Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by cies | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

cies

> Nestlé Wants to Sell You Both Sugary Snacks and Diabetes Pills

...and they want to "own" the water.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_pb6r8VNWk

View on HN

Can we stop this "Nestlé thinks water isn't a human right" BS already?

http://www.nestle.com/ask-nestle/human-rights/answers/nestle...

I'm far from being a fan of Nestlé, but there are better arguments against their conduct than a single quote from the CEO years ago, misquoted and out of context.

They do think it is their right to buy publicly owned municipality water and then sell it back to the public.

I mean with soda at least they are putting a few cents per gallon into it.

There should be a truth-in-advertising law they makes the bottle labels say "filtered publicly owned water $1".

In my opinion, the blaming is very one-sided. I mean what kind of municipality sells such rights to a private entity?

The one that believes in trickle down economics!

Aquafina (Pepsi) and Desani (Coke) bottled water are municipal tap water that has been filtered. The source of the water is usually on the label.

The UK sold all it's water companies a while back. It sort of worked out but the bills went up.

There should be a truth-in-advertising law

Aren't there? I'm sure I've seen the source of the water printed on the water bottles.

The location/font-size for the brand and the source need to be switched if it is just water.

Speaking of which, so we know some water sources but it is now legal to not mention food sources on many products.

No one is showing the clip of what he actually said, which is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWkA-uAPXCE#t=2m10s

He does absolutely say that "NGOs bang on about water being declared a human right", at the time when he is relaxed, and even bringing up some Austrian folk song about water. He says absolutely nothing about limits, or just being careful.

The page you linked is a great example of corporate damage control. I tend to trust what people say when they are being candid over what they say on a PR page.

That video cuts off right before Brabeck states his own view. Thanks for proving my point that his quote is often taken out of context. Here's a longer one

https://youtu.be/7iGj4GpAbTM?t=192

He states that he thinks it would be better to give water a price so that we are aware of its value, and take specific measures to provide access to water to people who can't afford it. Not the worst idea ever to fight water waste.

I doubt people in third-world countries are unaware of the value of clean water.

Oh come on. He is clearly referring to the problem of water being wasted as a valueless common good, mostly in the western world. And indeed, what is happening for instance in California right now can be seen as tragedy of commons problem (see e.g. http://legal-planet.org/2015/07/13/tragedy-of-the-commons-ca...)

But sure, if you need to confirm the BigCo CEO as incarnation of Satan, go ahead...

>valueless common good, mostly in the western world

I have to pay for tap water though.

>But sure, if you need to confirm the BigCo CEO as incarnation of Satan, go ahead...

You don't need Satan when you've got a BigCo CEO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestle_boycott

> Oh come on.

As long as we are using this form of persuasion – come on, this is the company that is trying to say it has rights to collect water from Strawberry Canyon based on a claim from 1865 – http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/environment/2016/05/07/n...

How on earth can you think they are a socially responsible company committed to avoiding water wastage?

Thanks for linking a more complete video. However, I don't understand how the extra context absolves him. In fact, it shows more clearly that he is of the "put a price on everything" (implicit: and then we can sell it at that price) worldview.

Notice that he clearly calls water a "foodstuff" before talking about giving it a price. He then follows it up by saying "The biggest social responsibility of any CEO is to maintain and ensure the successful and profitable future of his enterprise".

Somehow I don't think water waste and access for needy people is particularly important to him. At minimum, I would at least say that he is mildly in opposition to access to clean drinking water being declared a fundamental right instead of a product to be sold. This makes perfect sense, because it would eliminate or heavily impact Nestlé's water business if every country in the world had clean drinking water.

That's fascinating. I've been boycotting Nestlé for many years based on documentaries and articles in German-language media. I've just tried to dig up some English articles for the first time, but they are much harder to find.

Compare the German-language version of Nestlé criticism on water:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestlé#Trinkwasser

...to the English one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestlé#Bottled_water

There was even a documentary on German public TV recently, pretty cheesy stuff, but starting at 32:49 the journalists are interviewing local politicians in Mexico about a Nestlé selling water from local reserves:

http://www.daserste.de/information/ratgeber-service/montagsc...

So while I can't translate all this content right now, the tl;dr is that in practise, Nestlé does not seem to believe in water as a human right. Otherwise, why sell water from areas where it is already scarce?

> Nestlé does not seem to believe in water as a human right. Otherwise, why sell water from areas where it is already scarce?

Selling is often the best way to manage scarce resources, particularly in the presence of a government that cannot be trusted to effectively ration them.

Most reasonable people don't object to companies selling food or clothing.

If by "manage" you mean "make sure the scarce resource goes to the highest bidder". That's not the same as maximizing overall happiness, because purchasing power ≠ capacity for happiness. In fact it's often the reverse. The person who can get the most happiness from a glass of water might be the least able to afford it.

Of course people object to companies selling food when it is scarce. Many reasonable people (governments included) are trying to stop the overfishing of the oceans or poaching of endangered animals.

Is there an example of a scarce resource that was better off being managed by company than a government?

One thing is that selling water from some place enables the source to be developed. E.g. enable better water treatment technology and eliminate losses. It may very well actually improve availability of water.

Sale of drinking water is not really much of a problem, anywhere; the amounts consumed by drinking are small compared to everything else, and the development of treatment capability may well offset them.

Selling water in bottles is a problem because of the bottles (trash, materials, energy), but that is another thing. Supplying water to other uses (industry, agriculture) is a problem because the amounts are vastly bigger than with drinking water.

To be honest, I trust the English Wikipedia here more than the German...

Why exactly should I believe anything Nestlé's marketing department says?

In the video the CEO says roughly people should have a right to 50-100L of clean water but not the right to fill a swimming pool because there isn't always enough for everyone to do that, which seems not unreasonable.

"Brawndo, the thirst mutilator"

That was my first thought when I saw the headline. Water is a human need.

All that out, however, I do actually agree with some of what is being done. I'd seriously prefer to eat a gummy candy than swallow a pill - no matter how small a pill is, I can only swallow one at a time. Patients with dementia get crushed medicines mixed with jelly or another substance here - and a pre-mixed solution of some sort would be easier on everyone. It'd be a bonus if we can have the extended release stuff in edible form. Children wouldn't mind taking medicines so much.

I just wish it weren't what I consider evil people (from the water stuff) doing it.

People in the US already take about 10x too much medicine. Not sure making it easier is a good social goal.

Agreed. Some health problems are reversed by making healthy diet and lifestyle changes.

If your body is unhealthy because you eat too much sugar and refined carbs, and you take a pill for that, you now have two problems.

Like I said before - that is a different problem. People need to have enough money to eat well without sacrificing electricity. Plus they need transportation or nearby grocery stores with affordable prices... in addition to the time and ability to cook at home.

How, exactly, does making needed medications help with any of those issues?

I seriously don't think people that are sick need to suffer to take their medicines, especially since a good number of sicknesses are not because of an unhealthy lifestyle. In the case of children, they have no control over that in any case.

I'm not sure it is that high, but doctors do tend to prescribe more instead of saying "no, you can't have the antibiotic for your cold". Part of this is a regulatory issue as well - I walk into a pharmacy here in Norway and you have to ask for some of the medicines, even though they are available without prescription. In the states it was different - basically no regulation. On top of the fact that medicine in the states is most definitely a consumer good paid for by the individual... in universal coverage, it is a bonus not to over-prescribe medicines and to make sure that those that need medication take care of themselves as they should so that costs don't go up - and people don't need more medication.

Making medicines easier to take doesn't actually address any of this outside of making it slightly easier for those on medication to take it as they should so that their conditions don't get worse.

> Children wouldn't mind taking medicines so much.

This assumes children can only tolerate maximally-sweet foods like fruit juices, soda, cookies and candy. This fundamental assumption that kids won't eat healthy foods is very dangerous.

Not really. I'm assuming most children cannot swallow pills and that most chewables and liquids taste badly.

It is pretty easy to get children to eat healthily - my nieces and nephew does so. But if the medicine actually tastes of a strawberry or carrot or piece of bread rather than a weird chemical taste, some of the struggle would be over with.

Of course water is not a "human right" - else whom can I sue for being thirsty?

This is the worst offense. The iPodization of water is real. I try to avoid buying water whenever I can. If people like us who have a voice will just quietly switch to bottled water or very expensive home filtration, then we will have failed our civic duty.

Almost everywhere I travel outside of NYC the question pops up: is tap water safe to drink? New York is notoriously proud of and vocal about this local amenity. Achieving a universal standard in this area would go a long way towards putting a significant dent in the bottled water scam.

> is tap water safe to drink?

As someone who lives across the pond, it never ceases to amaze me that this question needs to be asked at all. Is tap water safe to drink? I wouldn't take "no" as an answer unless I'm in some remote third-world country that has known issues with the availability of drinking water. And yet...

Not saying tap water here tastes great everywhere (far from that), but you can be pretty sure it won't cause you any physical harm.

Good for you, but this is what the International Association for Medical Assistance to Travellers has to say about Italy:

> Drinking water is chlorinated and has no ill effect on the local population. However, some strains of e. coli (naturally occurring bacteria found in your gastro-intestinal system) may be present in very small concentrations in the local water supply. Some local strains are different than those that you may be used to, and may cause diarrhea in travellers since immunity is not developed as a result of short-term exposure. Using bottled water for the first few weeks will help you adjust and decrease the chance of traveller's diarrhea.

https://www.iamat.org/country/italy/risk/food-water-safety-o...

Poking around, the same warning is in place for Spain and Portugal.

I always get bottled water when travelling, although I tend to get the cheap local or store brand water. A few euros is really cheap anti-diarrhea insurance, and it tastes a lot better than chlorinated water, too.

Sure, that's the same pretty much anywhere - the water is safe when you're used to it, when moving you're better off giving yourself a couple of weeks to adjust.

This is not a case of "good for you", it's just that I find it sad that locals of a developed country have to choose to drink bottled water over tap water because the latter could harm their health.

That being said, for travelers it sure might take a while to adjust to local conditions. I never had such problems when traveling to Spain, Austria, France, Hungary and Slovenia, but I do understand that each body copes differently with things it's not used to.

By outside of NYC do you mean just elsewhere in the USA? I didn't realize the situation was that bad in the USA, outside of places such as Flint.

I'm from the UK, and this question never comes up anywhere in the country (I'm aware of the scale differences we're talking about)- if you travel anywhere, you can drink the tap water.

Yes. I'm ashamed to admit that we don't fluoridate our water across the Hudson river.

While I'll never admit this in person in front of a New Yorker, water does taste better in the city.

This is not to take away from the fact that water here is mostly safe to drink. There was an incident earlier this year with a broken mains flooding Hoboken which left a little bit to be desired in terms of communication. However, overall I'm fairly satisfied with the water here. I imagine it is the same idiot antivaxxers who don't want fluoride in water but I haven't looked into it.

I wouldn't be so quick to call others idiots.

Fluoridation has absolutely nothing to do with taste.

The reason NYC's water tastes better than NJ's is simply that it comes from a different source.

The water is the USA is highly regulated and safe to drink. Flint was a dramatic outlier which resulted in criminal charges for those involved.

Municipal water supply has stricter standards than bottled water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_Drinking_Water_Act

@newjersey In the UK we only fouridate a few areas, mostly it's only good old chlorine that we add.

Maps:

http://bfsweb.org/onemillion/09%20One%20in%20a%20Million%20-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com