that unattributable, unattributed comment renders what you are trying to do a 'big joke'. Please try to attach some sort of intellectual discipline to what you are doing, chaps.

Its not just an 'un-named Colombian activist' who has condemned Parters Blend, its also Baby Milk Action- follow the link. BTW BMA also have stated that the 'un-named' activist has gone on the record and hasn't asked to be kept anonymous, but in the light of the murder of other anti-nestle activists they decided to protect his identity. again, this information is available by following the external links in the article. Sorry if this addition to the article appears POV, please feel free to add the other side of the case, explaining the audit process and how Nestle claim to have met any criteria if you have this information, but please don't ask me to do Nestle's dirty work for them. quercus robur 19:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Now what are we expected to think about 'not doing dirty work'? In any case, I was not talking about BMA, but of your (i.e., Wikipedia's) use of the phrase 'un-named Colombian activist' .... sure, sure, you can get to the point if you follow the link, but quoting such sources is building a case on shifting sands whatever the circumstances, no? And who follows all the links? In any case, I really do not think the burden of proof is on Nestlé or any other company awarded the fair trade seal of approval by the Fairtrade Foundation. I think it is the foundation itself that should defend itself against these accusations of being but a joke, and a big one at that. Follow the link:

“This is a turning point for us and for the coffee growers,” says Harriet Lamb, Director of the Fairtrade Foundation. “It’s also a turning point for the many people who support Fairtrade and have been pressing the major companies to offer Fairtrade coffees. This just shows what we, the public, can achieve. Here is a major multinational listening to people and giving them what they want – a Fairtrade product.”

The statement is too long to quote in full here - it is at http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/pr071005.htm. Interestingly enough, Baby Milk Action is not listed as one of the organisations commenting on the Partners Blend story. Most (but not all) hail it as a step - a small step - in the right direction, but that Nestlé still has a long way to go.

I read the article and I agree with 212's comments here and I would like to add that BMA's site in general seems extreme to me; the accusations are severe and should not be made without displaying concrete proof. Regarding their comments on fairtrade coffee, these are non-notable in my opinion. All it says is that while Partners Blend qualifies as fairtrade, it only represents a small proportion of their coffee sales. Of course it does; they've only just released it! To me, they don't seem to be condemning the brand, just their overall practice. I think the section should be removed or fleshed out and better balanced. Something like "In 2005, Nestle addressed the growing market for fairtrade coffee by offering its own brand, Partners Blend. This brand adopts fair trade principles and now places Nestle as the largest fairtrade coffee manufacturer in the world." It may then be fair, if others feel it is still notable, to say "The Baby Milk Action group has met this development with criticism, claiming that Nestle's general lack of commitment to fairtrade should disqualify them from the fairtrade scheme. (link)". I apologise for not using the e acoute, to be honest I'm unsure how to do it and I don't feel it's necessary when posting my talk comments. I'd like to finish by saying I am in no way affilated with Nestle and I came to this article to find out why my University has boycotted the company. T. J. Day 09:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Nestle is *not* the "largest Fairtrade coffee manufacturer in the world". It *is* the largest coffee manufacturer, but almost all (I don't know the exact figure) of the coffee it produces is not Fairtrade. That's the problem a lot of people have - Nestle produces one brand with the Fairtrade logo and then comments like the one above get made, implying Nestle is suddenly a Fairtrade company. That is why I told Nestle I would not buy Partner's Blend - not that I've ever seen it in the shops anyway (I only live in the UK's second biggest city after all), and I still support the boycott. 195.92.43.117 13:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable research source that states Nestlé is not the "largest Fairtrade coffee manufacturer in the world"? Canderra 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Nestle currently only sells its Partners Blend (Fairtrade coffee) in the UK. According to the Fairtrade Foundation, Cafedirect, with over 35% of UK Fairtrade coffee and tea retail sales, is the largest Fairtrade hot drinks company in the country. [1] This therefore rules out Nestle and Partners Blend as the largest Fairtrade coffee manufacturers... I hope that answers your question. Bonner5 21:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that you yourself have an agenda by posting against Nestle, correct? You are in fact promoting your stance, which must have some kind of agenda, whether it is altruistic or what not, it is still an agenda. I personally think it is kind of silly to title this section "Does "212.35.34.236" have an agenda?" You both have the right to state your opinions, and facts that support them, but calling out another poster is a bit childish. And remember, you yourself have an agenda, so it's a bit hypocritical. ~ Anonymous (Not affiliated with 212.35.34.236, just someone who stumbled upon this page.)

The purpose of article leads

I added information about the controversial nature of Nestle's business practices to the article lead, but this information was deleted by Thatdog on the basis that this information is covered later in the article. I have reverted Thatdog's deletions, and provide explanation here as follows.

Subjects which feature in Wikipedia as articles in their own right do so because of their notability. In order to ensure that future readers of articles are aware of the notability of their subject matter, articles should make clear upfront exactly what it is about a subject that makes it notable. The lead section of an article is the obvious place to do that. Nestle's notability is not just due its size; it's notability - its distinctness from many other large corporations - is also in large part down to its business practices and their controversial nature; because of that, a mention of this (no more than a sentence is needed) is a valid addition to the article lead. To omit such information gives a less valuable summary of the article and its subject. Thatdog is right in saying that this subject is covered later in the article; in fact it takes up a significant part of the article. For this reason too, the lead should refer to this subject, thereby giving the reader a better steer as to the overall nature & range of the subject matter of the article. SP-KP 21:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for providing this explanation. Based on the balanced summary reasoning, I no longer oppose the new sentence in the article lead. Thatdog 22:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

for god sakes give Main brands it own article

its ridiculously long and makes the article hard to navigate, the article should be called Nestlé Products --Whywhywhy 12:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep; I'm sick of articles being bloated out and split up by the addition of massive lists. They have their place, and can be useful; but far more often they're just endless lists of completist, anal-retentive and frankly lazy additions. Where they *are* useful, they should be kept as short as possible (most important entries only if necessary) and longer lists should be spun off into their own articles. Fourohfour 16:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a good suggestion. I propose that we go ahead with this. Any objections? SP-KP 15:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Not from me; if you want to do it yourself, please do. Fourohfour 16:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done this myself. Fourohfour 21:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of edits by User:217.140.246.28

This user performed the following edit:-

11:45, 5 December 2005 217.140.246.28 (→External links - vandalism)

citing "vandalism". I would assume that this meant "correction of vandalism". (Either that or they were claiming to be vandals themselves... unlikely.)

What they actually did was to remove a link to a (possibly controversial) article. Whether or not it was suitable for inclusion, the article was not so bad that inclusion of its link could be remotely considered "vandalism".

Therefore, I can only question why this anonymous user deliberately misrepresented their own edit as vandalism reversion when it clearly wasn't.

Fourohfour 16:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Oddly, tidying up what I felt to be a misleading (non-)reply to one of my comments elsewhere on this page, I came across a quote from the (until then) anonymous Nestle-employee at 212.35.34.236:-

"My current beefs - and I was at the point of simply deleting the entries when I saw your message - are with Nestlé Water and Using slave-made cocoa. Frankly, neither of these entries deserve a place in the Wikipedia." (his/her emphasis)

I'm not saying more than that, because it's very possibly a different person (the IP is based in Finland, not Switzerland, so it's not *that* likely; just worth bearing in mind).

Anyhow, I'll say it again:- This isn't a question of whether the link should be there. It's a question of why the removal of a controversial link was blatantly misrepresented as vandalism maintenance.

Fourohfour 17:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I (Thorri aka 217.140.246.28) removed the link because it really has nothing to do with Nestlé. And if it has, then very remotely. And why did I remove that link? Because it was put everywhere by Barbara Shack who has done major contributions to the article Chocolate and slavery. She has somewhat promoted her article by linking non-relevant (chocolate company) articles such as Milka and Fazer to that particular website about Chocolate worker slavery. The latter definitely has nothing to do with slavery of any kind.

What comes to vandalism, I used the wrong term. Sorry for that. --Thorri 18:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't have a problem with the removal of the link per se, only what seemed like an attempt to "sneak through" an edit some might (otherwise) disagree with. I mentioned 212.35.34.236 (catchy name!) because although I thought it unlikely that the exact same person was responsible here, this case still had the same 'professional' ring to it as the previous one. Fourohfour 21:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Ohh, now I get the picture! Well you can never know about the people who "contribute" here anyway. --Thorri 16:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that vandalism turned out not to have been me (previously the anonymous Nestlé person) after all. Phew! PZ1800 09:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Now I'm kind of curious why PZ1800 created an account, but has only ever used it once- for making that comment. Kind of weird, IMHO.

"Previously anonymous?" Did this imply that you intended editing signed-in from now on, and haven't made any contributions since, or are you contributing anonymously again?

No big deal, only reason I mentioned it was that I noticed some edits similar in style and source IP to yours. Fourohfour 22:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently not; response here now here. Fourohfour 18:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I feel the article about Nestle has a strong negative and unbalanced tone to it. The allegations about the fair trade coffee is based on one quote of an unnamed Columbian trade unionist -hardly a very reliable source and certainly not reliable enough to be the only argument to question Nestles commitment to fair trade coffee. Quoting "Baby Milk Action", the organization whose only purpose is to boycott Nestle, certainly doesn’t support the argument either. Criticism is important, but empty accusations will not help anyone who wants to learn about the company. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.144.178.7 (talk • contribs) .

new information about pure life added

Nestlé water

In the article we read:

“ In Canada, Nestlé Pure Life water is actually tap water that's filled with minerals, like Dasani. ”

Is it just in Canada? Can we get a source for such information? --Kripkenstein 18:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Its Sold In The Us Too Mailny In Schools

"Of the United States"

Do these categories really belong?

• Category:Confectionery companies of the United States
• Category:Food companies of the United States

I thought it was a Swiss company. -Will Beback 02:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Nestle is a Swiss company; you are correct.

POV - Wikipedia is not a 'Company Watch' website

The introduction to this article and the emphasis the article gives to various allegations of unethical behaviour is extremely unencyclopaedic. Nestle is the worlds largest food and beverage company and yet a significant portion of the introduction and the rest of the article centres on accusations and calls for boycotts by specific groups over unethical business practices pertaining to a few specific products in a few specific countries.

I'm not denying information about the accusations but it is nothing short of POV pushing for these specific accusations and particularly the mention of one groups' call for a boycott to feature so prominently in the introduction at the expense of much more important information pertaining to this massive multi-national company. I have therefore removed the line from the introduction; it already appears under the relevant accusation section where it belongs (if anywhere). The accusations need tiding up and summarises into one section though rather than multiple sections detailing every accusation as it is not the place of Wikipedia to act like a 'Company Watch' website, detailing in detail every accusation against companies. Canderra 19:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a single summary sentence in the lead section gives over-emphasis. I agree that there is an imbalanced treatment, but I think the best approach is to expand the article to include additional information, rather than trim down the "controversy" sections too much. — Matt Crypto 19:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's important to remember that articles in Wikipedia should give prominence to the reasons why their subjects are notable. One of the main reasons for Nestle's notability is that it is associated with business practices which many people feel are unethical. Not to cover this subject in the article would cover the subject less than comprehensively. SP-KP 19:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the goals and purposes of Wikipedia and encyclopaedias in general. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or soapbox, the What Wikipedia is not page states this specifically, but that is what half this article appears to be. The point/goal is to give facts and information on a specific subject based on how relevant they are to that subject, not how 'notable' they are, something that is inherently based almost completely on contributor's/reader's POV.

More to the point, Nestle is a large multi-national company which is known for being the world's largest food and beverage manufacturer and is not widely seen as 'controversial' to the average person, at least no more than any other company of its size. If you take a look at a similar company like Nestle's main rival Kraft Foods, the article has a section Kraft Foods in the news, which is designed to present media reported information like 'notable' allegations, media reports and legal cases. I think the many accusations taking up the latter half of this article should be compacted into such a section as it provides an objective and neutral framework by which to present such controversial information. Canderra 22:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with your distinction between "relevant" and "notable"; to a large extent, what we include in any article is based on what aspects are known and emphasised about a topic. Many people know about Nestle particularly in the context of the controversies (and much more so than any other food company), therefore to discuss the controversies is relevant. — Matt Crypto 08:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats absurd. Nestlé is the worlds largest food and beverage producer, there must be very few people who have not heard of the company and the products they produce. Very few people in any English speaking countries (or even the entire world) on the other hand (outside of the relevant activist groups) will have heard of Nestlé due to these reported accusations. Yet, the accusations currently take up half the article. The distinction I'm talking about between "relevant" and "notable" is not my distinction but that of Wikipedia's, various policy pages specifically warn against filling up articles with long sections of speculation, promotional viewpoints, opposing viewpoints and multiple accusations. It is simply unencyclopaedic. Canderra 18:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you. It is quite encyclopedic and within policy to cover a topic comprehensively, including controversial aspects. I think you'd find that a great deal more people than you think will have heard of Nestle primarily because of the boycott. As I said above, we do give relatively too much space to it at present, but I would argue that the best solution is to expand the rest of the article. — Matt Crypto 19:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Canderra, I can't speak for anybody but myself on this, but the main reason I am aware of Nestle is because of the controversy over their business practices. If it wasn't for that, to me, Nestle would be just another anonymous large producer of things one can buy in supermarkets - like Nabisco, Procter & Gamble, Lever, Kimberley-Clark, Pfizer etc. I couldn't tell you which products these other companies produce (or even if they still exist under those names). I know many Nestle products, but only because of the publicity generated by the boycotts SP-KP 19:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"If it wasn't for that, to me, Nestle would be just another anonymous large producer of things one can buy in supermarket" - exactly, like virtually everyone else you have heard of Nestlé outside the context of the listed controversies. Whether or not you or anyone else take an interest in the controveries is totally beside the point, this article is titled "Nestlé", it is an article which is meant to be about the details of a company with that name and so should focus on the details of a company with that name. It categorically should NOT focus at length on the details of every criticism related to the company, that is for an article titled "Criticism of Nestlé". Canderra 19:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The word "anonymous" used by SP-KP suggests that the name is not known. Personally, I'm fairly unaware of companies behind food products, and I'm sure many people are. But that doesn't matter so much. The article should focus the appropriate length on criticism of the company. How do we decide what's appropriate? Well, that's the matter under discussion. I would argue that Nestle differs from many other food companies in that it has been embroiled in well-known controversies. For that reason, we give criticisms more space. — Matt Crypto 22:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Canderra perhaps has a point in saying that this article should not contain "every criticism" related to Nestle. It doesn't contain "every" criticism, obviously, but we should perhaps apply a test to each criticism to evaluate whether the criticism is a main point of notability about Nestle itself. The baby milk controversy is clearly THE most notable controversy, and a major reason why Nestle is a notable subject. As I've implied above, I actually think it is a greater reason for their notability than the products they produce. Some of the other criticisms are much less well-known however, and, it could be argued are not a primary reason for Nestle's notability. Being an inclusionist, I'd go along with Canderra's suggestion that we create a second article "Criticism of Nestlé" to cover that subject in more detail, rather than deleting the content from Wikipedia entirely. Where Canderra and I may disagree however is over the baby milk controversy, which I believe should be retained within this article, and given even greater prominence. An opening line which says something like "Nestle is a large food producer, best known for its controversial baby milk marketing practices and the controversy surrounding them" would seem reasonable to me, for instance. SP-KP 22:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'd support moving minor controversies to a "criticisms" subarticle and expanding on the baby milk + boycott stuff. The boycott is currently only briefly mentioned in this article. 22:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the Venezuala portion belongs in a "criticism" section. The boycott of Nestle's formula-marketing is criticism - a legal judgement against Nestle's negligence is hardly "criticism". If anything, it's just news. It should possibly just go in the history section. As for the other criticisms, I think some of them are highly POV. The water plant in Michigan that was not stopped by a non-profit group, for example. How is this important? If Nestle won the right to log a forest against a small group of people's wishes, why would this be relevent to anything? Pageblank 04:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

How to pronounce Nestle

The first section of the article raises the case of those speaking english pronouncing Nestlé in a variety of ways. Does anyone know the IPA way of writing the official pronounciation of Nestlé? changed 15:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I know how to put things into IPA, yes. The problem is knowing what the "official" pronunciation is. In the U.S., I grew up saying [ˈnɛsli] ("NESS-lee") and, more carefully, [ˈnɛstli] ("NEST-lee"), which was also the pronunciation of an English girlfriend I had. But I don't know whether that's the way that the company officially prefers. If you can find me the "official" pronunciation, I can put it in IPA for you. — President Lethe 15:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

In Australia the company was until recently called ("Nes-ulls"). However, the company now advertises as ("Nes-lay") and like good little automatons, Australians are adopting the company's preferred pronounciation. Avalon 12:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The pronounciation in Germany/Swiss is more like ("Nest-LEE") where EE is a long "e" as in the word "end". Jozef.sovcik 18:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

In the Philippines, too, we also speak Nestle as ("NES-lay"), except for Nestle Table Cream, where we call it ("NEH-sell").

• I remember it being pronounced as NESS-lee in commercials and when they'd announce prizes on game shows. I especially remember a commercial with a puppet dog who would close his mouth with an audible clunking sound. Youtube has some of these commercials going back to the 50s, so apparently NESS-lee has been the pronunciation for more than half a century at least. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, in the UK we pronounce it NESS-lay --Santahul 13:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record - in the UK - It used to be pronounced (even by the company in their own marketing i.e. Milky Bar TV adverts) as "Nes-ulls" - and plenty of people over 40 still use this pronunciation. Jooler

• In Malaysia and Singapore, most people pronounce it as NESS-lay too. changed 08:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Nestle History

The official history of the company can be found in this document:

[2]

user "70.49.96.18" claims that Nestle supports Terrorism,

This is a bold claim with zero evidence or citations to back it up. I believe this calls for a serious edit.

Good catch. Yes, that was simple vandali and someone has removed it. -Will Beback · † · 05:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation for Baby Milk Marketing section

I notice that the statement

This has centered on its apparent recommendations for nursing mothers to switch to its infant formula milk products, leading to the alleged deaths of about 1.5 million babies each year as a result of formula being mixed with contaminated water[

needs a citation. There is a problem with this, as I think the 1.5 million figure is used mistakenly. Unicef give a figure of 1.6 million deaths of under-fives from diarrhoea caused by unsafe drinking water UNICEF website and I think it's extremely unlikely that 1.5 million of these can be attributed to Nestle. I suggest a complete change of this sentence, perhaps

Nestle are accused of continuing to break the WHO code on marketing of breastmilk substitutes as recently as May 2006. Breastmilk substitutes are particularly problematic in countries with unsafe drinking water - for example, a study carried out in an urban area in southern Brazil in 1985 found that bottle fed babies were 14 times more likely to die from diarrhoea than those exclusively breastfed. (Victora, Cesar G. (1987-08-08). "Evidence for protection by breastfeeding against infant deaths from infectious diseases in Brazil". Lancet: 319–322. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help))

Smegely 20:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC) (I'm fairly new to this, so I leave it to someone more experienced to decide if this should go in the main article.)

The unreferences figure currently in the article of 'about 15 thousand deaths each year from mixing infant formula with contaminated water seems' to be fluctuating lots (it was given as just 15 deaths each year when I first looked!). I'm familiar with the UNICEF/WHO figure of 1.5 million deaths each year due to inappropriate infant feeding. A quick look for references and I found these pages: http://www.unicef.org/sowc01/maps/maps/map1nf.htm "Improved breastfeeding practices and reduction of artificial feeding could save an estimated 1.5 million children a year." and http://ftp.who.int/gb/pdf_files/WHA54/ea547.pdf "Some 1.5 million children still die every year because they are inappropriately fed" As pointed out above by Smegely, this figure isn't perfectly applicable to the article, but if its going to be used should be correct and referenced. 86.6.13.185 12:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed text for Baby Milk Marketing summary

In line with Wikipedia: Summary style, I've attempted to summarize the content of the Nestlé boycott page for use in the Baby Milk Marketing subsection of the main Nestlé article (Nestlé#Baby_milk_marketing):

Since the late 1970s, Nestlé has attracted much criticism for its baby milk marketing policies in developing countries. This has centered on its apparent recommendations for nursing mothers to switch to its infant formula milk products, leading to the alleged health problems and deaths of babies in poorer countries. Several advocacy groups and charities have accused Nestlé of violating the widely agreed-upon International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes ("International Code").

According to UNICEF, health issues can occur in formula-fed infants in less developed countries for three reasons: the formula is mixed with contaminated drinking water, poor mothers cannot afford adequate supplies to feed their babies, and formula lacks the disease-fighting antibodies that are contained in breast milk. According to the International Code, it is unethical to promote infant formula by distributing free powdered formula samples to hospitals and maternity wards (which makes it more likely that the mother must buy supplies after leaving the hospital) or by offering gifts and sponsorship to health workers; also, formula must be appropriately labeled in the language of the country where it is sold.

The initial boycott began in 1977, following publicity about Nestlé’s marketing practices in the developing world. In 1981 the World Health Organization adopted the International Code. In 1984, Nestlé agreed to implement the International Code in developing countries, and after Nestlé consultated with the World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF and the International Nestlé Boycott Committee, the boycott was suspended. However, in 1989 the boycott was relaunched following allegations that baby-milk companies were flooding health facilities with free and low-cost supplies The boycott is currently coordinated by the International Nestlé Boycott Committee, the secretariat for which is the UK group Baby Milk Action. Company practices are monitored by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN).

According to IBFAN, Nestlé itself still advertised breast milk replacements and used pictures of babies in its advertising in 2004. Post 2004 allegations of breaches of the International Code continue to be made by IBFAN and other campaign organizations such as Save the Children (May 2007) and The Guardian newspaper.. Nestlé claims that it has issued instructions to all its offices to ensure strict compliance with the International Code, and that all claims are investigated and any violations subject to disciplinary action. The company also maintains that it many of the allegations are unsubstantiated, out-of-date, or use IBFAN's own non-standard interpretation of the Code.

Any comments? Will this do as a summary? Does it contain too much detail/not enough for an overview of the issues? Is it NPOV? Any other ways it could be improved? Fionah 18:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

---

A recent change states that something along the lines of 270 million babies are being killed every year by Nestle. I am think that perhaps the change should be reverted... (?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.159.198 (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Nestlé in Peru

I removed the following material from the main article, due to its overtly PoV stance, and only in-citations. My view is that it's not notable, PoV, full of peacocks, weasels and not possible to back up. Your thoughts would be appreciated though.

At the turn of the century, Nestlé took over D'Onofrio, a candy giant in Peru. D'Onofrio was a wildly popular Peruvian candy maker.Its name was synonymous with good quality.It tackled the whole market,making several varieties of ice cream, chocolates(Sublime, Princesa, etc..),Panetón .Nestle at first produced lower quality goods at the same price with the same name D'onofrio.After two years with this sham placed its own name on all label and reduced the quality still more.Its practices in taking over already thriving national companies and its exploitation of workers and the national economy are still being questioned.

M0RHI | Talk to me 17:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed Content

This is not a forum for general discussion of Nestlé. Any such messages will be deleted.

Jessica A Bruno, 1.7.2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicaabruno (talk • contribs)

The above falls into the category of WP:NOT#FORUM. Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion on an issue or company, it is a discussion page for the article. M0RHI | Talk to me 18:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of Poland Spring Scandal

Poland Spring is a subsidiary of Nestlé. Its page includes a very brief section on the scandals it has faced in Maine. I live part time in the area, so I know that the local politicians are participating in illegal activity, but that's original research, I suppose, so I won't mention it. I'd like to see Poland Spring's scandal included in the controversy and criticism section by a neutral editor. 74.75.233.14 15:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)