EUSA and the Nestlé Boycott

Article published in Hype Magazine

Twenty two years ago, the EUSA annual general meeting (AGM) passed a motion to ban the sale of Nestlé products in union shops, claiming that the company's “aggressive marketing of artificial babymilk in the Third World persuades many mothers to abandon breast feeding in favour of Nestlé products”, leading to “disease, malnutrition and death for millions of babies”. The ban, which was upheld at general meetings in 1992 and 1997, will be challenged at the upcoming EUSA AGM. By brandishing their matriculation cards in the air, students will have the opportunity to restore Kit Kats to union shops or to continue boycotting a company whose policies lead directly to the unnecessary suffering and death of infants.

According to UNICEF, unsafe water, over-dilution and unsterile equipment causes the deaths of approximately one million babies each year from the use of babymilk substitutes. The World Health Organisation ‘International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes’ governs the promotion of babymilk products. Nestlé is the subject of a worldwide boycott campaign because it has systematically violated this code since its ratification in 1981. In the past two years, more than 130 violations by Nestlé have been documented in 34 countries across five continents. These include measures designed to destroy mothers’ confidence in breastfeeding, the banned promotion of babymilk substitutes to the public and in health facilities, gifts to health workers and the distribution of free samples.

Evidence establishes the effectiveness of the boycott: violations are not as numerous or blatant as in the 1980s; the company now accepts the code, in principle, rather than claiming it is “irrelevant” and “unworkable”; Nestlé no longer dresses its sales representatives as nurses. To quote a famous British politician, however, there's a lot been done but a lot still to do. The requirements of the code are clear. When Nestlé finally completes its slow progress toward compliance, the boycott will end and the company will receive a massive windfall of good publicity. I, for one, will head to the corner shop for a celebratory Toffee Crisp.

Will continued violation of the the code translate into an AGM victory for the boycott? Not quite. The character of previous debates suggests the argument of choice, that market economics, rather than EUSA, should decide what is stocked in shops will heavily influence the motion. If the ban is truly supported by students, it is argued, then a union-wide boycott is unnecessary.

In 1982, the general meeting voted to ban all products from apartheid South Africa. The students used the democratic systems provided by EUSA to denounce racial tyranny. Unions exist to represent the interests of their members and give them a powerful collective voice. The central question is whether we still consider the babymilk issue to be of such importance as to make a stand as a group. Thankfully, EUSA is not a cabal. The union shops are run democratically and students can decide democratically what is stocked in them. General meetings are the most powerful decision making body in EUSA and the most democratic short of a referendum. By voting to keep the ban we can send a clear message to Nestlé that we disapprove of its babymilk policies and continue to support the largest consumer boycott in history.

The motion to rescind the ban on Nestlé should be welcomed by all sides. It provides a great opportunity, not only for open discussion and debate of an important issue, but for increased engagement with the democratic processes EUSA provides to us as students. It is only right and proper that boycotts should be questioned. Sadly, Nestlé continues to put its £2.8bn annual profit before the health of babies. For this reason, I believe the student body will vote to uphold the ban on Wednesday 10 November.

Laurence Durnan