Posts Tagged ‘Nestle’

Schweiz/Kolumbien: Dieses Mal kein Entkommen?

Dienstag, März 6th, 2012

“Präzedenzfall Nestlé: Strafanzeige wegen Mordes an kolumbianischem Gewerkschafter

6. März 2012 – Das ECCHR und die kolumbianische Gewerkschaft SINALTRAINAL haben gestern bei der Schweizer Staatsanwaltschaft in Zug Strafanzeige gegen die Nestlé AG und führende Direktoren des Konzerns eingereicht. Ihnen wird vorgeworfen, für die Ermordung Luciano Romeros 2005 wegen Unterlassens von Schutzmaßnahmen mit verantwortlich zu sein. Die Anzeige schafft einen Präzedenzfall, denn damit könnte erstmals ein Schweizer Unternehmen für im Ausland begangenes Unrecht in der Schweiz haftbar gemacht werden.

Luciano Romero wurde am 10. September 2005 in Valledupar im Nordosten Kolumbiens von Paramilitärs mit 50 Messerstichen ermordet. Er hatte zuvor jahrelang für die kolumbianische Nestlé-Tochter Cicolac gearbeitet. Den Beschuldigten wird vorgeworfen, die Tat fahrlässig nicht verhindert zu haben.

In Kolumbien herrscht bis heute ein bewaffneter Konflikt, in dem Gewerkschafter und andere
soziale Gruppen systematischer Verfolgung ausgesetzt sind. Romero erhielt Todesdrohungen, nachdem er vom lokalen Nestlé-Management fälschlich als Guerillero diffamiert worden war. Der paramilitärische Ex-Kommandant Salvatore Mancuso hat ausgesagt, Cicolac habe Zahlungen an seine Einheiten geleistet. Die Schweizer Unternehmensführung wusste vom Fehlverhalten ihrer Vertreter in Kolumbien und von der Bedrohung der Gewerkschafter vor Ort. Sie blieb dennoch untätig.

Die strafrechtliche Relevanz dieser Unterlassung hat nun die Zuger Staatsanwaltschaft zu prüfen. Ermittlungsansätze dazu sind in der rund hundertseitigen Strafanzeige dargelegt. Auch wird sie zu entscheiden haben, ob in diesem Fall erstmalig ein Unternehmen statt einzelner Mitarbeiter strafrechtlich belangt wird. Die Regelung des Art. 102 zur Strafbarkeit von Unternehmen wurde 2003 in das Schweizerische Strafgesetzbuch eingefügt und ist seither kaum zum Einsatz gekommen.

Die Strafanzeige kann Ihnen auf Anfrage (info@ecchr.eu) per Email zugesandt werden.

Die Vorbereitung der Strafanzeige wurde unterstützt von MISEREOR

Sondernewsletter zur Stafanzeige gegen Nestlé Sondernewsletter zur Stafanzeige gegen Nestlé (853,4 kB)

Nestlé - Juristischer Hintergrundbericht Nestlé – Juristischer Hintergrundbericht (314,2 kB)

Nestlé - Newsletter - französisch Nestlé – Newsletter – französisch (1,1 MB)”

 

(Quelle: ECCHR.)

Siehe auch:

NGO stellt Strafanzeige gegen Großkonzern. Fehde gegen Nestlé

Global: Der große Milchraub – und wie die EU dabei hilft

Dienstag, Februar 21st, 2012

“The great milk robbery: How corporations are stealing livelihoods and a vital source of nutrition from the poor

GRAIN | 07 December 2011 | Reports

View a summary of the report here

Download the PDF

Milk is taking on ever-greater importance in the livelihoods and health of the world's poor. Most of the dairy markets that serve the poor are supplied by small-scale vendors who collect milk from farmers who own just a few dairy animals. But such systems of "people's milk" are in direct competition with the ambitions of big dairy companies, such as Nestlé, and a growing number of other wealthy players that want to take over the entire dairy chain in the South, from the farms to the markets. A battle over dairy is under way that will profoundly shape the direction of the global food system and people's lives.

PART 1: PEOPLE'S MILK

Delivering dignity

In the early morning hours of any given day, before most people in Colombia are out of their beds, around 50,000 milk vendors stream into the country's cities. These jarreadores, as they are called, travel by motorbike carrying large canisters of milk that they collect from two million or so small dairy farms in the Colombian countryside.

 Each day they will deliver 40 million litres of fresh milk at an affordable price to around 20 million Colombians, who will boil it briefly at home to ensure its safety. There is perhaps no more important source of livelihood, nutrition and dignity in Colombia than what is commonly known as leche popular or people's milk.

The jarreadores have been gathering in the streets recently for another reason. They, along with farmers, small-scale dairy processors and consumers, have been protesting against repeated moves by the Colombian government to destroy their leche popular. The problem began in 2006, when the government of President Uribe issued Decree 616 prohibiting the consumption, sale and transport of unpasteurised milk, effectively making leche popular illegal.

The decree triggered huge protests across the country, forcing the government to postpone adoption of the regulation. Popular opposition did not die down and, two years later, with over 15,000 people marching in the streets of Bogotà, the government was yet again forced to push things back another two years.

But Decree 616 was not the only threat to leche popular. Colombia had begun negotiations for several bilateral free trade agreements (FTA) with dairy exporters. While Colombia is self-sufficient in milk, the FTAs would remove key protections from the sector, leaving it…”

Weiterlesen…

 

(Quelle: GRAIN.)

Republik Südafrika: Nestlé betreibt Biopiraterie

Dienstag, Juni 22nd, 2010

“Rooibos-Raub: Nestlé betreibt Biopiraterie mit südafrikanischen Pflanzen

Nachforschungen der Erklärung von Bern und Natural Justice zeigen, dass Nestlé kürzlich fünf Patente auf die Verwendung von Rooibos und Honeybush angemeldet hat, die südafrikanisches Recht wie auch die Biodiversitätskonvention (CBD) verletzen. Dieser Fall von Biopiraterie in Südafrika beweist einmal mehr, dass Grossunternehmen ihre Verpflichtung, erst eine Zustimmung einzuholen und dann die Herkunftsländer an den Erträgen ihrer genetischen Ressourcen zu beteiligen, immer noch sträflich vernachlässigen – trotz klarer Vorgaben der CBD.

Für saubere Kosmetik macht Nestlé dreckige Geschäfte: Vier der fünf kritisierten Patente betreffen nämlich die Anwendung von Rooibos und Honeybush zur Behandlung bestimmter Haut- und Haarkrankheiten. Das andere Patent beansprucht die Verwendung von Rooibos zur Verhütung von Entzündungen. Die Ansprüche sind sehr umfassend und betreffen eine breite Produktepalette, die von Cappuccino über Salatsauce und Zahnpasta bis zu Lippenstift reicht. Antragssteller ist die Nestec AG, eine Nestlé-Tochter . Sowohl Rooibos wie auch Honeybush kommen endemisch in der westlichen und östlichen Kapprovinz in Südafrika vor. Beide Arten werden seit dort seit jeher als Medizinalpflanzen verwendet.

Gemäss dem südafrikanischen Gesetz zur Biodiversität (das die CBD in nationales Recht umsetzt) benötigt ein Unternehmen eine Regierungsbewilligung , um genetische Ressourcen aus Südafrika zu erforschen, falls eine Kommerzialisierung oder Patentierung beabsichtigt ist. Diese wird nur erteilt, falls zuvor ein Abkommen über die Aufteilung daraus entstehender Gewinne ausgehandelt wurde. Laut dem südafrikanischen Umweltministerium hat Nestlé eine solche Bewilligung aber weder beantragt noch erhalten. Die Patentanmeldungen von Nestlé stehen daher in krassem Widerspruch zum südafrikanischen Gesetz und zur CBD.

Nestlé beabsichtigt mit diesen Forschungen sein Kosmetikgeschäft zu erweitern. Der Nahrungsmittelkonzern hält über 30 Prozent an L’Oréal und 50% an Innéov, einem Joint-Venture mit L’Oréal. Innéov wird vermutlich die Produkte vertreiben, welche auf den fraglichen Patenten basieren. François Meienberg von der Erklärung von Bern betont: „Nestlé baut sein Kosmetikgeschäft auf illegal erworbenem genetischem Material auf und beraubt damit Südafrika seines rechtsmässigen Anspruchs auf Aufteilung der Gewinne. Das Patentsystem muss solchen Praktiken einen Riegel schieben und die Regierungen dürfen solches Verhalten nicht länger tolerieren.“

Seit Jahren verhandeln die CBD-Unterzeichnerstaaten ein neues Protokoll, um die Einhaltung der Regeln über den Zugang zu genetischen Ressourcen und die Aufteilung der Gewinne endlich zu gewährleisten. Kabir Bavikatte von Natural Justice meint: „Nur ein strenges Protokoll kann die Entwicklungsländer vor der widerrechtlichen Ausbeutung durch Unternehmen schützen. Der Nestlé-Fall unterstreicht die Dringlichkeit dieses Anliegens.“

Mehr Informationen (inkl. Report „Dirty Business for Clean Skin“) auf www.evb.ch/roiboos oder bei

François Meienberg, Erklärung von Bern, Tel: +41 44 277 70 04 oder 079 796 76 12, Email: food(at)evb.ch

Kabir Bavikatte, Natural Justice, Tel: +27-21-4261633/ Email: kabir(at)naturaljustice.org.za “

(Quelle: Erklärung von Bern.)

 

Siehe auch:

Tagung “Patente auf Saatgut – am Wendepunkt?”

Wer entscheidet, was wir essen?

Mittwoch, Juni 9th, 2010

Who is deciding what we eat?

By Esther Vivas

The increasing conversion of agriculture into a commodity industry is an undeniable reality today. The privatisation of natural resources, the policies of structural adjustment, the gradual disappearance of the peasantry and the industrialisation of food systems have driven us to the current food crisis situation.

In this context, who is deciding what we eat? The answer is clear: a handful of multinationals of the agro-food industry, with the blessing of governments and international institutions, end up imposing their private interest above collective needs. Due to this situation, our food security is seriously threatened.

The supposed concern of governments and institutions such as the G8, the G20, the World Trade Organization, etc., regarding the rise of the price of basic food and its impact on the more disadvantaged peoples, as they showed in the course of 2008 in international summits, has only shown their deep hypocrisy. They take significant economic profits from the current food and agricultural model, using it as an imperialist instrument for political, economic and social control, towards the countries of the global South.

As pointed out by the international movement of La Vía Campesina, at the end of the FAO meeting in Rome in November 2009: “The absence of the heads of state of the G8 countries has been one of the key causes of the dismal failure of this summit. Concrete measures were not taken to eradicate hunger, to stop the speculation on food or to hold back the expansion of agrofuels”. Likewise, commitments such as those of the Global Partnership for Agriculture and Food Security and the Food Security Trust Fund of the World Bank, which have the explicit support of the G8 and the G20, also point this out, leaving our food supply, once again, in the hands of the market.

Yet the reform of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) of the FAO is, according to La Vía Campesina, a step forward towards democratizing the decision-making processes over agriculture and environment: “At least this workspace respects the basic rule of democracy, which is the principle of “one country, one vote”, and it gives a new opportunity to civil society”. However, we will still have to check the real impact of the CFS.

Monopolies
The agro-food chain is subjected, in its whole route, to a high business concentration. Starting with the first stretch, seeds, we can observe that ten of the biggest companies (such as Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta, Bayer…), according to data from the ETC Group, control one half of sales. Copyright laws, which give exclusive rights on seeds to these companies, have further stimulated the business concentration of the sector and have eroded the peasant right to the maintenance of indigenous seeds and biodiversity.

The seed industry is intimately linked to that of pesticides. The biggest seed companies also dominate this other sector and very frequently the development and marketing of both products are done together. Moreover, in the pesticide industry, the monopoly is even greater and the ten biggest multinationals control 84% of the global market. This same dynamic is observed in the sector of food distribution and in that of the processing of drinks and foods. It is all about strategy, and it is bound to increase.

Big-scale retailing, just like other sectors, registers a high business concentration. In Europe, between 1987 and 2005, the market share of the ten biggest multinationals of big-scale retailing was 45% of the total and the chances are that they will reach 75% in the next 10-15 years. In countries such as a Sweden, three supermarket chains control around 95.1% of the market share; and in countries such as Denmark, Belgium, the Spanish State, France, Netherlands, Great Britain and Argentina, a handful of companies control between 60% and 45% of the market. Mega fusions are the usual dynamic. This monopoly and concentration enables them to wield huge power to determine what we buy, the price of products, their origin, and how they have been elaborated.

Making a profit from hunger
In the middle of the food crisis, the main multinational companies of the agro-food industry announced record profit figures. Monsanto and Dupont, the main seed companies, declared a rise of their profits of 44% and 19% respectively in 2007 in relation to the previous year. The data of fertilizer companies pointed out the same: Potash Corp, Yara and Sinochem, saw their profits rise by 72%, 44% and 95% respectively between 2007 and 2006. Food processors such as Nestlé also experienced a rise of their economic gains, as well as supermarkets such as Tesco, Carrefour and Wal-Mart, while millions of people in the world did not have access to food.

 

– Esther Vivas is a member of the Centre for Studies on Social Movements (CEMS) at Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona. She is co-coordinator of the books in Spanish “Supermarkets, No Thanks” and “Where is Fair Trade headed?”. She is also a member of the editorial board of Viento Sur (www.vientosur.info).
(Article published in Diagonal, nº115.)
http://esthervivas.wordpress.com/english
 

(Quelle: Radio Chango.)

Mexiko: Pepsi, Nestle und der Boom der Plastik-Wasserflaschen

Freitag, Mai 28th, 2010

“In Mexico, fear of tap water fuels bottled-water boom

By Tim Johnson | McClatchy Newspapers

MEXICO CITY — It’s a simple warning — don’t drink the tap water — and Mexicans take it to heart as much as any foreign tourist does.

Mexicans drink more bottled water than the citizens of any other country do, an average of 61.8 gallons per person each year, according to the Beverage Marketing Corp., a consultancy. That’s far higher than Italy, and more than twice as much as in the United States.

A rising mistrust of tap water is behind the thirst for bottled water. Other factors are also at play, however, including clever advertising campaigns by multinational corporations and the failure of the Mexican government to provide timely data on water safety.

The boom in bottled water has an underside, too. Empty plastic water bottles litter landfills and roadsides at a rate that alarms consumer and environmental groups. Recycling experts say that only about one-eighth of the 21.3 million plastic water and soft drink bottles that are emptied each day in Mexico get recycled.

Mexicans weren’t always as distrustful of tap water as they are these days.

‘Twenty years ago, there were drinking fountains in all the public schools and in most parks,’ said Claudia Campero, a Mexico representative of Food & Water Watch, a Washington-based consumer advocacy group. Now, such fountains are rare.

Some municipal water systems in Mexico have fallen into disrepair, including in the capital, where a 1985 earthquake that killed more than 10,000 people broke numerous water mains. The city siphons water from the underlying aquifer faster than rainfall can replenish it, causing the city, much of which is built on an ancient lakebed, to sink, which puts additional stress on leaky water mains. Some 30 percent of the city’s water is lost to leakage.

‘The infrastructure is very old and obsolete. Even though there has been investment, it isn’t enough. Runoff is seeping into the water system,’ said Octavio Rosas Landa, an economist at the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

For years, many residents grew accustomed to boiling tap water to ensure its safety, but natural gas prices have risen, making boiling expensive.

Not all the water is bad. Some provincial cities have improved their water systems, and Environment Ministry officials say that 85 percent of the water coursing through municipal systems is potable. Consumers, however, don’t know when they might sip the other 15 percent. Many Mexicans simply don’t trust the government to deliver clean, pure water.

That’s where multinational companies with bottled water divisions — such as Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, France’s Groupe Danone and the Swiss giant Nestle — have found an opening.

‘These companies tell people to have confidence in them rather than in the government,’ Campero said.

One can hardly turn on the television without seeing an ad of a lithe young woman in a sweatsuit sipping from a bottle of premium water or a woman in a bikini whose svelte physique seems due to the bottle of water in her hand.

‘Drink 2 liters of water a day,’ the ads from Bonafont, a leading brand from Danone, say in block letters at the bottom of the screen. Another ad says: ‘Eliminate what your body doesn’t need.’

‘The competition is very intense,’ said beverage analyst Ana Paula Pedroni of the IXE brokerage. ‘The trend is for more marketing.’

On street corners, vendors hawk liter bottles of water. Restaurants don’t offer tap water, insisting that diners buy bottled water. Primary school students must take money to buy bottled water from kiosks. One brand uses characters from Looney Toons to appeal to the student market.

‘Most of my students carry bottles of water, and they drink a lot with this heat,’ said Rosas Landa, the university economist and water expert.

For big companies, the boom in bottled water consumption in developing countries such as Mexico, India, China and Indonesia has been a godsend, since consumers in Europe, a stronghold of bottled water, have rebelled against throwaway plastic bottles as harmful to the environment.

Not so in Mexico. Former President Vicente Fox, a longtime Coca-Cola executive, looked positively on rising soft drink and bottled water sales, seeing them as a driver of economic growth. Mexicans drink an average of 42.3 gallons of soft drinks per capita annually, surpassed only by U.S. consumers.

The growth of soft drink consumption is slowing in comparison with water, however.

‘The sale of water has risen on the order of 8 percent, while soft drinks rose 2 percent,’ Pepsi Mexico President Juan Gallardo Thurlow announced in early April.

The Beverage Marketing Corp. in New York City says Mexico’s bottled water market composes 13 percent of the world’s total, and has grown at 8 percent for each of the past five years.

Consumer advocates say Mexicans’ thirst could be quenched more easily and inexpensively if municipalities provided reliable drinking water.

‘The state has contributed to these companies taking over the market and converting drinking water into a saleable product,’ said Alejandro Calvillo, the head of Power to the Consumer, a nonprofit Mexican advocacy group.

Calvillo’s group estimates that the average Mexican family spends $140 a year on bottled water, much of it in 5-gallon plastic jugs that are commonly delivered to homes. The expense puts a heavy burden on low-income families, he added.

In impoverished neighborhoods in outlying Mexico City, scores of private water companies have popped up, offering large jugs of water for 10 pesos, or about 77 U.S. cents, a third of the price of water from the multinational companies. Such concerns face few inspections, giving consumers water of indeterminate quality.

Further, most Mexican consumers refuse to separate plastic products for recycling, and those who seek to recycle can struggle to find places that’ll accept post-consumer plastic.

‘The corporations make the consumers responsible for recycling,’ Rosas Landa said. ‘They produce the containers, but don’t take responsibility for recycling the bottles.’

A Houston-based recycling services company, Avangard Innovative Ltd., joined with a Mexican environmental services company last year to open a $35 million recycling plant in Toluca to handle PET, polyethylene terephthalate, the strong, light plastic that’s resistant to heat and impermeable to carbonation, making it perfect for beverages.

Still, Calvillo said: ‘A large part of the PET bottles that are collected are sent to China for recycling.’ The Chinese plants grind PET bottles into fibers for use in carpeting and other consumer products to sell to countries such as Mexico.”

(Quelle: McClatchy.)