One of Nestle's recent CEOs actually went on record to say say he didn't believe access to clean water should be a human right.
Well, not always. Premium brands are often shipped long distances. Evian, Fiji water, etc...
It's out of business now.
That sounds more like a problem of the local government than factories of bottled water.
>he didn't believe access to clean water should be a human right
Depends on the definition of "human right". You still pay for even the tap water in your home after all.
This model shows the problem nicely:
Snopes does cover the situation quite well (see link upthread).
This sort of thing: https://www.nationofchange.org/2019/08/30/nestle-waters-prop....
Full quote:
> “Water is, of course, the most important raw material we have today in the world. It’s a question of whether we should privatize the normal water supply for the population. And there are two different opinions on the matter. The one opinion, which I think is extreme, is represented by the NGOs, who bang on about declaring water a public right. That means that as a human being you should have a right to water. That’s an extreme solution. The other view says that water is a foodstuff like any other, and like any other foodstuff it should have a market value. Personally, I believe it’s better to give a foodstuff a value so that we’re all aware it has its price, and then that one should take specific measures for the part of the population that has no access to this water, and there are many different possibilities there.”
The Snopes article only disputes that he didn’t specifically say the words “Water is NOT a human right”, but backs up what the GP said (that he doesn’t believe it should be a human right).
No, he is not saying bottled water. He is saying water plain and simple. Any water.
"That means that as a human being you should have a right to water. That’s an extreme solution."
So, for him, having access to water (any water) is not a human right. If some people can not afford to pay for it, that's their problem, or the government's to find an alternative ("and then that one should take specific measures for the part of the population that has no access to this water").
And to respond to him: Yes, Human Right to water is a thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_right_to_water_and_sanit...
Fully agree with your comment!
I only know about Nestle, there often is the story about them supposedly depleting water in dry regions (I think Afghanistan or Pakistan). But if you look it up, they take the water from a very water rich region in that country.
Next time you read that Nestle story, look it up. I don't have time to Google right now.
You use the most idiotic interpretation you can imagine and then stating it as a fact. I'm sure that you are not doing this in bad faith, but your thinking is missing basic common sense that cripples you ability to understand society. Human right to water and sanitation (HRWS) is very reasonable right. It means that HRWS rules over other concerns in legal disputes and affects policy priorities.
This paper has real world legal cases and interpretations: https://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/pdf/human_right_to_wat...
They should move somewhere where they can get water. UN may pay for it or whatever. But to show people in some rotten place and complain that they don't get their human right to water makes no sense.
Also, the point of finding "most idiotic interpretations" is to make it obvious if something makes no sense. You are just not used to logical thinking (here, finding trivial counter examples).