Utilitarian Analysis of the Nestle Infant Milk Formula Case

¶ … Nestle infant milk formula case, in the moral tradition of Kant's categorical imperative. Firstly, I will outline the facts surrounding the Nestle infant milk formula case, and then give a brief definition and description of the categorical imperative. Finally, I will use three main criteria to determine if Nestle's actions in the infant milk formula case can be considered moral, according to the categorical imperative.

Before beginning the analysis of the Nestle infant milk formula case, in the tradition of the categorical imperative, I will first outline some of the facts around the Nestle infant milk formula case. The Nestle infant milk formula case refers to the events surrounding a well-publicized boycott of Nestle in the 1970s and 1980s. In that time, consumer advocacy groups rigorously criticized Nestle's marketing strategies in third world countries.

The charges ethical against Nestle were myriad, and serious. Baby formula manufacturers bribed doctors, nurses and other health care providers to discourage women from breastfeeding, and encourage them to use Nestle's artificial infant milk formula. Nestle (and other manufacturers) launched huge, expensive marketing campaigns to convince women that infant formula was modern and sterile, and far superior to the cultural norm of extended breastfeeding. In hospitals, women were given a limited supply of free infant formula. When the formula ran out, the baby refused to breastfeed, and the mother's milk was reduced. Often, the family could not afford more infant formula. The WHO argues that Nestle's practices, compounded by unsanitary water and sanitation, played a large role in killing millions of babies, each year, in the third world (Dobbing).

Poignant photographs of malnourished, bottle-fed babies filled the evening news in North America. The television show 60 minutes featured a story, and there was a well-publicized libel trial. After serious public pressure, a worldwide boycott was launched in 1977. Consumers worldwide refused to purchase Nestle's products. The International Code on the Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes was created to stop further actions like Nestle's marketing campaigns. The Nestle Boycott was launched again in 1988.

First, before beginning an analysis of the Nestle Infant Milk formula case, in terms of the categorical imperative, it is instructive to have a working definition of the categorical imperative. A Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names defines the categorical imperative as:

"In the moral philosophy of Kant a distinction between ways in which the will may be obliged. A hypothetical imperative (of the form, "If you want X, then do A.") is always conditioned on something else, but a categorical imperative (of the form "Do A.") is absolute and universal. Moral action for Kant always follows from the categorical imperative, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it become a universal law."

To Kant, morality was based in doing ones duty, and following a concrete set of moral laws. The categoricl imperative argues that moral duty must be obeyed regardless of individual self-interest (Rossvaer; Paton).

In practice, to be considered moral, according to Kant's categorical imperative, an action must fulfill several criteria. Firstly, the action being judged must be universally applicable. Secondly the action being judged must respect the dinity of persons. Thirdly, the action must be acceptable to rational people (Kant, 1993).

I will attempt to determine if the actions of Nestle were moral, using the categorical imperative to analyse Nestle's actions. Was Nestle's action universally applicable? This is an interesting question.

Before I answer those questions, I will examine some of the potential considerations that led to Nestle's decision to pursue their particular marketing campaign in third world countries. Certainly, every corporation has the goal of making a profit, so this was likely one of Nestle's prime considerations. It would certainly be profitable to sell infant formula to the huge third world market.

Further (and this is a highly contestable position) Nestle may have been motivated by a desire to improve the health of babies in the third world. Nestle may chosen to focus on the known benefits of infant formula (convenience and sterility, to name two), while somehow ignoring the known drawbacks.

At best, Nestle was highly negigent in attempting to determine how infant formula would impact the health of third world children. Evidence in the libel trial, and exposed in the mainstream media certainly make it clear that Nestle knew that infant formula in the third world posed certain risks. Was Nestle's action universally applicable? Certainly, Nestle chose to focus on their own desire for profit, above the needs of people in the third world. This is a direct violation of Kant's categorical imperative, which argues that moral duty must be obeyed regardless of individual self-interest. Certainly the Nestle corporation itself, and its employees and shareholders all benifited from Nestle's marketing strategy in the third world.

In contrast, the people of the third world paid dearly for Nestle's decision to agressively market infant formula. The dead infants, their grieving parents and the community as a whole suffered as a result of Nestle's actions. Why then, did Nestle chose to actively market infant formula, with apparent disregard for the consequences to third world infants? Nestle may have simply chosen to have a blind eye towards the suffering of people of (largely) a different race, enmeshed in poverty on another continent. Certainly, if this is the case, then Nestle can certainly be accused of pursuing their own self-interest at the expense of others. This directly refutes the categorical imperative, which argues that a moral action must be universally applicable.

Did Nestle's actions respect the dignity of persons? To be considered moral, according to Kant's categorical imperative, Nestle's actions must satisfy this criteria. Nestle's actions clearly did not respect the dignity of third world children, their parents and the larger community. People of the third world were willfully misled, and suffered enormously due to Nestle's campaign.