Most malnourished women can still lactate and produce good milk. That’s just a fact.

And even if it were true, the more cost-effective, humane, and medically-sound solution would be to get food to mothers to they can lactate, not to give them formula that they will later have to buy at great cost, prepare with unclean water, and then cut with too much of that unclean water when they cannot afford enough formula.

Yes, formula can save lives for babies who have no access to breastmilk but that has nothing to do with Nestle’s marketing practices…or its sourcing cocoa from plantations using slave labor.

You are also making ridiculous assumptions about Amy and other anti-Nestle protestors, some of whom have worked or volunteered in 3rd world countries and almost all of whom are active volunteers in one way or another.

This isn’t about privileged women saying “breast is best” (a woman’s choice how to feed her child is her own) — it is about misleading, unethical, and in some cases illegal marketing practices, illegally sourcing milk from a horrible dictator, and the use of slave labor.

You don´t have an idea what living in a third world country is. You just sit in your ass in your comfy developed world home and judge from afar, don´t you?

Please DO NOT boycott one of the companies that does a good job in helping those malnourished babies.

Boycotts rarely work and because of the way big businesses control our lives, I’d be very surprised if you’re completely Nestle free anyway.

It’s like boycotting BP, you will only hurt the small business owners who purchased franchises. I’m calling for a lawsuit on that one, United States vs. BP

What about a bigger stand as in getting the press involved in this issue? I bet someone would be willing to give you and other boycotters some positive press for the dilemma. (and negative for Nestle)