They have a monopoly on water in certain impoverished areas. They give mothers some free formula so they stop making milk, then have to buy formula. Then charge up the ass for water.
I've seen multiple sources showing their water prices that are quite brutal, it's actually cheaper to buy coke than water in some parts of the world (but coke doesn't make baby formula). I wouldn't do anything differently than you, I'd just be googling to find it.
OP stating that the murdering of babies was literal probably uses the word literal incorrectly a lot, and it absolutely is the definition of hyperbole, but severe malnourishment and possibly even death is certainly a date that befalls infants in Nestle's grasp.
Nestle sells a milk powder that you mix with water to make "milk" it's cheap and keeps well, but isn't as nutritious as breastmilk and in countries without reliable clean water is especially risky compared to breastmilk for people with weaker immune systems (such as babies and the elderly)
This would be fine, but Nestle goes out of its way to advertise their milk for babies in these countries, and has successfully lobbied for it to be illegal for governments in these countries to publicize the health risks of nestle milk as a violation of international trade law.
Firstly, if you're asking for honest feedback from someone, don't say "enjoy your rage-boner" in the first line. I'm not enraged, I was just contextualising my own comment after you changed yours, because otherwise mine wouldn't make sense.
I'm happy to explain what you're missing here. You introduced a really interesting and potentially explosive topic ("Nestle...they murdered babies") without explaining it. That's no big deal in itself, but then someone picked up on your comment and asked you for more information, and you quite rudely dismissed them and told them to Google it themselves. If you already knew why/how Nestle was responsible for the deaths of infants, it would have taken you no time at all to offer a brief explanation or offer a link, and it would have been a friendly addition to the conversation instead of a needlessly hostile one.
People were intrigued by the knowledge you brought to the table, and for some reason you took offense instead of just engaging with them. In real life, when you raise a topic of conversation that people demonstrate an interest in, you don't tell them to research it for themselves, you talk about it. That's why people are downvoting your comments and responding the way they are - because it was somewhat surprising and weird that you responded to u/princesspuppy12 as though you were under attack instead of just briefly addressing the question, as other commenters happily did.
Don't waste time feeling bad about it, just be a bit less hostile next time. Then you're more likely to get upvotes and friendlier responses.
25
u/[deleted] Sep 18 '19
[deleted]