nestle on campus?

Ninjawombat

Pardon me for rudely interrupting this debate, but I saw the thread and had to vote.

I want my coke and I want my chocolate. I've been in this college for two years and never voted on the issue, and it's not fair that the rest of us should be told what we can and can't buy. I firmly believe in an individual's right to protest, but NOT to force their opinion on others, which is what the SU shops do. You don't want to buy coke? Fine. Don't.

But it should be there for the people who *do* want it. UCD and Trinity removing those products from their shop is ridiculous, and it annoys the crap out of me. Evidently, I'm not the only one.

Dontico

Blush_01 wrote:

Am I making any sense to anyone else?

only to those who can read.

panda100

Byrno wrote:

f I recall correctly Mary Robinson also said that we have to ensure that the drinking water that these women use has to be safe to drink before doing this. I know we are told in class that breastfeeding by HIV+ mothers is a route of transmission but the risk of water-bourne infection far outweighs the risk of HIV transmission.

So I suppose its a case of what you'd rather your child die of? Infection through contaminated water but at least giving them the opportunity to eat or letting a child breast feed and let them die of aids?That is what it come down to unfortunatly. The problems in Africa have nothing to do with Nestle!

How is banning nestle solving this problem?

The nestle ban served its time but how is it still relevant today?Today in an Africa were children die from aids evey second of the day?

Ask any one in my tutorial group and they will tell you had I had an argumnet with my tutor about this ban. I like you niavely believed everything I had read in the freshers guide and babymilk.org.Its a lot easier to feel sympathetic for babies dying and blaming it on a multicorporational company then blamingt on our oursleves,who are ignoring Africa by placing the death of African on Nestle Shoulders. My tutor was an expert in Hiv and was just back from attending a international confernce on aids. She told me that the best way we can help Africans is to get rid of the stigma of bottle feeding in the country. By doing this we have to disccorauge breast feeding in Africans and do our best to ensure that Africans can get access to clean water supply.
How does banning nestle solve this problem? Simply...it doesnt.

Pythia

The problems in Africa have nothing to do with Nestle!

QFT

seraphimvc

all i know is:

in the science building,SU shop,
"hi,excuse me,are you the one who in charge of the vending mechines out there?my 4 euro are stucked in there."

i have heard that at least 3 times.

i bet many students dont even know that coke and nestle's products are banned in SU shops:D

whole row of vending mechines selling yorke and coke outside a SU shop??always a joke for some people.:p

funky penguin

panda100 wrote:

How does banning nestle solve this problem? Simply...it doesnt.

I agree.

Just looking for unbiased information on the web about this subject (my divergance tool in action against an assignment).....its extremely difficult.

FionnMatthew

I voted "Yes" in the poll. Who in their right mind wouldn't vote "yes" to that question?

It's a stupid, misleading question, that has no bearing on the topic brought up in the OP.

Of course I should be able to choose what I'll eat. But why should I, particularly, choose what the SU shop stocks. That's not my decision; at least, it's not just my decision.

The blind fact that "I WANT NESTLE", doesn't mean that the SU shop should stock it. I shouldn't presume to decide, on my own, what a shop should or should not stock. That is the prerogative of the shop owner...

Which happens to be the student body, decisions by popular vote. This isn't a supply and demand situation. The SU shop isn't beholden to the wanton desires of individual students, but to the democratically polled consensus of the student body.

Whether or not everyone voted is moot. The student verdict is THE ONLY way in which decisions like that can be made; THE ONLY type of information which can rightly be recognised. The only consensus that counts in a democratic vote is the consensus of the people who voted. If you don't want a say in the commercial decisions of the SU shop, you have no obligation to vote when the matter is brought before the student body.

If you do want a say, you needn't have a particular opinion about the commercial politics of multi-nationals. You need only have a strong conviction about whether or not the SU shop should stock Coke, or Nestle. You might be apathetic about Coca-Cola, but the outcry on this thread about the SU boycott suggests that many people are not apathetic about whether or not Nestle or CocaCola's supposed actions should influence the availability of those products in the SU shop. So campaign for a repeal. If you care that much about it, campaign for a repeal. That's the only way it's going to happen. It very well may be that enough of the student body care enough about being able to buy Nestle in the shop to amount to a consensus.

it's not fair that the rest of us should be told what we can and can't buy. I firmly believe in an individual's right to protest, but NOT to force their opinion on others, which is what the SU shops do.

You're not being told what you can or can't buy. You're not being prevented from doing anything. What's happening is the shop is simply refusing to buy in the offending products. They are not offering them for sale.

That's not preventing you from buying them. You can't say that Champion Sports are preventing you from buying sandwiches, just because they don't stock them.

You don't want to buy coke? Fine. Don't.

Champion Sports Manager: You want to buy sandwiches? Fine. Do! Somewhere else. We don't sell them.

But it should be there for the people who *do* want it.

That's ridiculous. In the same way, Champion Sports should be selling sandwiches for the people who want to buy them there.

UCD and Trinity removing those products from their shop is ridiculous, and it annoys the crap out of me. Evidently, I'm not the only one.

Good. Less apathy all around then. Why don't you campaign for another referendum?

How does banning nestle solve this problem? Simply...it doesnt.

Straw man. Making statements isn't about solving problems. It's about voicing dissent. It's an act of political alignment, a show of disregard - the same kind of thing as an official condemnation of a terrorist attack. It isn't supposed to solve the problem. It's about making judgements, pointing things out, encouraging thought and debate, taking a moral position, engaging with the issue rather than ignoring it. To expect it to effect a miraculous change is to expect the wrong thing.

Stabshauptmann

Why don't you campaign for another referendum?

Ive contested 2 elections in society land and began the ground work for a SU election.
Its costly, its time consuming, and its very difficult.

Simply put it is not within everyones ability to run for office or seek a referendum.

The proof of this is how sparsly contested the forthcomming SU elections are.

What is of use is lobbying. Rants voiced on boards.ie are often seen by those in a position to fix them

Dan Hayden reads boards and immediatly responded to criticism of the SU shop opening hours around exam time and referred to the thread on boards about it.

Hes not alone, Id be surprised if anyone running for an office doesnt have somebody on their campaign team who reads boards.

I know of lecturers, tutors, RAs, and Programme Officers who read boards.

Ranting can get things done.

terry mac

FionnMatthew wrote:

Champion Sports Manager: You want to buy sandwiches? Fine. Do! Somewhere else. We don't sell them.

Please tell me this is a joke!! The whole Champion Sports not selling sandwiches because they mainly concentrate on sportswear and not the general deli/sandwich market wouldn't have a bearing on the Champion Sports Managers dismissal of you.

In all fairness to you, you've touched on one of the main reasons this ban annoy's me. In the middle of town etc. you can go nextdoor and get a sandwich. Unfortunately this is not the case in UCD - vending machines I know bla bla bla.... all the shops are SU shops.

And whatever about the role of the SU, the main one should be providing services to students, and making moral decisions on behalf of students should be secondary in my opinion.

The funny thing is I'd say I've drank about 50 gallons of Pepsi over the last 3 years, its as much about principle for the people against the ban as it is for those in favour of it.

funky penguin

FionnMatthew wrote:

Straw man. Making statements isn't about solving problems. It's about voicing dissent. It's an act of political alignment, a show of disregard - the same kind of thing as an official condemnation of a terrorist attack. It isn't supposed to solve the problem. It's about making judgements, pointing things out, encouraging thought and debate, taking a moral position, engaging with the issue rather than ignoring it. To expect it to effect a miraculous change is to expect the wrong thing.

Very true. But I think we should do this without banning products from the SU shop.

Still, I think the majority of students don't care. I think misinformation and lack of unbiased information on both sides are both more worrying. Facts have been lost (if they were ever around). I'm still looking for them.

I did find this though. Interesting enough read. I didn't realise there were two referendums on coke. The spending was a bit ridiculus, if the figures are true. 13% difference of opinion? Again, if true thats not a whole lot.

Banning products seems a bit harsh, and if the article above is to believed, totally unneccessary.

If people think buying coke/nestle is wrong, get your facts, back them up with concrete evidence, present them and let people decide for themselves.

If you think coke/nestle are being unfairly smeared, do likewise. Otherwise, you're doing no good to your stance.

Let people make up their minds by themselves - give them choices, don't restrict them. And make sure they have the proper information.

Darkbloom

Dontico wrote:

alas i dont do politics or economics. i do physics.

Best reason for maintaining an ignorant stance on politics, economics and debate tactics I ever heard. Educate thyself.

Pythia

Darkbloom wrote:

Best reason for maintaining an ignorant stance on politics, economics and debate tactics I ever heard. Educate thyself.

Economics teaches free markets without barriers. The market can decide for itself without anyone telling them, it's efficient that way.

Spectator#1

funky penguin wrote:

Let people make up their minds by themselves - give them choices, don't restrict them. And make sure they have the proper information.

I agree with everything you said in that post, people should have a choice. I don't think misleading literature is admirable on either side, although if you're gonna look at it from a consequentialist viewpoint, pro-ban people could be said to at least have humanitarian interests at heart in their lying, not much of an excuse all the same!

I still don't think the ban that is in place is undemocratic, it was voted into place and if people have objections to it, they can voice those objections, as they are doing, and we can have another referendum to re-evaluate whether we should continue the ban.

A lot of people seem to have the opinion that you'd only support the ban if you're a 'lefty' or an SU head, I'm neither. I'm not affiliated to any body but my own, hehe.

Am I mistaken or was the Coke referendum not three years ago and not in the mid-90's as someone else said on this thread? I'm fairly sure it happened when I was in first year.

Blush_01

The Coke referenda took place in the 2003/2004 academic year.

HappyCrackHead

No one is stopping anyone from purchasing Coke or Nestle products... well not stopping any students. God for bid that our student union shops be instructed to make ethical decisions on what companies they buy there food from.

Its the job of the SU to inform the student body of WHY we boycott (not ban) the purchasing of Coke and Nestle. instaed of bitching and moaning about it go inform yourselves.

Or you can just go back to being happy little mindless conscienceless consumers.

dajaffa

panda100 wrote:

So I suppose its a case of what you'd rather your child die of? Infection through contaminated water but at least giving them the opportunity to eat or letting a child breast feed and let them die of aids?That is what it come down to unfortunatly. The problems in Africa have nothing to do with Nestle!

How is banning nestle solving this problem?

The nestle ban served its time but how is it still relevant today?Today in an Africa were children die from aids evey second of the day?

Ask any one in my tutorial group and they will tell you had I had an argumnet with my tutor about this ban. I like you niavely believed everything I had read in the freshers guide and babymilk.org.Its a lot easier to feel sympathetic for babies dying and blaming it on a multicorporational company then blamingt on our oursleves,who are ignoring Africa by placing the death of African on Nestle Shoulders. My tutor was an expert in Hiv and was just back from attending a international confernce on aids. She told me that the best way we can help Africans is to get rid of the stigma of bottle feeding in the country. By doing this we have to disccorauge breast feeding in Africans and do our best to ensure that Africans can get access to clean water supply.
How does banning nestle solve this problem? Simply...it doesnt.

I don't think Nestle are being blamed for all of the problems in Africa, however there are abusing the lack of education in parts of Africa in the name of profit. Now I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that your chances of survival are greater being fed breastmilk from someone who is HIV positive (and don't go forgetting, not all of these mothers are) than bottle feeding in water as unclean as it is in some parts of africa. It's by no means certain that you'll contract HIV if someone HIV positive feeds you breastmilk.

EDIT:

"Without antiretroviral therapy for an HIV-infected mother or her baby, transmission of HIV-1 through breast milk occurs in approximately 9 to 16 percent of breastfed infants."

Ninjawombat

FionnMatthew; didn't quote, because it is too tempting to take every line of your post and argue with it. However, I will make a couple of points in response.

First off, we *are* being prevented from doing something - we're being prevented from buying Nestle and Coca Cola because it is not available. That is the entire point of this thread. So, not quite sure what you're talking about there.

As for your example...
I think you'll find the Champion Sports example has no bearing on this situation whatsoever. Please, try not to be so ridiculous. If Champion Sports stopped selling Nike trainers because Nike use child labour, *that* would be like the on-campus sweet shop not selling sweets. If O Brien's stopped selling chicken rolls because they didn't want to "buy in" chicken that wasn't free range 15 years ago, *that* would also be like the argument in question. UCD have banned Nestle because of a scandal that emerged more than a decade ago, concerning the products that they sell in their shop. NOT concerning a completely unrelated set of products that have nothing to do with the shop. I'm not saying they're denying me my rights because they're not selling petrol or something. I am, in fact, protesting at the fact that they are not supplying what all basic sweet/paper shops supply. Ergo, The Champion Sports thing - yeah, it makes no sense.

It still comes down to this; the shop that is provided for students to buy products is not selling some products, because "the student body" have a problem with that. *I* have a problem with "the student body" replacing individual conscience and personal ethics.

And so I reiterate my point, folks - freedom of choice. You don't like Nestle, don't buy their chocolate. But don't deny everyone else the right to make that decision for themselves. If we want to be "mindless conscienceless consumers" that's our right, and really not the SU's place to make that decision for us. And yes, removing the product is as good as making the decision, because not *everyone* has time to stand around with signs assuring the student body that they HAVE the right, they just can't USE it.

Gee, the SU shop should put that up on the wall: "This is a boycott, folks, not a ban. Just because it's not available, doesn't mean we're saying you can't buy it."

Now, if you'll excuse me I've got some puppies to kick elsewhere. Soulless, capitalist drone that I am.

yevveh

If anyone wanted to get Coke it's available on campus. Okay, it may be a little extra walk for some but its there.
As for Yorkies (the only Nestlé bar I give a damn about anyway) I'm sure I went looking for them in the shop under the library a couple of times but had no idea why they weren't there. As for whoever mentioned Economics, it would say that chocolate bars are substitute goods. It isn't much of an issue for me, I like more than just one bar so if I can't find it I'll take another rather than walking to Centra at Merville.

Even if I did say something like "DOWN WITH NESTLE!" here I'd probably still eat Yorkies. I don't like what they do, but they make a good bar.

Stabshauptmann

Pythia wrote:

Economics teaches free markets without barriers. The market can decide for itself without anyone telling them, it's efficient that way.

And then the lecturer goes on to say how that simplistic idea gets a lot more complicated.
Theres externalities for example

The consumer reaction to supposedly unethical businesses makes perfect economic sense

panda100

dajaffa wrote:

I don't think Nestle are being blamed for all of the problems in Africa, however there are abusing the lack of education in parts of Africa in the name of profit. Now I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that your chances of survival are greater being fed breastmilk from someone who is HIV positive (and don't go forgetting, not all of these mothers are) than bottle feeding in water as unclean as it is in some parts of africa. It's by no means certain that you'll contract HIV if someone HIV positive feeds you breastmilk.

EDIT:

Well wether HIV or contaminated water causes more death is a debate for another day.
The fact is that this was back in the 70's when Nestle pushed their product on Africans. There was little to no education of Africans at that stage. It was before the whole aid 'live aid' culture when ngo's werent commoplace in African communities.
And aside from that surely its not up to Nestle to educate communities that there water is contaminated?Its up to the goverment.Of course we know now that most African goverment are corrupt. So instead of blaming Nestle for something that isnt their responsibility we should be targetting our goverment to put pressure on the African goverments or boycotting all products that are taxed by the African goverment.

Also I completly agree with KRE.Referendums are a lot of time and effort.Its not something that can be easily be done in your lunch break.I have collected signetues before and it takes a hell of a lot of time.I was here during the two coke referendums and it was all arts students involved with the coke boycott. With semstriation and mopdularisation not even art students would have the time to run a referendum anymore. Thats why the SU constitution on holding referendums has to change . I cant see that happening with the group that were elecetd at council to overview the su constitution.

Stabshauptmann

And btw, the wording of the pole should have told you enough about the OP to know whether or not it was worth writing those mamoth posts.

funky penguin

I can't believe 7 people want someone to decide their eating habits for them.

Dontico

Darkbloom wrote:

Best reason for maintaining an ignorant stance on politics, economics and debate tactics I ever heard. Educate thyself.

explain yourself or stop posting inflamitory remarks.

my knowledge of politics seem to be much better people posting against me. not that i claim to be an expert.

Dontico

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

And btw, the wording of the pole should have told you enough about the OP to know whether or not it was worth writing those mamoth posts.

explain.

podge right?

Sangre

Because it is a ridiculously leading question phrased in such a way so that the vast majority would vote so as to back up your point in the OP.

Do you actually think anyone would vote 'no i don't want to decide what to eat'. What has that got to do with democratic (although flawed) referendums?

Dontico

Sangre wrote:

Because it is a ridiculously leading question phrased in such a way so that the vast majority would vote so as to back up your point in the OP.

Do you actually think anyone would vote 'no i don't want to decide what to eat'. What has that got to do with democratic (although flawed) referendums?

today i was buying a coffee in the su shop. i wanted to buy a chocolate bar. i forgot they didnt sell yorkies. i couldnt buy a yorkie cause a group of people who are no longer in ucd, already decided for me that i couldnt.

Sangre

So you could have gone to a vending machine or to centra or to any number of other places. This ban only applies to SU owned shops. The ban in them has no affect on your overall ability to buy something, it only limits where you buy it to non-SU shops.

If you wanted a poll that was in any way relevant and non-leading you should have asked:

'Do you think the SU shop should boycott any products (for whatever reason)?

Yes or No.

Your questions reads as if the SU referendums dictate everything we can eat, on campus and off.

Dontico

Sangre wrote:

So you could have gone to a vending machine or to centra or to any number of other places. This ban only applies to SU owned shops. The ban in them has no affect on your overall ability to buy something, it only limits where you buy it to non-SU shops.

If you wanted a poll that was in any way relevant and non-leading you should have asked:

'Do you think the SU shop should boycott any products (for whatever reason)?

Yes or No.

Your questions reads as if the SU referendums dictate everything we can eat, on campus and off.

do admit i should have phrased it better.

boneless

Can I conduct a poll on banning polls which are related to referenda and banning products?

I think I am getting old and grumpy....:eek:

cast_iron

How about simply removing misleadingly and stupidly worded polls. This one really takes the cookie.