Foreword By Sumati Bhardwaj

 

I was delighted to discover an excellent and comprehensive up-to-date expose on my favourite ‘most hated companies’ and decided that all I had to do was copy and paste the expose with complete updates on all these evil companies have been doing to raise funds in immoral ways whilst presenting themselves as wholesome household names who ‘care’ about the welfare of their customers whilst destroying the lives of others with their evil practises.  Add these companies to your blacklist and if you have spare time, don’t sit idle.  Do something worthy and commendable with your time like starting an online campaign against these companies, boycotting them, spreading this info to your friends and family and urging them not to ignore it, harassing your local politicians and Government to kick these companies out of your country and thinking up any other bright and creative ways to through a spanner in the works of these evil and inhumane companies.

Enjoy the article.

 

Your friend

Sumati

 

The most evil companies in the world

By End Evil

 

Welcome to the blacklist, below you will find a list of companies you should never buy products from and plenty of reasons why. There are also references to source information and lists of known subsidiaries. Bookmark the Blacklist

 

Nestle

 

Nestle have been repeatedly criticised and widely boycotted in a number of countries because of their violation of international codes on the marketing of baby milk products. Nestle holds about 50% of the world's breast milk substitute market and is being boycotted for continued breaches of the 1981 WHO (World Health Organisation) Code regulating the marketing of breast milk substitutes.

 

Nestle encourages bottle feeding primarily by either giving away free samples of baby milk to hospitals, or neglecting to collect payments. It has been criticised for misinforming mothers and health workers in promotional literature. Nestle implies that malnourished mothers, and mothers of twins and premature babies are unable to breastfeed, despite health organisations claims that there is no evidence to support this.

 

Evidence of direct advertising to mothers has been found in over twenty countries such as South Africa and Thailand. Instructions and health warnings on packaging are often either absent, not prominently displayed or in an inappropriate language. All of these actions directly contravene the Code regulating the marketing of baby milk formulas.

 

Even in the UK, bottle-fed babies are up to ten times more likely to develop gastro intestinal infections, but in the Third World, where clean water may be absent, mothers may be illiterate and independent health care and advice may be lacking, bottle feeding can be more dangerous. This can lead to a situation where babies are left vulnerable to dysentery, malnutrition and death, and Nestle is able to retain its estimated $4 billion market share in the baby-milk industry.

 

Over 3000 infants die every day from baby bottle disease (WHO), and formula dependant babies create massive economic strain on poor families, contributing to unsustainable land use.

 

Nestle were recently criticised by Oxfam for pursuing the Ethiopian Government for US $6 million as the country attempts to tackle a famine affecting 11 million people.This payment was so large because they demanded it in US dollars not local currency at the current rate of exchange not that of 1975 .Nestle did not even own the company when the factory was nationalised. Nestle has finally accepted US $1.51 million offered by the government on 23/1/3 following the campaign run by Oxfam which created a public relations nightmare.

 

The workers in a Nestle chocolate plant in Cacapava, Brazil went on strike in 1989, complaining of poor working conditions, including discrimination against women, lack of protective clothing and inadequate safety conditions. Within two months of the beginning of the strike the company had sacked forty of its workers, including most of the strike organisers.

 

Nestle has subsidiaries in some of the most repressive regimes in the world, including China, Colombia, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Senegal, Sri Lanka and Turkey. The company also has subsidiaries in South Africa which it owned during the Apartheid year. L´Oreal (parent company - Nestle) have subsidiaries in Peru and Morocco.

Sources

Mcspotlight

Baby Milk Action Charity

Make Trade Fair

 

Known Aliases - Nestle owned products to avoid include L'Oreal, Cross and Blackwell, Branston, Ski, Munch Bunch, Buitoni, Vittel, Perrier, Herta, Purina, Allenis, Maggi, Peter's, Milo, Carnation, Caterer's Blend, GoDog, Lean Cuisine, Sunshine, Rowntrees, Breath Fresh, Quik Eze, Scanlens, Nesquik, Vitari, Nescafe, GoPet, International Roast, Medallion, Papa Guiseppi's, Chapstick, Dermoplast, Mighty Dog, and a frightening number of chocolate bars.

 

Coca-Cola

 

The US-based International Labour Rights Fund, and the US United Steelworkers filed a lawsuit against Coca-Cola accusing its franchised bottle plant in Colombia of using paramilitaries to suppress union activity. In the still-unresolved case, Coca-Cola said it could not be held responsible because the plants were not directly under its control.  The lawsuit filed in Miami in 2001 alleged that the company "maintains open relations with murderous death squads as part of a program to intimidate trade union leaders."

 

Corporate Influence Under a contract signed in 1997, the Colorado Springs school district will receive $8.4 million over ten years to sell a requirement of 70,000 cases of Coke products a year. The company urged school administrators to increase sales of Coke products by allowing better and unlimited access to machines and by allowing students to drink in classrooms. The company said it planned to spread this model throughout America. Will the UK be next?

 

In November 2000, Coca-Cola settled a class-action lawsuit by paying a record $192.5 million in settlements. The company was charged with racial discrimination, allegedly denying African Americans adequate pay, promotions, and performance evaluations. The lawsuit was filed by four past and current employees, ranging from a security guard to a former executive, on behalf of as many as 2,000 black employees who currently work for or have had salaried positions at Coca-Cola throughout the United States since April 1985. The plaintiffs claimed that Coca-Cola paid its average black employee nearly $27,000 a year less than its average white employee and limited black workers´ chances for promotion. In 2001, while Coca-Cola´s shares fell 23%, CEO Douglas Daft´s pay and bonus increased 17%, and he was given stock options worth up to $45.7 million and restricted stock work $47.9 million.

 

In 1989 Kolody pitched Coke´s ad agency a concept that involved a graphic collusion of Coca-Cola and automobile memorabilia. Kolody heard nothing back from Coke but nine months he discovered that aspects of his campaign were being disseminated through Coke´s new Cherry Coke can designs. When Kolody attempted to discuss the matter with the agency's executives he was rebuffed and they claimed to have lost his story-boards. Even more interesting is that at the same time, Coke failed to renew their copyright on a very famous image that appeared on their first soda can in 1961: the ´contour bottle on the Coca-Cola can´ image. When Coke failed to renew the 1961 copyright , Kolody became the de facto rights holder because he had created a derivative work of the image for his pitch with the agency.

 

In 1993, Coke resurrected the "contour bottle" image for their Classic Coke cans and filed a fraudulent copyright application in order to protect it. A fundamental precept of intellectual property law stipulates that an entity is not allowed to file for a copyright on an image that has already been published and then released into the public domain or adopted by someone else. In the case of the 'contour bottle', Coke either forgot to renew their copyright or did not understand the law. When they re-filed in 1993, the copyright office warned them that to file for a copyright which has already been published is fraud. Coke went ahead and did it anyway! The Case is presently under appeal ,with allegations of bribery and corruption.

Sources

Responsible Shopper

CocaKarma GNN

Coke Watch

Mulinational Monitor, Dec. 2001

 

McDonalds

 

The vast majority of workers at McDonald´s lack full-time employment, do not have any benefits, have no or little control over their workplace, and quit after a few months. McDonald´s jobs have been purposely de-skilled so as to be able to hire minimum wage workers on an interchangeable basis. One-third of fast food workers speaks no English. McDonald´s and other chains are aiming for automated equipment that will require zero training and are nearly there. Nevertheless, they fight hard to retain hundreds of millions of dollars of government subsidies for "training" their workers. Turnover is 3-400% a year.

 

Not one worker at McDonald´s belongs to a union.The only time a restaurant was unionized recently was in 1997 in Montreal. The restaurant was closed just before the union was certified.

 

In the 1990 McLibel case, McDonalds were found to "exploit children", be "culpably responsible for animal cruelty", and have "advertisements, promotions and booklets which have pretended to a positive nutritional benefit which their food did not match". Its record of labour, working conditions, unionism and pay was criticised.

 

The biggest seller of Coke is McDonald's. Americans alone drink 56 gallons of soda per year. Coke wants to increase consumption of its products by 25% a year by focusing more on children since the adult market is stagnant.

 

Every time you eat a hamburger, you are eating anabolic steroids, antibiotics, and fecal matter. You can read it again. And it will still be true. You are better off eating a carrot dropped in your toilet than eating one dropped in your kitchen sink if you buy and use packaged meat.

 

Feedlot cattle are also given shredded packaging, cardboard boxes, cement, and sawdust to put on weight.

 

Cattle that go into hamburgers drink dirty swill water and dirty food. Until 1997, they were fed millions of dead cats and dogs purchased from animal shelters. They still eat dead pigs, horses, and poultry. (And chickens are fed dead cattle).

 

Cattle are also fed chicken manure, which may contain tapeworms, Giardia, antibiotic residues, arsenic and heavy metals. Federal inspectors report that animals that are visibly diseased, cattle infected with measles, tapeworms, and covered with abscesses are slaughtered and processed into meat. This is why the industry and the USDA are pushing meat irradiation rather then safety, health, and inspections as a solution.

 

One-fourth of the cows slaughtered is worn-out dairy cattle, animals most likely to be riddled with diseases, cancers, and antibiotic residues. McDonald´s relies heavily on old dairy cows because they are lower in fat, cheaper, and allow them to say all their meat is raised in the US.(Source - Food First)

Sources

Food First

McSpotlight

Fast Food Nation

 

Proctor and Gamble

 

During the boycott of South Africa in the apartheid years, Procter & Gamble maintained their licensing agreement . Procter & Gamble today operate in the following repressive regimes; Brazil, China, Colombia, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Morocco, Peru, the Philippines and Turkey.

 

At the end of 1991 the company was criticised for continuing to pollute the Fenholloway River with up to 50 million gallons of waste water each day from its cellulose plant in Florida. Fish in the river were being contaminated with dioxin, and water wells in the vicinity were allegedly unsafe to use. Amazingly, all this pollution was within legal limits but state officials are said to be reviewing P&G's permit at the plant.

 

They have been frequently accused of uneccesary testing on animals. Total animal use is estimated at about 50,000 per year.In many cases human data on the substance is already available .

Sources

The Ethical Consumer Guide to Everyday Shopping published by the Ethical Consumer Research Association.

 

 

Known Aliases - Max Factor, Clarion, Colorfast, Cover Girl, Mary Quant, Maxi, Outdoor Girl , Luvs (nappies), Pampers, Step by Step , Always , Head & Shoulders, Vidal Sassoon, Clearsil, Fairy, Zest , Crest , Ariel, Bold, Daz, Dreft, Fairy, Tide, Bounce, Downy, Cheer, Dash, Era, Gain, Ivory Snow, Oxydol, Tide . Fairy , Head & Shoulders, Ivory, Pantene, Pert Plus, Prell, Vidal Sassoon, (Vicks range) Chloraseptic, Cough Drops, DayQuil, Inhaler, NyQuil, Sinex, VapoRub, VapoSteam, Vicks 44, Vitamin C Drops

 

Unilever

 

Unilever is an Anglo-Dutch company with subsidiaries in many countries with repressive regimes, for example South Africa, Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, Morocco, Peru, the Philippines, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Turkey and Uganda.They have been criticised for repressive treatment of workers, and much of Unilever's profits come from unfairly traded commodities ( tea, coffee and vegetable oils).

 

They are of course huge producers of soaps and detergents, and have been held responsible for a number of serious cases of water pollution. For example in 1990, Crosfield Chemicals, was fined �35,000 after leaking fifty tonnes of concentrated sulphuric acid into sewage systems in Warrington. Also, in 1991, the River Purification Board of Scotland found that the company had exceeded its discharge consent by three or more times; the company was convicted for water pollution offences.

 

They have been criticised for unnecessary testing of cosmetics on animals and accused of making misleading remarks with regard to their stance on the issue of genetic engineering by claiming the company 'takes a positive view of genetic engineering'. The company, in fact, does not have an overall stance on genetic engineering, but takes a country by country decision, so Unilever Germany does not currently use genetically engineered products while others do.

 

They were accused of negligent marketing after advertising a free offer of multivitamins (including Vitamin A) with their pregnancy testing kits after the Department of Health advised pregnant women to avoid taking dietary supplements containing vitamin A because of the risk of birth defects.

Sources

The Ethical Consumer Guide to Everyday Shopping published by the Ethical Consumer Research Association.

 

Known Aliases - Dove, Lyptons tea, Bertolli, Hellmann's, Knorr, Rag�, Birds Eye, Findus, Magnum Solero, I Can't Believe it's not Butter, Domestos, Cif, Comfort, Impulse, Organics, SunSilk, Lux, Slim�Fast, Signal, Calvin Klein- fragrance

 

Wal-Mart

 

Wal-Mart is a massive company generating sales worth $138 billion making it the biggest retailer in the world. Wal-Mart has been accused of destroying the economies of small towns in the USA, abusing the rights of its workers in developing countries and arming impressionable American teenagers. The company is the biggest employer in the USA and has often been accused of violating international labour rights.

 

They have achieved market saturation in North America and can only expand their empire by moving into Europe and other "new" markets. In June 1999 they bought Asda (which was the third biggest supermarket chain in the UK) for £6.7 billion. Sadly the Asda chain was a member of the Ethical Trading Initiative, but will now be sourcing many of its goods through Wal-Mart´s international product chain. Wal-Mart has its own "voluntary code", written in 1992. It isn´t monitored by reputable and independent labour-rights groups, but by its own "exclusive buying agents". The code allows Wal-Mart to use products made by children of 14 or 15, but "prefers" that they work no longer than sixty hours a week.

 

Wal-Mart, as the USA´s biggest retailer, is also its biggest gun-seller. Campaigners for tighter gun-control laws accuse Wal-Mart of marketing firearms irresponsibly and being too lax in selling weapons to teenagers. When rock star Sheryl Crow alluded to this on a recent record, Wal-Mart magnanimously banned it from their 2500 stores.

 

They have also been accused of attempting to desecrate ancient burial sites. Wal-Mart wants to build a store on top of a Native American cemetery in Tennessee. The Native Americans´ descendants are naturally furious about the plan.

 

Wal-Mart also sells sweat shop-produced goods often the product of child labour. They are one of 17 retailers facing a £660 million action in the US courts brought by garment manufacturers in the US Pacific protectorate of Saipan. They allege they suffered beatings, forced abortion and vermin-infested quarters in the employ of Wal-Mart´s supplier. Wal-Mart denies the charge. Another PR debacle for Wal-Mart saw daytime TV celebrity Kathy Lee Gifford remove her name from a range of Wal-Mart´s clothes when US labour activists discovered the garments were made in a sweat shop in Honduras.

 

Wal-Mart has long pursued a policy of targeting small town USA. They are able to create monopolies by introducing artificially low prices which put the competition out of business; this leaves them free to increase the price again. Despite the homely and family image they have spent so much hard-earned cash cultivating this is in fact a faceless behemoth of an organisation which routinely supplants small locally owned businesses. The jobs "created" by Wal-Mart pay minimum wage and the vast profits are sent elsewhere, impoverishing the local economy.

Sources

Corporate Watch

 

P. Smith

 

Known Aliases - Asda

 

Glaxo Smithkline

 

In January 2000, Glaxo Wellcome announced a merger with SmithKline Beecham making them the biggest company in the UK, and one of the world´s leading pharmaceutical companies, controlling approximately 7.4% of the market.

 

Between 1946 and 1988 Glaxo made and sold a spinal x-ray contrast medium called Myodil. Injected into the spinal canal in order to show up problems on x-rays, the drug was sold in approximately fifty countries including the UK. Myodil has been shown to cause a disease called Adhesive Arachnoiditis - A disease which causes severe pain to the sufferer via untreatable and incurable inflammation and nerve atrophy.

 

Glaxo must have known that Myodil was toxic when it was first released onto the market in 1946, as by that time many studies had already been published which showed the potential for harm.

 

Glaxo was able to build connections with Public Health Authorities, partly by employing government staff who had connections and influence in Public Health Departments. By the end of the war their factories were producing 90% of the UK´s supply of new drugs.

 

On the 19th September 1988 Glaxo notified the Department of Health that Myodil was to be discontinued in the UK for commercial reasons, but they wished to retain the product licence issued in June 1987 as the product was not being discontinued worldwide. Myodil is thus still manufactured and sold overseas - it has found new markets in countries that are vulnerable to the marketing strategy that made Glaxo one of the largest pharmaceutical companies.

 

Glaxo has always maintained that the links between Myodil and adhesive arachnoiditis have not been proven. But in an out of court settlement in 1995, whilst denying liability Glaxo Laboratories Limited paid out, on average, £16,000 to each of 425 claimants suffering from Myodil Adhesive Arachnoiditis. A further 3,000 claimants had to withdraw because of what many of them felt to be Glaxo´s solicitors´ bullying tactics. Settling out of court meant that Glaxo effectively closed the door on any further litigation in the UK.

 

GlaxoSmithKline´s corporate motto is "committed to improving the quality of human life!"

 

Unfortunately, it does not live up to this motto. GSK

- sued the South African Government for trying to supply AIDS victims with medicine they can afford

- knowingly produces toxic drugs and

- emitts more carcinogens than almost any other chemical producer in the UK

 

GSK´s chemical plant in Ulverston is one of the most carcinogenic polluters in the UK. This one site emitted 773 tonnes of carcinogens in 2001, 10 per cent of the national total.

 

The Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, and the Journal of the American Medical Association accused the drug giants of using their money to prevent academic researchers reporting freely and fairly on the results of drug trials.

 

In 2001, GlaxoSmithKline had sales totalling £20.5 billion, and before tax profits of £6.2 billion.

Sources

Corporate Watch

Factory Watch