This is what Greenpeace have to say; Wow. There are several other words I could use to express my amazement at the response to our campaign about Nestlé's use of palm oil, but none of them are fit to write here, so "wow" will have to do for now.
Since Wednesday morning - when we launched our controversial Kit Kat advert and demanded that Nestlé stop using palm oil from companies destroying Indonesia's rain-forests - events have unfolded rapidly, and everyone at Greenpeace is amazed at how our supporters have taken this so much further than we ever imagined. Here's a quick recap:
* Nestlé told Youtube to pull our video due to copyright infringement. It was later reinstated, but not before we'd uploaded it elsewhere and asked supporters to do the same. Current number of views: 585,000 and counting.
* Facebook users went to Nestlé's fan page to ask what the company was doing about their palm oil suppliers, where they were met with rude and arrogant responses from the company. Word of this spread like wildfire around the internet, and has been the talk of many high-profile blogs and news websites.
* Thousands of people around the world sent Nestlé CEO Paul Bulcke emails, but we've discovered that Nestlé blocked many of these. Now, emails are going to André Kudelski, a member of the board of directors, and we're working out what to do with the ones which didn't get through.
Nestlé have issued a statement saying that they'll stop buying directly from the worst supplier, Sinar Mas, but this doesn't go far enough as much of their palm oil comes through third parties, like Cargill, who continue to buy palm oil from Sinar Mas.
Your actions are having a big impact at Nestlé HQ. If you haven't already, email Nestlé now demanding they stop using palm oil and other products from the notorious Sinar Mas. We had some technical problems with our website on Wednesday so if you weren't able to send your email, it's working absolutely fine now.
And don't forget to share our Kit Kat video with your friends.
,Don't think I'm allowed to post the actual advert here, too controversial, also copyright issues involved. But take a look at the greenpeace campaign to stop Nestle buying palm oil and destroying the rain forest. It's pretty yukky but makes it's point.
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/index.html?utm_source=monkeyemailupdate&utm_medium=email&utm_term=palmoil&utm_campaign=forests
good luck
ReplyDeletechiquita is killing people over bananas
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/11/14/chiquita.lawsuit/
I avoid palm oil along with several other things that are not good for me. Since I don't go to Facebook or Twitter, I missed it all.
ReplyDeleteI must admit for all the exposure that this has had, it is the first that I have heard of the advertisement campaign and I am a member and contributor to Greenpeace.
I did a search and found a statement from Nestle, it states in part "...We confirm that Nestlé has only bought from Sinar Mas for manufacturing in Indonesia, and no palm oil bought from Sinar Mas has been used by Nestlé for manufacturing in any other country." Apparently Nestlé has replaced the Indonesian company Sinar Mas as a supplier of palm oil with another supplier for further shipments. That company had been used to purchase from the local economy. I could not find where Greenpeace made mention that the link between Sinar Mas and Nestle was a local Indonesian issue.
I'm not specifically defending Nestle and certainly not defending any practices that are used by Sinar Mas that would be pushing orangutans towards extinction. But I wonder why Greenpeace is taking on one company at a time? Much time was spent taking on Cadbury in Australia and NZ over palm oil and then an attempt to move on to Hershey. This problem is not limited to candy and is larger than one candy company, see the link:
http://www.cmzoo.org/docs/palmOilCandyGuide2009.pdf
As I pointed out to Greenpeace in a questionnaire, they need to get organized in their campaigns, otherwise they get reported in the news for about two minutes when they do some kind of protest, then the story goes away.
In general I attempt to avoid palm oil and products not grown in the US or Mexico. Many of these products are taking a livelihood away from native people in central and south America. I had not heard of this; I will look into this as I am a fan of chocolate and coffee.
ReplyDeletehave heard about the commotion on several web sites. have to admit i don't know anything about palm oil. have had one curious thought that no one seems to ever bring up--
ReplyDeleteif nestle stops using palm oil, will they go out of business?
i suppose if the answer is no then perhaps enough consumer pressure will encourage them to quit.
if the answer is yes then i'm not at all surprised at their response, it is a business avoiding its own death.
its business as usual. money runs our lives, money makes our decisions for us. perhaps if this world had never turned to money as a crutch then responsible decisions such as forgoing palm oil would have been easy to make.
I saw a documentary recently about the palm oil business. The amount of deforestation caused by it is alarming, so I support any moves to slow down or stop it.
ReplyDeleteThinking about what is in our armoire--Lindt and Van Houten.
ReplyDeleteIs Nestlé the only multinational using palm oil in their products?
ReplyDeleteReally good question, I don't know for sure but I suspect not.
ReplyDeletePossibly Nestle is targeted because they have a history, every one still remembers the baby milk fiasco where Nestle orchestrated an aggressive advertising campaign to persuade young mothers to use formula milk in preference to breast milk in areas where poverty was rife and clean water was scarce. Possibly also because many Nestle products are marketed at children rather than adults. They are also one of the companies notorious for paying growers very low wages and making it difficult for their growers to sell to fair trade cooperatives. I'm sure, you are right, and I'm sure all of this could be said of many other multinationals but Nestle appear to be riddled with 'bad' practices, if harvesting palm oil and destroying large areas of rain forest were their only fault, maybe they wouldn't be targeted so often. I'm just guessing here but my thoughts are; they are targeted because they flout virtually every moral, ecological and ethical practice about, not just the one.
I once briefly (very briefly) studied economics and I remember being told that the purpose of a business is to make maximum profit. In economic terms that's apparently not a moral statement but a statement of fact, and in economic terms that is exactly what Nestle does. It maximises profits (because that's the objective of all businesses) and it doesn't consider moral/ ethical or environmental issues, because those things are not on their remit. And I think, because Nestle are so blatant in their disregard for all things other than profit, they are targeted quite often by those organisations who believe businesses now also have moral responsibilities. But...............that's just what i think
I think Frank that Greenpeace here and Greenpeace there publicise different issues. I also subscribe to Greenpeace and this is in fact their latest news email to hit my inbox.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes I have noticed the tendency to target one or two companies. I have no idea why this seems to be their strategy except maybe they feel if they spread them selves too thin nothing at all will be achieved. Also of course for all possible reasons I mentioned in previous answer. I think you are right, in lots of ways they are quite good at bringing things to our attention but they are not so good at a conducting a sustained campaign and following it through until laws are changed. Possibly as you say..........disorganised.
The national notice that Greenpeace has had in the US in recent years is about the killing of whales and dolphins. Those issues have been covered by journalists just to the extent that there has been disruption of fishing in Japanese waters. Their primary way to gather attention is through intrusion or blockade; consequently, the Government isn't viewing that as being constructive.
ReplyDelete