[gpm]

I don't understand the complaint in that article? It seems to basically be that:

- Nestle made a baby formula

- They marketed it heavily to poor people in the third world.

- Poor people in the third world proceed to dilute the formula with more than the recommended amount of water to save money (and the article does not say that this was at Nestle's prompting), and as a result didn't feed their babies enough.

Maybe less than ideal and somewhat scummy? Sure, most advertising is like that really. Worse than literally selling poisonous baby formula? I don't see it.

But perhaps I misunderstand the accusation.

[autoexec]

I'd heard part of the problem was that Nestlé lied to mothers to make them think they needed it, gave them enough for free that their own breast-milk dried up making them dependent on formula to feed their child at which point many were stuck with an expense they couldn't actually afford leading to things like diluting the formula. Certainly not as bad as outright poisoning formula, but a shitty thing in general to poverty stricken areas who were more than capable of feeding their own babies for free before Nestlé took advantage of them to take what little those mothers had.

[seanmcdirmid]

But this is nowhere near the same thing as the Chinese baby milk melamine scandal, as well as more localized fake baby milk powder scandals. In fact, people go to HK to buy so much baby milk powder that they had prevent export.

We are comparing a non defective product that couldn’t be used effectively by a certain populations to outright fraud.

[meds2010]

I can see a product designer make the case that if millions are dying, then the product is defective in some way. The rules are different in two different places, but I can see how someone thinks these two cases are similar, both are about corporate greed, and the victims are just statistics. Is it murder if there is something wrong with the product, and you don't pull it? Many people out there believe that it is:

https://www.odwyerpr.com/story/public/5379/2015-09-18/gm-pay...

[seanmcdirmid]

Well, one is against the law and the other is not and, in fact, couldn’t be without serious implications to personal freedom. One messes with the truthfulness of the information an informed consumer has available, the other simply relies on an uninformed consumer. These are not similar at all.

As an analogy, take sugary snacks. Say a snack has lots of sugar but the company claims it is sugar free anyways. In another case, a snack is truthful about its sugar content but the consumer lacks the education (or willpower) to care. Aren’t these completely different problems?

[meds2010]

It depends on how innocent you think Nestle is. I can understand why someone would conclude that there is some "messing with the truthfulness" going on at Nestle. Both in the product design, and the marketing. It's why a lot of people call it a "scandal." I think this is less about laws for people who compare the two and more about morals. In one you have dozens dead, in the other, the claim is that millions died. Both are about corporations and profit and gaming the system and manipulating consumers, so in that sense, I think it's easy to make the case that they are extremely similar.

[seanmcdirmid]

I think only a fringe call that a scandal since it doesn't involve outright deception. It all depends on whether you think someone should save people from themselves.

Sugar has probably killed more than millions, which has definitely been driven by corporate profits and gaming the system (substituting sugar for fat). But again, Coke Cola and Mars (and yes, Nestle) haven't been consider a scandal yet.

[meds2010]

the numbers are definitely worse. "millions" dead? that sounds pretty bad. Not sure how true that is. It certainly isn't clear. But the idea that a western corporation will do something like changing a product to save money, or not recalling a product knowing that someone out there will die... do you really need to be given examples of that?

[darawk]

Millions died because mother's diluted the formula, against the instructions of the company. How is that Nestle's fault?

[markdown]

Nestle marketed the formula heavily as a safe substitute for breast milk despite the fact they knew many Africans didn't have access to safe drinking water to make the formula, they sold it heavily discounted.

Mothers bought it and used it so their own breast milk dried up. Then when they couldn't afford enough of it as the baby grew and needed more, they were forced to ration the formula.

Millions died.