water should be privatized says Nestlé

Not every one is happy with the Nestle company:

http://www.worldcrunch.com/poisonin...lies-for-bottled-brands/c2s4503/#.UXEDk7VTCtY

And then there's this:
　
In a paper published last year, Nestlé scientists claimed to "discover" what much of the world has known for millennia: that nigella sativa extract (fennel flower) could be used for "nutritional interventions in humans with food allergy". But instead of creating an artificial substitute, or fighting to make sure the remedy was widely available, Nestlé is attempting to create a nigella sativa monopoly and gain the ability to sue anyone using it without Nestlé’s permission. Nestlé has filed patent applications--which are currently pending--around the world.

 

I just read that in the voice of Penn Jillette as 'And there there's these assholes'
Which really sums up nicely, how I feel about Nestle.

 

It's hard to believe people are mostly apathetic about this. I may hope (and expect) they're gonna rile up big time if this actually comes into practice around here. Perhaps they just don't think it will happen here and most probably don't care about countries such as Peru...

 

If you love this world and all things from the mountains to the seas and from the most simple organisms to the most complex...

Then things like this idea to privatize water hurts and cases great pain that you feel in your soul.

 

Nestle says: "It would not prevent the use of the fennel flower plant for any other purposes, including in traditional and natural remedies."

I don't know what that means exactly. Obviously, if they are applying for a patent, it makes no sense for them to make such a statement.

Perhaps they are saying that if you want to pick some and make some tea or tincture with it, they won't complain, but if you decide to sell it, they would then complain.

 

What comes into practice?

I suspect you found articles like this:

http://www.nestle.com/aboutus/ask-n...beck-letmathe-believes-water-is-a-human-right

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-brabeckletmathe/addressing-the-water-chal_b_3152926.html

Water Resources Group’s work in countries and watersheds
The water cost curve is the main tool devised and used by the Water Resources Group (WRG) to show a cost-effective approach in individual watersheds/countries to bring water withdrawals back into line with sustainable supply. Leadership by national/regional governments in setting and implementing water strategies is key in the approach of WRG. So far, governments have used water cost curves to set priorities in their water strategy in India (in the state of Karnataka), South Africa, Jordan, Mexico and Mongolia.
Preparatory analysis has been undertaken in Peru and Tanzania with the idea to continue with more in-depth work. We are active in several multi-stakeholder pilot projects to implement measures identified by governments as priorities within this cost-curve approach.

I couldn't find any articles either.

Is it possible to stick to the water issue?
There are a few other threads with regards to other aspects of Nestle.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/search.php?searchid=5400715
Perhaps you can find some information relating to Nestle/Peter Brabeck-Letmathe/Peru.

 

Would you mind if I got into the origins of the word "Nestle"? Cuz something tells me you wouldn't be opposed to that . . .

 

But concerning your offering, are you saying that this:


http://www.worldcrunch.com/poisonin...lies-for-bottled-brands/c2s4503/#.UXEDk7VTCtY

is incorrect? What exactly did you mean to say in your post?

And the link you provided me goes nowhere . . .

 

Sure.

Forum Search: Nestle
Your link goes to: Sorry but this page isn't here. Go to Homepage
I found it, though.
Answer: I have no idea. I'll have to do some research. Thanks.

In the small Pakistani community of Bhati Dilwan, a former village councilor says children are being sickened by filthy water. Who's to blame? He says it's bottled water-maker Nestlé, which dug a deep well that is depriving locals of potable water. “The water is not only very dirty, but the water level sank from 100 to 300 to 400 feet,” Dilwan says

The testimony is a key moment in the new documentary film “Bottled Life” by Swiss filmmaker Urs Schnell and journalist Res Gehriger. The film opens in Swiss theaters on Jan. 26. The village councilor interviewed in the film says Nestlé refused the village’s request for clean water to be piped in.
The notoriously bad drinking water in Pakistan and elsewhere is the reason for the success of the Pure Life brand. A good 10 years ago, the Swiss food company began adding minerals to ground water and bottling it. Today, Pure Life Purified Water Enhanced With Minerals is the largest water brand in the world – “a jewel in our portfolio,” according to John Harris, head of Nestlé Waters.
In view of the fact that every day more children die from drinking dirty water than AIDS, war, traffic accidents and malaria put together, Maude Barlow, a former UN chief advisor for water issues, states: “When a company like Nestlé comes along and says, Pure Life is the answer, we’re selling you your own ground water while nothing comes out of your faucets anymore or if it does it’s undrinkable – that’s more than irresponsible, that’s practically a criminal act.”
In response to questions put to it by Tages Anzeiger, Nestlé communicated in writing that it had built two water filtering facilities that were providing over 10,000 people in Pakistan’s Sheikhupura with clean drinking water. Construction of a further facility was planned for 2012. The company said they had also built two schools in Sheikhupura.

http://www.worldcrunch.com/poisonin...lies-for-bottled-brands/c2s4503/#.UX1P_qJvMfk

Exactly what I did:

What comes into practice?

I couldn't find any articles either.

Is it possible to stick to the water issue?

 

Yeah, Odon, that's what my last post was about. Did you forget to look at it?

 

While Neste trumpets its environmentally friendly ethic – and says it would never harm an aquifer – that’s exactly what they did in Mecosta.

The Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation (MCWC) sued, and after reviewing the damage done to the watershed by Nestle’s excessive withdrawals, a judge ordered Nestle to cease pumping immediately.

http://stopnestlewaters.org/communities/mecosta-county-mi

_______________________________________

Is that acceptable?

 

It goes on to say: It’s important to note that Nestle – despite losing several battles – didn’t lose the war. In fact, their water bottling capacity at their Mecosta County plant is now almost exactly what they initially targeted.
Nestle lost its battle to raise its pumping levels, settling on lower rates on the first day the court case began.

July 2009

U.S. Water News Online

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — A recent settlement announcement marks the end of a long legal dispute between the producer of Ice Mountain bottled water and an environmental group that fought for years to prevent or reduce the company's withdrawal of groundwater in lower Michigan.

The deal allows Nestle Waters North America Inc.'s plant in Mecosta Township, in the west-central part of the peninsula, to pump an average of 218 gallons per minute — or about 313,000 gallons per day — with restrictions on spring and summer withdrawals.

When the plant opened seven years ago, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality's water division granted a permit allowing the company to withdraw up to 400 gallons per minute, or 576,000 gallons per day.

A Mecosta County judge approved the agreement and entered a final order closing the case.

“Reaching this agreement is very important for Nestle Waters' employees and their families, the west Michigan community and our company, in that it brings certainty for our operations, supports local jobs and puts an issue behind us,” Vice President Heidi Paul said in a statement.

http://www.uswaternews.com/archives/arcrights/9settreac7.html

I guess lowering the rates was acceptable.

 

But it also goes on to say:

When forced to comply, Nestle worked out a deal where they halved their pumping rate, but in classic fashion, they continued their litigation while looking for new sources of water.

The Michigan Department of Enviornmental Quality (DEQ) – the same folks who happily permitted the first damaging water extraction – recently permitted yet another Nestle extraction well, and this despite flawed data.

Why is this significant?

It’s important to note that Nestle – despite losing several battles – didn’t lose the war. In fact, their water bottling capacity at their Mecosta County plant is now almost exactly what they initially targeted.

In other words, through lawsuits and heavy-duty lobbying designed to weaken water protection rules, they got what they wanted – despite adverse legal decisions and public opposition.

They’re also attempting to increase their allowable pumping levels past the injunction levels, and the MCWC are being forced to fight them again in court (a battle which Nestle lost, and badly).

____________________________________________

Does that reflect acceptable concerns for the environment?

 

Concerning that flawed data:

An unchastened Nestle – who falsely claims its operations don’t harm the environment--didn’t stop looking for new sources of water.

They found one just north of Evart in Osceola County, and the DEQ happily permitted the new well--despite the fact the data supplied by Nestle was actually collected way, way downstream from the two potentially affected (and highly prized) trout streams.

 

Odon, Nestle went to court to fight for the right to harm the environment. Do you get that?

 

The part I posted was the UPDATE

So: They also attempted to increase their allowable pumping levels past the injunction levels, and the MCWC were forced to fight them again in court.
Nestle lost and were forced into a settlement.

The parts you added were, imho, the politics of the case, and opinion. Also prior to the update.

How is the environment effected?

 

You think it's opinion that Nestle didn't give a shit about the environment. They went to court to fight for the right to pump more than what was safe. Did you miss that . . . somehow?

Did you also miss the part about the flawed report . . . somehow?

Here, read this, and tell me what you think:

http://record-eagle.com/opinion/x1446233308/Op-Ed-Michigan-water-wars-continue

 

And this means nothing to you??

"MCWC and others filed sound scientific and expert comments that the determination was flawed back in 2007. The company and DEQ relied on monitoring affects and stream measurements far below the headwaters and Decker Pond. " Jim Olson, the environmental attorney for MCWC said. "How can you measure the harm of pumping on the upper reach of a valuable trout stream by relying on measurements below the area of influence? That’s like taking a blood pressure reading around your foot."

 

Yes.

I think the word is 'acceptable' rather than 'safe'.

No. The fact is, all of this is several years ago. We can now determine the impact. Rather than argue about the historical data - we can see what the relevant data shows us now.

http://mi.water.usgs.gov/

It's just a long winded version of what has already been posted.

 

Odon, why did Nestle present flawed and deceptive data in defense of their water-pumping rates? Or are you going to say that, because that was in the past, it is out-dated, and therefore never happened?