P&G linked to fresh forest scandal, Greenpeace holds protests

Press release - 26 March, 2014

Jakarta, 26 March 2014 A palm oil producer linked to Procter &
Gambles supply chains is destroying primary forest in the
Indonesian region of Papua. The Greenpeace findings come as
activists in five countries protested at P&Gs national headquarters
and facilities, demanding the company guarantee its products,
which include Head & Shoulders, become forest-friendly.
"Procter and Gamble is making us a part of this destruction through the
products we use that's the real everyday effect P&G is having on the
planet. We will continue taking the message to P&G offices around the
world: clean up your act and guarantee customers that your products are
tiger- and forest-friendly," said Areeba Hamid, forest campaigner at
Greenpeace International.
In the Indonesian capital of Jakarta today, 20 activists unfurled a banner with
the text "Head & Shoulders: 100% rainforest destruction" from the top of
P&G's headquarters and protested at the building's entrance in tiger
costumes. In Manchester in the UK, five Greenpeace activists were removed
from an industry conference on P&G's so-called "sustainability" credentials
after quizzing company staff; while in the Philippines, India and Belgium,
activists protested outside locations linked to Head & Shoulders or P&G.
These global actions follow evidence Greenpeace released today,
documenting large-scale clearance across a concession owned by PT Rimba
Matoa Lestari (PT RML) in the districts of Sarmi and Jayapura, Papua
Province. Landsat images showed clearing in areas mapped as primary
forest on the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry's 2011 land cover map. PT RML
is controlled by Indonesia's industry conglomerate RGE Group, whose palm
oil division includes Asian Agri. The group sells palm oil to Cargill, a supplier
to P&G.
RGE Group also owns the pulp and paper company APRIL the company that
is singlehandedly destroying more forest in Indonesia than any other. RGE's
practices in high-risk regions, such as Riau in Sumatra, are linked to the
illegal clearance of forests using fire, the sourcing of palm oil from illegal
plantations in Tesso Nilo National Park and the destruction of Sumatran tiger
habitat.
"For weeks now P&G has been rehashing the same old line that it takes
deforestation seriously and that it depends on certification schemes to
guarantee so-called sustainability'. Clearly this isn't working. It's time P&G
joined the recent groundswell of companies making explicit promises to rid
their products of forest destruction companies such as their biggest
competitors Unilever, L'Oral, Nestl, Colgate, Mars and Ferrero," said
Hamid.

Nearly 400,000 people have written to P&G's CEO, Alan G. Lafley, demanding
that the company immediately commit to No Deforestation. However, in the
eight months since Greenpeace confronted P&G over its weak sourcing
policies, the company has failed to respond with an adequate policy.
Indonesia's forests are disappearing at a rate of more than nine Olympic
swimming pools each minute, with palm oil being the biggest driver of forest
destruction.

1. Promoting consumerism
Unilever spends a lot of energy and money on marketing and
commercialisation of consumer products all over the world (Paint the World
Yellow the Lipton marketing campaign which provide everything with the
Lipton Logo, from surfboards to Chevrolets?was a tremendous success,
according to Unilever. It created a much bigger Lipton Logo awareness
amongst consumers.) Since the Northern consumer market is saturated (so
not much room left for expansion of market shares) Unilever aims at
maximising the processing of food, which means adding value to improve
products and then charge more for these products. Unilever changes the
product only slightly (e.g. strawberry toothpaste), or just changes the visual
language in order to sell exactly the same product. Naturally this process
involves heavy advertising. Many of the improved products are basically
useless, and there is no demand for them (the demand is being
manufactured by the multinationals themselves). In short, Unilever tries to
bring as many products as possible to the market without asking itself the
question is there a real need for the products we produce?
Since the majority of people in the South still go hungry every day, there is
much more room for growth in these countries. If the income of the poor
rises, there is a big change they will spend the money on food products.
Unilever is in a unique position to exploit this. They have expanded market
share in the South, and in Central and Eastern Europe through heavy
advertising and the introduction of new products. Products from the west
(like cigarettes, watches) are often very popular in the South, because of
their supposed high quality and because they can be associated with

luxurious, western lifestyles (see also the paragraphs on using consumerism

to eradicate poverty).
Flooding the world with ever more (useless) products is a pretty immoral
sales strategy. Only think of the ecological costs that come along with it
(processing of products, packaging, waste processing, transport, etc. all
involve high ecological costs). If people in the South start consuming the
same amount of products and services as people in the North, the natural
environment will definitely not survive. The only real and sustainable solution
to environmental problems is less production and less consumption. Unilever
and other multinationals are main actors being responsible for the ongoing
trend in the opposite direction!!
Besides, heavy advertising generates psychological effects like feelings of
inadequacy, disorientation, mood disorders, and cynicism.
In effect, advertising involves tremendous non-value added costs, in other
words, a tremendous waste of resources.
Back to top
2. Misleading marketing
Rebranding the same or slightly changed products for sale can legitimately
be labeled misleading, likewise the introduction of new products that
supposedly improve the daily lives of consumers (you will feel better
starting the day with) or strengthen their self-image (you are worth it,
arent you?).
The UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has recently accused Unilever
for false advertising. The ASA ruled that Unilever misled British consumers in
the way the company presented the health benefits of its cholesterollowering margarine, Flora pro-activ. According to ASA, Unilevers Van den
Bergh Foods unit overstated the benefits of Flora pro-activ in one press
advert that claimed it could reduce LDL cholesterol by 10 to 15 percent. After
the ASA ruling, Unilever agreed to make the required changes and not
advertise in the same way again [54]. (Sanctions against advertisers who
break codes of practice in Britain are ineffective. The ASA has no statutory

powers. It can report persistent offenders to the Office of Fair Trading, but it
is reluctant to use this deterrent (Monbiot, 2001)
Back to top
3. Market domination
Multinational corporations evidently have tremendous market power. They
can decide what products are to be manufactured, what crops are to be
grown, and above all, they can dictate prices. Local businesses and jobs are
destroyed along the way, because that is the law of the jungle. For example,
take tea. Unilever is the worlds largest tea company, and owns 18,000
hectares of plantations in Kenya, Tanzania and India. It controls 20% of the
market (most likely these 1999 figures have changed), through its ownership
of the Brands Liptons and Brooke Bonds. Consequently, it has major power
over the tea price. In the mid 80s, when the Indian tea price started to rise,
Unilever and other corporations acted to bring it down by temporarily
boycotting Indian tea. When the Indian government tried to set a minimum
export price, the multinationals collectively withdrew from the market,
forcing the government to retreat, and slash the price.
Corporate Control of Agriculture -the case of the Netherlands- Two or three
suppliers are controlling nearly all sectors in agriculture. Take for example the dairy
sector, which is being dominated by Friesland Coberco and Campina Melkunie. Or take
the pig sector, which is being controlled by Numico and Dumeco. These companies
supply the farmers with the animals (in this case, the pigs) provide the animal feed,
and finally, they slaughter and process the pigs in the meantime the farmer
temporarily looks after them. The arable sector is structured along the same lines.
Potatoes, cauliflower, onions, carrots: two, at most three, companies supply the seeds
and bring the crops to the retailers. Two big supermarket chains Ahold and Laurus,
are controlling the retail business. However, food corporation Unilever is positioned at
the top of the pyramid.
Reference: Volkskrant Magazine, 16.06.2001
Back to top
4. Procter&Gamble and Unilever reach agreement
While creating the image of tough competition, big corporations often
cooperate in order to divide markets among themselves. Unilever and
Procter&Gamble (P&G) have recently (6 September 2001) reached an
agreement to settle all issues related to disclosure of competitive business
information. Terms of the agreement were not disclosed (how surprising!).
P&G chairman John E. Pepper said, We believe the agreement protects both

P&Gs and Unilevers business interests. (what about the consumers

interests?) Pepper continues: This agreement () will not inhibit fair and
vigorous competition in the marketplace [55]. (with multinational
corporations dominating the marketplace in many, if not all sectors of the
economy, one cannot speak of fair competition).
5. Pushing the neoliberal agenda and spreading false information
Like all big multinationals, Unilever is a major advocate of economic
liberalisation and privatisation; processes that will enable multinationals to
take ever more advantage of business opportunities worldwide.
Recently, at a meeting of the Economic Club of Washington DC, Unilever
chairman Niall FitzGerald called upon his fellow CEOs to draw together in
support of a new round of global trade negotiations. Since the WTO debacle
in Seattle (September 1999), official trade negotiations have held back.
FitzGerald describes the growing resistance against the WTO and free-trade
as an emotional backlash of passionate naysayers against globalisation,
ignoring the strong resistance and fact-based/sound arguments coming from
many developing countries, NGOs, activist groups, scientists and wellinformed people in general. FitzGerald acknowledges that these people have
legitimate concerns, but he thinks providing these people with the right
information will take their concerns away.
The bottom line is, according to FitzGerald, that free-trade will benefit all,
including the billions of people struggling to improve their lives. FitzGerald
is eager to get a new trade round going and make it a success, so that we
can ensure that increased global prosperity benefits all of us, and contributes
to the opportunity for billion of ordinary people to live with dignity and aspire
to their highest goals [56].
Back to top
6. Exploiting -relatively cheap- resources in the Third World
International by design, we have deep roots in many countries. By the very
nature of our business we are an integral part of the societies in which we
operate. Local companies are predominately run by local people in tune with
their communities and who understand their needs and values - a truly multilocal multinational.

Unilever Statement
Unilever has strong ties to the Third World thanks to the operation of
plantations and the agricultural experiments it has carried out on the behest
of, or in co-operation with, national governments. Unilevers Third World
operations often have higher profit margins than its European and North
American operations, not surprisingly of course, since capital-rich
multinationals can easily enforce access to cheap raw materials, land and
low-paid workers in the South. Many of Unilevers consumer products
originate in the South, e.g. tea (see paragraph on market domination).
Multinational corporations usually take the major part of the profit-cake, and
leave the crumbs for the small producers/farmers in the Third World. It is of
course the latter that are providing the real core value of a product (although
in this age of commercialisation and commodification off all things, including
ideas and images, brands are increasingly being considered as the core
value of a product).
Again, lets take tea as an example (see also the paragraphs on market
domination). Almost all tea is grown on plantations, where workers (mainly
women) are dependent on the plantation for jobs and completely powerless
to improve their situation. Wages are generally extremely low and living
conditions appalling. Meanwhile companies, like Unilever, which do the
blending, packaging and marketing of the tea (in the consumer countries)
cream off 30-50% of the retail price. Its obviously very convenient for
Unilever to be involved in the entire process that results in a consumer
product, in other words, to vertically control the food chain. Unilever and
other food corporations control virtually every step of the food production
and distribution system, at the cost of food security and agricultural diversity
in various countries. Multinationals like Unilever direct and shape agricultural
and economic systems to their own profit driven needs (see paragraphs on
unsustainable agriculture).
Back to top
Africa
The Unilever companies originally moved into overseas territories for two
reasons: They wanted to sell their products everywhere and they wanted to
secure raw material bases. However, once a unit was established

somewhere, it tended to be interested in all manner of businesses. A prime

example was the fabled United Africa Company (UAC), which William Hesketh
Lever began building in 1910 when he bought W. B. Maclver, a Liverpool
trading company operating in Nigeria. In the next nineteen years trading
company after trading company in West Africa fell into the hands of Lever
Brothers, culminating on March 3, 1929, nine months before the merger with
the Margarine Union, in the amalgamation of the Lever-controlled Niger
Company with the African and Eastern Trade Corporation. The formation of
the new Lever subsidiary, United Africa Company, was announced from the
Savoy Hotel in London. Subsumed in UAC were activities of more than a
dozen trading companies, most of them of British origin, one of whose
histories went back three hundred years to its days as a slave trader.
UAC was basically a merchant business that acted as a wholesaler, retailer,
manufacturer, exporter, importer, banker. You name it, and UAC did it. The
company's basic role was to export the crops of African farmers and import
manufactured goods from Europe. When UAC was formed, it controlled 60
percent of the exports of palm oil, 45 percent of palm kernel, 60 percent of
peanuts, and 50 percent of cocoa from the four British colonies of West Africa
-Nigeria, Gold Coast (now Ghana), Gambia, and Sierra Leone. In addition,
UAC had extensive operations in other African countries, including the
Belgian Congo, Cameroon, and the Ivory Coast. In all, it had one thousand
locations on the African continent. For the next twenty years, from 1929 to
1949, Unilever's UAC was unquestionably the largest and most important
company operating on the African continent. Nor was its contribution to
Unilever insignificant. In the years immediately following World War II, UAC
accounted for one fifth of Unilever's turnover and, if the contribution of the
plantations was added, between one third to one half of the profits.
Independence movements swept Britain, France, Belgium, and Portugal out
of Africa in the post-World War II years but not Unilever. As nationalist
consciousness grew in Africa, criticism of the company focused on both
UACs dominant position in domestic African economies and on its rate of
profit and the easy remittance of those profits overseas to its Anglo-Dutch
parent. Gradually, African governments/commercial classes took bigger
stakes in UAC. Unilever found its companies nationalized in more than a

dozen countries ['This nationalization,' the company once noted, 'may be

with full compensation, as in Iraq; with deferred compensation, as in Burma;
or with partial, differed compensation, as in Egypt; or anything in between.']
Its role has changed. It no longer controls the marketing of West African
crops. And it has been forced to sell manufacturing units to governments,
including a majority interest in its biggest subsidiary, United Africa Company
of Nigeria. In 1973, to adjust to these changing political conditions, Unilever
changed the name of United Africa Company to UAC International and
changed its charter as well. If it had its way, Unilever would own 100 percent
of its overseas subsidiaries. But as a seasoned sailor in international waters,
it knows how and when to tack to the winds of change [57].
To conclude, UAC played a key role in developing commodity-based, export
economies which many African countries are grappling with today and
Unilever, whatever name it uses, remains positioned to direct and shape the
markets to its own advantage (see for a full story on Unilever and UAC:
Multinational Monitor, issue 9, 1998).
Back to top
Central and Eastern Europe (CEE)
Unilever and Procter & Gamble are western companies that have profited
from the collapse of Central and Eastern European communist regimes and
the consequent opening-up of their economies. The food corporations took
advantage of the unequal playing field in Europe. They have basically divided
the CEE market for personal care products between them, shutting down
national companies in the process. Central and Eastern Europe provide
multinationals with an enormous supply high-skilled, low-wage workers and
some 150 million consumers. In ERT Secretary-General Richardsons view: It
is as we have discovered a new South-east Asia on our doorstep.
Multinationals are eager to incorporate CEE into the EU and see the EU
enlargement become a fact. They see this as a win-win situation for both
Eastern and Western Europe. However, dependency on foreign investments
has already had negative impacts on employment and environment in CEE
societies [58].

In Hungary, for instance, multinationals currently account for up to 30% of

GDP. Local companies throughout the region struggle often unsuccessfullyto compete with large corporations, which benefit from enormous advantage
of scale, access to cheaper capital, superior technology and massive
advertising budgets. That multinationals are able to produce greater
quantities at less expense and with fewer employees gives them a distinct
advantage, but creates the legacy of increased unemployment [59]. By
1992, significant sectors of the Hungarian economy, including brewing,
cement, glass, bread, vegetable oil, sugar confectionery, paper and
refrigerators were in the hands of foreign multinational corporations. In 1991,
nine of the largest ten privatisations went to Western multinational
corporations. Eighty-five percent of privatization proceeds came from foreign
investors. Multinationals including Electrolux, Unilever, and General Electric
have plucked attractive state enterprises.[60]
Back to top
7. Promoting unsustainable agriculture
Corporations control virtually every step of the food production and
distribution system, which is riddled with ecologically unsustainable
practices. E.g., just 20 chemical companies account for the sales of over 90
percent of all the worlds pesticides. These agricultural chemicals are
responsible for tens of thousands of deaths, and at least a million more farm
worker poisonings every year. Global giants such as Phillip Morris, United
Fruit, Pepsico, Cargill, Unilever and Nestle oversee vast portions of
international agricultural production and trade. In fact, multinationals either
directly or indirectly command 80 percent of the land around the world that
is cultivated for export crops such as bananas, tobacco and cotton. Such
agro-export "development" patterns regularly displace farmers producing
food for local consumption, pushing them into situations where they must
overexploit the environment to survive.
Unilever claims to be among the worlds largest users of agricultural raw
materials, such as tea, vegetables and vegetable oils. It thus has a huge
impact on the shaping of global agriculture. Unilever claims to be open to
different alternatives (all agricultural systems have something to offer and
we want to find out what works best under differing circumstances), but the
company believes it is the market mechanisms that will decide what system

works best. Our belief is that market mechanisms stimulate performance

improvement and efficiency along the supply chain and raise quality
standards to meet consumer needs and expectations.
Ultimately, we want the market to work for sustainable development and to
encourage fully sustainable agricultural systems, says Jeroen Bordewijk,
Chairman Unilever Sustainable Agriculture Steering Group. Why do you think
Unilever considers sustainable agriculture so important? Because, as the
company claims, we have a clear obligation to our shareholders and
consumers to ensure that we continue to have access to supplies of natural
raw materials.
High-input, industrial agriculture is the way forward. In its publication on
sustainable agriculture Unilever sums up the blessings of the Green
Revolution. It mentions briefly that the success of the Green Revolution came
at a cost (but lets not elaborate on that, is what Unilever probably thought),
but plays them down immediately (such costs are not new in the history of
agriculture). Many leading experts and institutions still argue strongly in
favour of the high-input method that characterized the green revolution
[61]. But of course no mentioning of the many experts who claim small-scale
agriculture is much more productive and sustainable. Large-scale,
industrialized, high-input agriculture fits in nicely in the corporate project of
increasing corporate control of agriculture.
Chemical giants such as Shell, Monsanto, Mitsubishi and Sandoz now control
many of the worlds genetic seed stocks (through patents), as well as much
of the agricultural biotech industry which presents a new series of potential
environmental problems, and undermines subsistence farming. Unilever
strongly supports the use of biotechnology in agriculture (see section three
above). Biotechnology is used as a tool to create uniform, standardized crops
convenient for industrial processing, or crops with a long shelf life. Unilever
tried to create genetically uniform palm trees through tissue culture. The
company wanted to expand its palm oil operations (palm trees are grown for
the oil in their seeds; the seeds are used for snack foods and industrial
lubricants), but the trees were too variable in size to be industrialized.
Unilever created large plantations of genetically identical palms -and bought

out small farmers, cut down tropical rainforests and displaced indigenous
people in the process. Also, processing factories for palm oil caused severe
water pollution.
Unilever started using GMOs in its food products in a very early stage, even
before proper regulation (e.g. on labeling) got off the ground, let alone a
public debate (proper regulation is still not in place). Unilever took a leading
role in the promotion of genetically engineered food (Unilever introduced
Bachelors Beanfeast into the UK, one of the first food products containing
GMOs). After the quick introduction of GMOs in its foodstuffs, Unilever could
claim there was no turning back. It would be impossible to separate GMOs
from GM-free organisms. Zoe Elford of the Genetic Engineering Network once
(1998) put it like this: Unilever is basically forcing genefoods down
consumers throats. The company knows most people cannot stomach the
idea of genefoods. Unilever is willfully abusing its customer brand loyalty.
However, as consumer resistance mounted up, Unilever miraculously
seemed to be able to produce GM-free foodstuffs. The company takes a
country to country position on the subject of GMOs (adjusting its strategy to
GM sensitivities in local markets). Unilever recently declared it was moving to
a new system in Europe where hardly any GMO ingredients will be used.
This statement clearly is very vague, and leaves much room for continuous
use of GMOs.
Back to top
8. Environmental pollution
Unilever claims to be concerned for the safety of its operations and the
environment but this attitude clearly does not stretch to India. Unilever has
recently been accused by Greenpeace of double standards and shameful
negligence for allowing its Indian subsidiary, Hindustan Lever, to dump
several tonnes of highly toxic mercury waste in the densely populated tourist
resort of Kodaikanal and the surrounding protected nature reserve of Pambar
Shola, in Tamilnadu, Southern India.
Greenpeace activists and concerned residents cordoned off a contaminated
dump site in the centre of Kodaikanal to protect people from the mercury
wastes that have been recklessly discarded in open or torn sacks by
Hindustan Lever which manufactures mercury thermometers for export,

mainly to the United States. According to Hindustan Lever, from there, the
thermometers are sold to Germany, UK, Spain, USA, Australia and Canada.
The factory, set up in 1977, was a second-hand plant imported from the
United States, after the US factory was shutdown for unknown reasons.
Unilever states that its policy is to "exercise the same concern for the
environment wherever (it) operate(s)", "ensure the safety of its products and
operations for the environment" and "provide whatever information and
advice is necessary on the safe use and disposal of (its) products". Yet
workers at the Indian factory are offered no protection from the mercury
spills and several workers have complained of health problems which, they
allege, is caused by their exposure to mercury in the workplace. Mercury is
highly poisonous and exposure to even the small amount through air, water
or skin, exerts severe effects on the central nervous system (brain) and
kidneys. Foetuses and young children are particularly vulnerable to poisoning
by mercury [62].
Not wanting to play down the various violations of environmental acts by
Unilevers subsidiaries, the promotion of consumerism (and excessive use of
packaging materials, transportation of products worldwide, etc.) should be
ranked highest on the companys environmental criminal record. Taking the
ecologically destructive effects of consumerism aggressively promoted by
multinationals like Unilever- into account, all efforts of these companies to
save the environment can only be regarded as greenwash practices.
Back to top
9. Using consumerism to eradicate poverty
By some this is perceived as a good thing and the only way out of misery for
poor people. The UN has sent a message to global corporations, urging them
to recognise the potential of the worlds poor as consumers. The Financial
Times reports (30 April 2001) that Unilever is one of the few companies that
have already taken the initiative, reformulating some of its products to make
them accessible and affordable to poor in India. Detergent (e.g. Omo) and
shampoo, for example, are now available in small sachets that sell for as
little as half a rupee in India (speaking of excessive packaging!). This
apparently made good quality products available to the poor, but begs the

question why arent local businesses able to provide consumers with

products?
10. Taking public space/barring imagination
We are proud of our project of voluntary activities for the benefit of society.
Worldwide Unilever companies have donated more than 50 million euro* on
voluntary activities. In co-operation with others we support projects that
improve health care, rise levels of education, and stimulate local economic
and cultural activities. (Unilever Statement) [63].
Incidentally this amounts to less than 0,1% of total turnover
Multinationals are increasingly penetrating the lives of people by taking
public space, first of all by advertisements. Unilever does not perceive this as
a problem at all and proudly states: On the way to work, in town or at home,
consumers come across advertisements for our brands in all areas of their
daily lives on television, radio and the internet, in print, posters and direct
mail and through sponsorship and public relations campaigns.
Unilever also bombard us through sponsorship and the interference with
education and science (partnerships between universities and the private
sector are mushrooming). Sponsoring sport events and art projects seems to
be among the latest trends, though art should energize peoples imagination
and should be free from commercial interests. Unilever does not see
contradiction in the mix of art and business interests, because it is good for a
company to be associated with creativity (in the words of FitzGerald) and to
enlarge its visibility in the public domain.
Around the world, Unilever companies invest some 25 million in community
involvement projects, including education and arts sponsorship. On May
13th, 1999, Unilever chairman Niall FitzGerald announced a 1.25 million
sponsorship agreement with the new Tate Gallery of Modern Art in London.
The funds would enable the gallery, which opened in May 2000, to
commission and exhibit large-scale work (known as the Unilever Series) each
year for the coming five years. It was the first major sponsorship of the new
gallery's programme. (Unilever is committing 250,000 a year until 2004 to
enable the Tate to commission new works of art.)

At the end of the summer (2000), Unilever claims enthusiastically, two

thousand people from Europe headed off for Ibiza (!) where Unilever
organized a big dance party (in a converted zoo) in order to introduce a new
product (a new variant of Axe personal care) [64].
Back to top
11. Collaboration with oppressive regimes
Margarine Unie brought major interests in Nazi Germany. One source
remarked that Adolf Hitler "had decided to leave the management of tropical
colonies and enterprises (after his presumed victory) to the Dutch, who, he
said, 'would do it better than we could hope to'. What had evoked his
respect? "The incredible efficiency of one firm"
More recently, Unilever was one of the companies which successfully lobbied
the European Commission to begin legal proceedings at the World Trade
Organisation to challenge US state Massachusetts refusal to award public
contracts to companies that do business with or in Burma (on grounds of
Burmas appalling human rights record) [65].
Unilever grilled on bribery, human rights and environmental practice by BBC
(21 August 2001)
Unilever CEO FitzGerald has admitted that local management in some of the
90 countries where the company operates accept "sweeteners" or
"facilitating payments" to seal business deals [66].
12. Hypocritical Health Campaign induced by Self-Interest
In an effort to avoid tobacco-style lawsuits, food giants including Unilever,
Procter & Gamble and Heinz are to use internet, TV and press ads to warn
consumers that eating too much fast food will make them fat. Food
companies are worried if the problem continues they could face the threat of
similar lawsuits to those being brought against tobacco firms. There is also
concern governments may try to crack down on fast food advertising or
impose mandatory health warnings. Other companies involved are Kraft
Foods, one of America's biggest makers of snack foods, Pepsi, Monsanto,
Coca-Cola and McDonalds. All companies at the forefront of promoting
unhealthy food worldwide [ready-made microwave meals (instead of fresh,

whole foods), genetically engineered crops (as opposed to organic crops),

etc.] and in the process shaping agriculture to suit industrial needs (as
opposed to the needs of farmers, local communities, the environment, or
consumers).
13. Excessive Pay Management
Unilever is likely to end the year 2002 with one of the highest paid boards of
any company in the index of Britain's 100 largest companies, with six of its
top executives being paid more than 1m in 2001.