editorial
s
Demonstration misdirected
—.. opinion —
Formula misused
Submitted by
Timothy Shorrock for the
Clergy and Laity Concerned
A response to the Nestle rebuttal to infant formula critics reported
in the Emerald on December 12, and a follow-up on recent event'
concerning the Nestle boycott.
Steve Korsen, Nestle consumer affairs manager, made four main
points in his Emerald interview; similar statements are made to those
who write to Nestle about infant formula abuse. 1) Protestors do not
consider what would happen if the product was not available; 2) the
corporation has modified its practices; 3) American workers' jobs are
being threatened; and 4) Nestle communications with protest groups
have been ignored. I will address these points.
First, Nestle statements that “there is an absolute need for a sud
plementary product for mothers who cannot breat-feed" is misleading
and ifnores the basic issue of the boycott. Although Nestle claims that
80 percent of mothers in developing countries need supplemental
feeding, many studies show a far smaller figure; some doctors claim
that only 5 percent of mothers need formula feeding. But the issue
Nestle refuses to recognize is that their advertising and “education
makes poor women in developing countries believe that the “modern
“western,” and therefore, “healthy" method is suDolementarv
Wednesday night, frustration over
the siow-moving gears of the state gov
ernment erupted in a 1960s style occupa
tion of Johnson Hall's office of the Chan
cellor of Higher Education. The occupa
tion, sparked by the dogmatic rhetoric of
some of the supporters of the divestment
of State Board stocks in companies doing
business in South Africa and fueled by
Vice-Chancelloe Freeman Holmer’s rtrue
but unconvincing reasons for the delay in
the sale, resulted in the arrest of 19 people
inside the building and four more suppor
ters outside.
The demonstrators, in spite of the
fact that their demonstration was mis
directed and accomplished nothing, reit
erated some excellent points. One was
that the Oregon Investment Council (OIC)
has questioned the authority of the State
Board to sell the controversial stocks, but
the OIC has not had that authority in the
past. The pic has merely rubber
stamped and managed the Board’s in
vestments. The selling of stock for political
reasons has never occured before, and
the OIC relations with the State Board are
in question as much as the sale of the
stocks.
Holmer's attempt to explain to the
demonstrators why the divestment has
been held up in the Attorney General’s
office, where a legal opinion on the issue
is pending, sounded like a Catch-22
whirlpool of muddled rules and convinced
the demonstrators not only that the state
government is ducking the issue, but that
the system of government is so unre
sponsive and incapable of making a deci
sion — even after its own agency has
voted to make a decision—that it is ignor
ing both the apartheid system abroad and
the people here.
The demonstrators’ impatience,
however, accomplished nothing other
than to get the issue into print and onto
broadcast waves: it was a media event.
The demands were impossible to meet.
The first, that the State Board sell the
stock immediately, can't be done until the
Attorney General makes a decision. The
second, amended,” demand — asking
that the issue be placed on the agenda of
the State Board for its meeting today in
Monmouth — was fruitless because the
State Board can do nothing more than
what it has already done. The issue is now
out of the Board’s hands.
The demonstrators seemed to assume
that the Attorney General would rule
against the stock-sale — an assumption
that is not certain and whose likelihood is
impossible to predict. The demonstrators
seemed dissatisfied that the Attorney
General’s decision — if negative — could
be taken to court, where both sides would
be able to debate the issue.
All of that, because it is the governmen
tal procedure, would take time. The
wheels of government do indeed turn
slowly. But the demonstrators, dissatis
fied with the molasses movement on the
issue, were misdirected because the
State Board can neither sell the stocks nor
take any further action — at least not until
the Attorney General’s opinion is re
vealed. The demand that the State Board
“dump” the stock "now” was unreasona
ble because the issue is now in the judicial
process. Of course the State Board
should follow through with its decision, but
it is powerless until the opinion is made.
The demonstrators’ demands
were misdirected, but the police and the
campus detectives handling the situation
were reactionary and excessive. Though
the police acted systematically, taking
demonstrators one at a time from the
chancellor's office like apples from a bar
rel, it was an aggravating influence to call
in 15 officers equipped with riot gear to
deal with the demonstrators. By resorting
to the police tactics of the 1960s, the
police gave even more credence to the
demonstrators’ belief that they were fac
ing a “fascist regime.”
Also, the police, who had been heck
led by some demonstrators while remov
ing the office-occupiers from the building,
were gruff in handling four demonstrators
outside. The arrests were selective, for
there were nearly 50 demonstrators out
side the building.
All in all, it was a drama designed for
the theatre of the absurd. The demands
were unreasonable and misdirected, the
explanations were unconvincing and the
reaction by the police was overplayed. We
hope that this production of a time gone by
doesn’t damage the cause of selling the
State Board’s stocks.
Letters
Review off target
David Coursen reviews
(Emerald, Jan. 26) “A Special
Day' as a film which is “flat and
mechanical” not to mention “bor
ing." His description might have
been more apptiy applied to him
self. It is somewhat distressing to
me that someone who calls him
self a film critic could be so far off
the mark in his assessment of this
brilliant film.
Coursen implies that what is
primarily wrong with “A Special
Day” is that it is set during
Mussolini’s rise to power in fascist
Italy. But this is so fundamentally
J
essential to the plot that I have
trouble believing that Coursen
watched the film beyond the cre
dits. Sophia Loren is an Italian
housewife who reveres Mussolini
as a God. As the film develops
Loren first rejects Mastroianni's
gay, subversive figure just as
any “good” Italian should in fas
%
Page 4
'WyONE SEEN w ?nm?"
In the words of a Swiss judge:
What is decisive here is at whom this multiple advertising is di
rected. In developing countries, the person reached is a mother or an
expectant mother domiciled mostly in urban slums who is unable to
differentiate and who is susceptible to advertising slogans.
Should Nestle serve as an internediary between these women and
nutrition? Can Nestle, the second largest food multinational corpora
tion, provide objective information about breast feeding and infant for
mula when their goal is to sell their product? Nestle says yes; we say no
The choice, however, is often made for these mothers in hospitals
heavily subsidized by Nestle. This is what is meant by “modification
of its practices. In the last year, under pressure for its advertising and
marketing techniques, Nestle has chanqed from direct advertisina to
direct subsidizing. Thus, radio jingles may no longer play on the air and
nurses may no longer sell infant formula; instead, hospitals themselves
dole out the product. A month's free supply of formula guarantees a
customer for at least a year — at prices usually two or three times the
pnce in Europe. According to a Brazilian trade magazine “Modern
Supermarket, ’ infant formula profits margins in that country are 71
percent.
Thirdly, Korsen brings up the issue of American jobs. Presumably
if enough people boycotted Nestle products, workers would lose the r
jobs. In that case, who would be to blame? Thousands of people do not
consciously change their eating and buying habits unless they have
carefully considered an issue. Does this mean we should place Dnontv
on jobs instead of lives? y
Finally, the charge that activists have refused to meet with Nestle is
false. In December, several meetings were held in the East Coast
between boycott organizers and Nestle representatives from both Swit
from both Switzerland and the United States. Boycott groups welcome
these interchanges with Nestle because they represent the power of the
rSl?*1 ar]d pr,ovlde 'nteresting glimpses into how Nestle views the
problem of malnutrition and hunger in the developing world When
SfaTLeSentatlVeS T6t W'th a C,er9V and ^ity Concerned group in
^■vGe0r9,a recently-the fo,lowin9 exchange took place
re d°in9 these P^'e a fav<” in providing them with
mALP' fre the wornen 80 malnourished'?
rati ownTrlS nntteTf ^3Ve Where people used to
S farms’,hey re rising casn
CALC What ar^h^ ^Ve the Same easV access to food.
UALU What are they raising instead of food1?
Nestle: Cocoa.
The boycotters couldn't have said it better.
cist Italy.
Slowly though, she becomes
more and more sensitive to Mas
troianni and finally, goes against
her most deeply held beliefs be
coming romantically involved
with him for a moment. An Italian
housewife of fascist Italy, whose
love for Mussolini is as great as
any Italian’s, has been confronted
by a reality other than Mussolini's,
one m fact forbidden by Mussolini
and for a moment by the end of the
film, has some doubts about the
dogma of this God/Leader and his
regime.
Mussolini says that in order to
be a man one must be a husband
a father and a soldier. Mastroianni
is none of these and yet Loren
finds that she is inexplicably
drawn towards him despite his
^ck of and, in fact, antithesis of
these qualities. ” Her whole world
is shaken,at least temporarily, on
this special day.
Lttore Scola’s direction is sensi
t've and subtle (evidentally too
subtle for Coursen) and the
photography is beautiful. I judge
this film as one of the year's best
and certainly the best currently
showing in Eugene. If David
Coursen was bored by “A Special
Day," then perhaps he should limit
his viewing to Starsky and Hutch
or Kojak as they are much faster
paced and would not challenge
his mind so much.
Bruce Robinson
Freshman, Undeclared
Hines departs
I noticed Peter Holden’s letter of
Jan. 24 challenging Terry Hines to
"come out” and debate and since
Terry is not likely to see this letter,
I thought I would answer for him,
as his friend. Terry finished the
work for his Ph.D. in Psyhology in
December and has moved to Bos
ton, where he is doing research
with brain-damaged adults. Those
of us who are Terry’s friends can
only be amused, however, at the
suggestion that he would ever
hide from a debate!
Daniel Kimble
Professor of Psvcholoav