A Franciscan Benediction May God bless you with discomfort … At easy answers, half-truths, and superficial relationships, So that you may live deep within your heart. May God bless you with anger … At injustice, oppression, and exploitation of people, So that you may work for justice, freedom, and peace. May God bless you with tears … To shed for those who suffer from pain, rejection, starvation and war, So that you may reach out your hand to comfort them and to turn their pain into joy. And may God bless you with enough foolishness … To believe that you can make a difference in this world, So that you can do what others claim cannot be done. Amen
eley
"Sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground"--Sweet Baby James
Posts: 1979 | Location: Texas | Registered: 21 August 2004
This might be a good thread to bring in the G8/Philippine breastfeeding (rather lack of it) story. I'd like to talk about that further, but I don't want to muddy up the other thread (real progressive debate).
------------------------------------ We cannot control the evil tongues of others; but a good life enables us to disregard them.
Posts: 1855 | Location: here and now | Registered: 22 September 2005
I had never heard it either. It came out in our church newsletter and spoke to me.
I think bringing the G8 article over here is probably a good idea. I'm sure Buteos isn't happy with me directing his thread where I would like it to go.
The thing about the article for me is less the main point of it, though that is important too, and more the issue with how the head of the US chamber of commerce pointed out that it was 'investor confidence' that was at stake.
These are the deaths caused only by acute results of feeding children with substitutes for breastmilk. A summary of peer-reviewed studies compiled by the campaigning groups Infact and Ibfan suggests that breastfeeding also reduces the incidence of asthma, allergies, childhood cancers, diabetes, coeliac disease, Crohn’s, colitis, obesity, cardiovascular disease, poor cognitive development, ear infections and poor dentition(4). Switching from bottle to breast could prevent 13% of all childhood deaths(5): a greater impact than any other measure. Panaceas are rare in medicine, but the mammary gland is one.
Both the government of the Philippines and the UN blame the manufacturers of baby formula for much of the decline in breastfeeding. These companies spend over $100m a year on advertising breastmilk substitutes in the Philippines, which equates to over half the department of health’s annual budget(6). Those who appear most susceptible to this advertising are the poor, who are also the most likely to be using contaminated water to make up the feed. Some spend as much as one third of their household income on formula. Powdered milk now accounts for more sales than any other consumer product in the Philippines(7). Almost all of it is produced by companies based in the rich nations.....
Last year, in the hope of arresting this public health disaster, the Philippines Department of Health drew up a new set of rules. It prohibited all advertising and promotion of infant formula for children of up to two years old. It forbade the formula companies from giving away gifts or samples or from providing assistance to health workers or classes to mothers(13). The new rules seem stiff, but they all come straight from the WHO’s code. PHAP, whose members include most of the world’s biggest pharmaceutical companies(14), went to the supreme court to try to obtain a restraining order. When it failed the big guns arrived.
The US embassy and the US regional trade representative started lobbying the Philippines government. Then the chief executive of the US Chamber of Commerce in Washington – which represents three million businesses – wrote a letter to the president of the Philippines, Gloria Arroyo. The new rules, he claimed, would have “unintended negative consequences for investors’ confidence”. The country’s reputation “as a stable and viable destination for investment is at risk.”(15) Four days later, the Supreme Court reversed its decision and imposed the restraining order PHAP had requested. It remains in force today. The government is currently unable to prevent companies from breaking the international code.
So the Department of Health asked a senior government lawyer, Nestor Ballocillo, to contest the order. In December Ballocillo and his son were shot dead while walking from their home. The case remains unsolved: Ballocillo was working on several contentious issues. Last month the US regional trade representative paid another visit to the Philippines government(16). The department of health now appears to be wavering. In two weeks’ time the campaigners trying to promote breastfeeding will present their arguments to the Supreme Court to try to get the order lifted, and the formula companies will try to stop them. If the companies win, thousands of children will continue to die of preventable diseases.
The murders I referred to on the other thread are the deaths of the infants. The Balocillo's though are also in there.
I have just edited this post so that the quote has the bold, red color and italics applied so that the investor confidence aspect is emphasized, which is a point I think is something of a root issue, as well as a possible point of vulnerability of corporate control--something of a David's sling shot against Goliath.
eley
This message has been edited. Last edited by: eleyballel,
"Sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground"--Sweet Baby James
Posts: 1979 | Location: Texas | Registered: 21 August 2004
Back in 1992 I was taking a cultural anthropology class, a very interesting one. The instructor was a great man, very knowledgeable. He told a story about a well know USA Food company that made baby formula, among other things (best known for chocolate). Anyway this company went down to Africa,and other poor countries with their product, powdered baby formula. They driessed their salespeople up like doctors and nurses and gave away cases of powdered baby formulas. Gave it away, for free, while extolling the virtues of bottle feeding emphasizing how big and healthy American babies were who were on the formulas. They knew there was not adequate supplies of clean water, but that didn't stop them from handing out the free trials. By dressing as health professionals they misled the mothers. Mothers, not knowing any better, started using the new formulas and soon their milk dried up. It doesn't take very long for that to happen. Soon it became apparent that babies were suffering from formula mixed with unclean water, and also from mothers who trying to cut corners misled it improperly to try and make it stretch further. It was a travesty and thousands of babies got very sick, many of them died. The corporate people were not punished for what they done, it was so wrong, but the argument was that they didn't force anyone to use anything. Such a shame.
Know we know that breastfeeding is the most ideal form of sustenance for small children. Supply will meet demand, there's no need to mix it with water, it cannot spoil like formula can, and it's way more healthy than the substitute.
------------------------------------ We cannot control the evil tongues of others; but a good life enables us to disregard them.
Posts: 1855 | Location: here and now | Registered: 22 September 2005
Originally posted by LisaP: Back in 1992 I was taking a cultural anthropology class, a very interesting one. The instructor was a great man, very knowledgeable. He told a story about a well know USA Food company that made baby formula, among other things (best known for chocolate). Anyway this company went down to Africa,and other poor countries with their product, powdered baby formula. They driessed their salespeople up like doctors and nurses and gave away cases of powdered baby formulas. Gave it away, for free, while extolling the virtues of bottle feeding emphasizing how big and healthy American babies were who were on the formulas. They knew there was not adequate supplies of clean water, but that didn't stop them from handing out the free trials. By dressing as health professionals they misled the mothers. Mothers, not knowing any better, started using the new formulas and soon their milk dried up. It doesn't take very long for that to happen. Soon it became apparent that babies were suffering from formula mixed with unclean water, and also from mothers who trying to cut corners misled it improperly to try and make it stretch further. It was a travesty and thousands of babies got very sick, many of them died. The corporate people were not punished for what they done, it was so wrong, but the argument was that they didn't force anyone to use anything. Such a shame.
Know we know that breastfeeding is the most ideal form of sustenance for small children. Supply will meet demand, there's no need to mix it with water, it cannot spoil like formula can, and it's way more healthy than the substitute.
sounds like the salespeople were "just following orders". Not their moral responsibility. Heard that one at Nuremburg.
The perpetrator and the ones carrying out a plot are equally guilty.
Does this prove corporations aren't persons...or just that they are persons with no scrupples?
Retired Monk "Ideology is a disease"
Posts: 3412 | Location: denver co | Registered: 17 April 2007
sounds like the salespeople were "just following orders". Not their moral responsibility. Heard that one at Nuremburg.
The investors too are just investing. Does this mean that investing should be done consciously knowing what kind of actions the corporations you invest in are taking? Should we all stop and look close at what our money is doing to people and the environment locally and globally? Should people be absolved of responsibility of what their dollars support?
Lisa,
I remember getting so depressed when in collage because of all the stories I heard in a similar vain. How does it change?
I just found that Paul Hawkin has altered his Natural Capital Institute web-site. I went there to see the social investing research that showed that most of those funds were really no different than the others. They had the same companies in them really.
But what I found was very different. He's going at it from a positive stance--what can be done.
Eley, thanks for the link. Every since I heard that story, I try and keep abreast of things and not support companies that do stuff like that. I don't buy their products and I don't invest in their stock. Not that I have much stock investments to begin with. Sometimes it's hard to find the information, it's not like it's reported in the news, and corporations have companies within companies, so different names are used. In the case above, the company that did that was one I thought only was only in the chocolate business, but they have subsidiary companies for different things.
I think it is possible for corporations to work morally, for the good of all (stockholders, employees, vendors and communities) and when I find one, I support them by buying their product even if it's more expensive. It means being more conscious and working a little harder on my end. The kind of lifestyle I'm trying to achieve is not what our society has been promoting. I'm trying to get to the point where most of my consumer goods come from local sources, where I can walk to the market and walk or ride a bike to work. I'm embracing a 'less is more' attitude and trying to simplify my life. It's a work in process.
I do think that in general, where our money goes, what it supports is our responsibility. If the collective we, purchase things that are made with slave labor, then we are in fact supporting slavery. If we invest in companies that used unscrupulous practices in poor countries to maximize profit, that hurt the health and well being of those populations, then we are culpable too.
------------------------------------ We cannot control the evil tongues of others; but a good life enables us to disregard them.
Posts: 1855 | Location: here and now | Registered: 22 September 2005
Beautiful poem and outrageous Common Dreams article!! I am very offended by our "world leaders". They cannot even seem to grasp the seriousness of the state of the world today, all they can do is pose for a bunch of photographers and eat sushi. Bush is certainly capable of singlehandedly ruining the relations between the US and Russia, which are already fragile. I don't buy for one second that he's willing to address climate change and as for Africa, that's a dang shame.
I didn't have much confidence in today's politics but now I know it's just a rich boy's farce. And Angela Merkel is a rich boy too, whether she likes it or not.
Posts: 140 | Location: Universe | Registered: 07 January 2007
In July 2005, leaders of the world's eight richest countries met for the G8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland. They came up with grand pronouncements and a decision to reduce poverty worldwide by 2010. Over the last two years, how did they do? Most haven't done much if anything, some have completely reneged on their promises.
------------------------------------ We cannot control the evil tongues of others; but a good life enables us to disregard them.
Posts: 1855 | Location: here and now | Registered: 22 September 2005
I commend you for your efforts. I hope that more people will do as you have chosen. I wonder if there is any entity out there putting togather information on companies and their subsidiaries and how they conduct business--looking into ethical and unethical behavior and reporting to their investors. Maybe it could be a good tool, especially when I think of big institutions that invest for people from groups like the United Methodist Church, whose ministers have really good retirement funds. If they were able to have this kind of information, just their moves along with a few other groups with their investing dollars maybe able to put enough pressure on such corporations to impact them somewhat. For example, if they threatened to remove investnment dollars in any formula company doing this kind of business (who knows maybe they have), then investor confidence is influenced in the opposite direction.
When I get a chance, I will look into it and see if such a thing is happening.
Ariel,
Bush is so completely out of touch. Who knows what the next few months will bring. So true, it's a small group of 8 that's ruining it for the other 6,000,000,000.
eley
"Sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground"--Sweet Baby James
Posts: 1979 | Location: Texas | Registered: 21 August 2004
From Amy Goodman's interview with John Perkins on his new book The Secret History of The American Empire: Economic Hit Men, Jackels, and the Truth about Global Corruption.
And so, if we want to turn this around, we have to impact them [a group of men who run our biggest corporations] very strongly, which means that we have to change the corporations, which is their power base. And what I feel very strongly is that today corporations exists for the primary purpose of making large profits, making a few very rich people a lot richer on a quarterly basis, on a daily basis, on a very short-term basis. That shouldn't be. There is no reason for that to be.
Corporations have been defined as individuals. Individuals have to be good citizens. Corporations need to be good citizens. They need to take -- their primary goal must be to take care of their employees, their customers and all the people around the world who provide the resources that go into making this world run, and to take care of the environments and the communities where those people live.
We must get the corporations to redefine themselves, and I think it’s very realistic that we can do so. Every corporate executive out there is smart enough to realize that he’s running a very failed system. As an economist, as a rational person, nobody can conclude anything otherwise. If you look at the fact that less than 5% of the world's population live in the United States and we consume more than 25% of the world's resources and create over 30% of its major pollution, you can only conclude that we’ve created a very flawed and failed system. This is not a model that can be sold to the Chinese or the Indians or the Africans or the Middle Easterners or the Latin Americans. We can’t even continue with it ourselves. It has to change. And corporate executives know that. They’re smart individuals. I believe that they want to see change.
And when we have really pushed them to change, we’ve been extremely successful. For example, we’ve got them to clean up rivers that were terribly polluted in the 1970s in this country. We got them to get rid of the aerosol cans that were destroying the ozone layer. We got them to change their policies toward hiring and promoting minorities and women. We’ve gotten them to put seatbelts in cars and airbags, against their initial resistance. We’ve got them to change tremendously in any specific area where we’ve set out to do that.
Now, it behooves us, we must convince them that their corporations need to be institutions to make this a better world, rather than institutions that serve a few very rich people and their goal is to make those people even richer. We need to turn this around. We must.
eley
"Sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground"--Sweet Baby James
Posts: 1979 | Location: Texas | Registered: 21 August 2004
Individuals are legally responsible for their views. Messages or parts of messages may be quoted or read on the radio, or reprinted in Thom's books and other materials.
Read-Only Topic
)
