Politics of Peace

AFIER A seven year battle, a coalition of health, labor and religious groups recently ended boycott of Nestle products after persuading that company to stop sending free supplies of infant formula to Third World hospitals The boycott's immediate success pertains to health, but its lasting impact may be politics. The success of the boycott reemphasizes nonviolent means of confrontation at a time when armed struggle has become the standard in areas across the globe.

The boycotters' case against Nestle was a simple one: the company's marketing practices in Third World countries went against known information on infant care. The groups oppose promoting the formula abroad because of evidence linking bottle-feeding to high levels of infant disease and death, especially in poorer countries where formula may be diluted with highly polluted water. Rather than encourage breast-feeding, considered the best form of infant care, the Nestle company was more interested in luring mothers toward their product. The Nestle Corporation wanted profits more than healthy children.

Under the auspices of the World Health Organization, 118 nations in 1981 approved a voluntary code to restrict promotion of infant formula. Three years later, Douglas A. Johnson, executive chairman of the Infant Formula Coalition, which organized the boycott, was able to eat a bite-sized Nestle bar, in celebration of the group's victory.

The significance of the boycotters' success is twofold. Not only is it more likely that Third World mothers will not buy Nestle infant formula, but the chance for similar boycotts has increased. The Nestle boycott bought forward the importance of a moral stance in the face of capital list interests. The inspiration for the collective action was a simple moral repudiation of Nestle's marketing activities. The idea of compromise or negotiation did not enter the picture. By raising the conflict from dollars to morals, the coalition forced Nestle to see that profits are not everything, not even to a profit-conscious multinational.

This most recent victory of nonviolent tactics of confrontation, pays tribute to the earlier efforts of Mohandas K. Gandhi and, later, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. While it is hard to think of foregoing a candy bar in the same context as the independence of India or the freedoms instituted by the Civil Rights movement, the Nestle boycott proved that when a lot of people take a small action, their efforts can meet with moral and economic success. Approximately $3.5 million was spent against the Swiss-based corporation, with organizations such as the United Auto Workers and National Education Association chipping in. Supporters have said that they will not stop the boycott totally, opting instead to wait for six months to make sure Nestle adheres to its stated agreement.

WITH NESTLE'S practices curtailed, boycotting tactics might prove effective against other products. Third World health care is several grades below that of the United States, and that situation is not improved by the constant influx of pharmaceuticals from American and European based multinationals. Boycotts, such as the divestiture movement, may also help end the apartheid rule in South Africa.

The Nestle boycott offers an inspiring example to be followed where economic pressures can be influential. At the same time, however, it is important to note that this technique probably cannot change situations where violence is used for political purposes, as in EI Salvador, Nicaragua or Nambia. But within the United States, a wide range of nonviolent sanctions do exist, and the Nestle boycott proves that such methods can be put to good use.