Could Nestle, one of the world's most successful multinational companies have avoided a global boycott of its products as a result of marketing baby formula to Third World nations? The company faced a host of politically charged issues long before it engaged in the marketing of its baby formula to any women. Having developed a product which freed women from breast feeding, or which provided valuable supplements for women whose breast milk was not sufficiently nutritious to meet their babies' needs, Nestle faced the uncomfortable situation of being condemned both for marketing, or not marketing, the product.
If the company chose not to market the product to Third World nations, it faced the charge that it was withholding a valuable dietary supplement which could save children's lives. Women who are malnourished cannot provide adequate breast milk to their children; the infant formula provides a valuable supplement. However, if the company's position was that women in these countries were not educated in the proper use of the formula, or that sanitary conditions prohibited the proper preparation of the formula, or that women would use it instead of breast feeding to the detriment of their children, the company could well have been accused of patronizing, and even racist, sentiments, and selling only to the "better" women of the First World.
The company opted to sell its products to women in developing nations, and engaged in aggressive marketing techniques which eventually led to the boycott. "Milk" nurses and sampling to physicians as well as advertising showing healthy infants may have contributed to the misuse of the product; certainly these techniques helped to increase sales. Even after the company agreed to abide by the World Health Organization's rules and worked with UNICEF to try to determine the best way to overcome problems, the company faced the boycott.
The company could withdraw the product from the Third Wor...