From the 1930s to the 1970s, the infant formula industry used aggressive marketing techniques in developing countries. Mass media promotion was often and vivid using billboards and radio ads as one avenue. Another avenue was the distribution of baby books, posters, and samples throughout the developing healthcare systems. The advertisements posted in healthcare facilities compared images of a healthy baby to that of a sick or malnourished baby, and therefore superficially evoked the endorsement of the healthcare industry. Milk nurses (saleswoman) were often distributed to these facilities and the milk nurses' compensation was partly based upon getting mothers to use the product. These practices may seem abhorrent, but compared to modern day comparisons, they are really nothing out of the ordinary. Companies aggressively go after market share. Nothing has changed.

In 1966, Dr. Derrick B. Jelliffe, the Director of the Caribbean Food and Nutrition Institute, wrote a pamphlet, Child Nutrition in Developing Countries, that the World Health Organization (WHO) published. The purpose of the pamphlet was to warn of the dangers in bottle feeding in "traditional and semi-sophisticated" populations. In 1969, based upon the writings in the pamphlet, he was asked to testify before the Protein Advisory Group (PAG) of the United Nations. During his testimony, he described the worst case scenario of death of an infant through malnutrition and dehydration that resulted from bottle feeding. Despite any actual empirical scientific evidence, his testimony was so shocking that the PAG gave it instant credibility. The conclusion was made that the use of baby formula in developing nations results in an increase in the infant mortality rate of those countries.

A battle would develop and ensue until the mid-1980s between the multinational corporations (MNCs) that supplied baby formula and the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) hell bent on destroying them. All this over a product that supposedly, but never scientifically proven, contributed to infant deaths. Everyone got involved in the fray, including the United States Senate. Teddy Kennedy (D-Mass), in 1977, held public hearings before the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of the Committee on Human Resources. At these hearings Dr. Jelliffe "guesstimated" the number of infant deaths due to baby formula in third world countries to be roughly 10 million a year. It should be noted that Lactation Review estimated that only 5% of the food supply for babies in developing countries was derived from baby formula. If this were true, Dr. Jelliffe's "guesstimate" would be statistically impossible.

The suppliers of infant formula formed the International Council of Infant Food Industries to respond to attacks and develop standard marketing procedures. However, the NGOs had already shifted public opinion through the use of mass media that automatically gave the cause legitimacy. Nestle's image took the hardest hit, as it owned 75% of the market share of baby formula supplied in developing countries. One pamphlet published was titled "Nestle Kills Babies." A movie, Bottle Babies, made in 1975, featured interviews with child nutritionists whom furthered the non-existent cause. I state it as non-existent, because during this time, infant mortality rates were actually dropping in developing countries due to substantial increases in the infrastructure and healthcare systems that ultimately allowed for infants to receive better care. An independent study by WHO and UNICEF verified this.

For decades, Nestle's corporate image was dragged through the mud, and the perception was strong enough to cause a consumer boycott that lasted against Nestle from 1977 to 1984. For seven years, Nestle's bottom line was affected due to nothing more than an international, non-scientific based, public duping. It boiled down to a cause with no evidence that the mass media was glad to assist. And why? Because pestilence sells.

Eventually the combatants would tire, and the infant formula manufacturers were forced to devote unnecessary resources to curbing the cause. Nestle went as far to form a center for nutrition that engaged in dialog with the NGOs. All to try to win a battle that should have never been waged that was based upon only one doctor's idea. An idea that was never substantive.

I have a couple reasons for mentioning this scenario. First, I believe we must all study history. We must look at past events to understand how current events are happening. I do not believe companies should be attacked and corporate images be smeared, just for the fact corporations exist to turn a profit. For example, how many times have you heard colleagues attack Wal-Mart. The stereotypical attacker of Wal-Mart is a younger, educated idealist who has a good job and can afford to shop at higher-end retailers. The attack boils down to several factors. The first being that Wal-Mart treats it employees like crap. The employee, who is free to chose their place of work, is underpaid with no insurance. Another common attack is that Wal-Mart isn't green enough (whatever this means). One among conservationists is the fact Wal-mart gobbles up land to put up these ugly structures. Land someone had to sell them. Or my favorite, and coincidentally the least educated argument, Wal-Mart is "ghetto." However, one should keep in mind that Wal-Mart is a large employer and does provide jobs to many people who need a second job or only feel comfortable in a basic position. Furthermore, Wal-Mart drives down the cost of goods for the consumer, and therefore allows people with less income to better provide for their families. You never hear these counterarguments, unless that yuppie engages someone like me.

Another reason I mention this scenario is it is a great example of "fear selling." Nothing real exists, but we can sell that it does. Therefore, we can hurt these MNCs and propel our own existence into the mainstream. This often happens. The cause only exists for the self-interests of the parties perpetuating it. That is disgusting, in and of itself, but is worsened when you get one old fatass politician involved. Did you ever wonder how many jobs exist and are funded for the sake of finding evidence of global warming? Could PETA exist without finding enemies to rally against? Could Greenpeace? What about MADD?

My point is that just because NGOs exist, and exist for a good cause, do not always take them at face value. Facts and science can be distorted, and the mass media can often act as an accomplice. Why? Because a just or tragic cause sells! As someone who respects the truth, that just irritates me. We should always be questioning what we hear. We should never be at peace by being naive. We need to remember the past and make comparisons to current events, so we never head down the wrong path twice. That is my point, and that is why I chose to present this lesson from infant formula. If it makes one person think, then I have done my job.