Nestle sued in U.S. for using Thai slave-caught fish in cat food

[casualbiker]

Would be interesting what happens to fish from Indonesian factories as they are also heavily involved in this trawler "slavery". But the USA gave both Indonesia Malaysia an upgrade recently. Even though the " slaves" were found operating in both countries! Strange, no?

[farangmick]

U.S. and Thailand got a lot in common. Unhappy, got your knickers in a twist, sue someone. Unfortunately this practice was imported to Britain, as a lot of American customs have been, good and bad. Mind you, Erin Brockovich was a great movie.

[farangmick]

U.S. and Thailand got a lot in common. Unhappy, got your knickers in a twist, sue someone. Unfortunately this practice was imported to Britain, as a lot of American customs have been, good and bad. Mind you, Erin Brockovich was a great movie.

[JAG]

This type of action had to start...this issue has been festering overseas for some time.....and now we wait for the Thai govt. to start their kow-towing and grovelling to the international community with the usual.."we're doing our best"...."it's not our fault"....etc.......

I am sure they will tell us that foreigners don't understand Thailand and s such it is just a misunderstanding.

Surely you mean foreign cats?

By the weekend there will be a poll to state that 95.27% of Californian cats (2537 will have been surveyed) were unaware that the food was sourced using slave labour. On Tuesday next the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will announce that in a meeting the US Ambassadors cat declared that he understood the situation, and was satisfied that Thailand was doing everything required to solve the problem.

[casualbiker]

This type of action had to start...this issue has been festering overseas for some time.....and now we wait for the Thai govt. to start their kow-towing and grovelling to the international community with the usual.."we're doing our best"...."it's not our fault"....etc.......

I am sure they will tell us that foreigners don't understand Thailand and s such it is just a misunderstanding.

Surely you mean foreign cats?

By the weekend there will be a poll to state that 95.27% of Californian cats (2537 will have been surveyed) were unaware that the food was sourced using slave labour. On Tuesday next the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will announce that in a meeting the US Ambassadors cat declared that he understood the situation, and was satisfied that Thailand was doing everything required to solve the problem.

I honestly don't think the cats really care.

I would go so far to say if it added 25cents to a tin that the owners wouldn't either!

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed.

[LomSak27]

You have got to be kidding right?.....lordy lordy lordy, when will this outrageous stupidity stop

And how much of the award money, if any, will find its way to compensate those labourers from the region used by Thai companies and fishermen? Diddly squat I reckon. So would then allow a Thai lawyer to file a class action against the US Law firms to retrieve the awards for the actual slaves?

Once you done feeling the outrage that lawyers and lawsuits always provoke. Set that Leo bottle down and get introduced to the endgame. The Thai fishing industry and the economic consequences for the nation. Some people will say they had it coming, others that it is unfair. However remember the people trafficking report that stirred up the brouhaha back 3 weeks ago??? Chicken feed. What was missed in all that hoopla was a powerful series by the NYTimes and The Guardian. reprinted in hundreds of local papers across the US, Canada and the UK, and probably many more countries. It listed out where the fish that these slave boat companies caught, is going to. Things like the pet food industry. Now consumers know just what Fido costs and they seem to be not pleased.

The endgame, after it all gets hashed out no one is going to make much money besides the lawyers, neither Nestle nor the other side. What it will do though is force companies TO NOT BUY from Thai FISHING companies. That is the shot, the money shot.

Not in the Thai news yet, are consumer groups back in the US who have officially complained to companies such as Costco about selling Thai farmed shrimp. The food they feed the shrimp is ground fish meal caught by these boats. I expect Costco will stop all purchases of Thai farmed shrimp within 6 months if not sooner. Many more distributors will follow.

These are the real economic consequences, and they are just beginning. Expect a lot more OP/ED pieces from the Nation about this.

[tuanku]

Nestle have a long history of unethical trading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott

[phoenixdoglover]

I asked my cat about this. We are living overseas, but she is 100% American. She is old, fat, and complains a lot.

I recently bought her a can of food that looked like chopped-up bits of fish.

I asked her if it bothered her that the fish may have been caught by slave labor.

Her response to me was unprintable.

[impulse]

Now we're getting into my area. First, Thailand doesn't have a class action lawsuit procedure . . . yet. The class action act goes into effect on 8 December 2015 and is modeled after the US procedural law (hence my new job).

Sadly, I'm forecasting a lot more lawyers in 2016 and future Thailand being shot by pillion scooter riders when they leave their office parking lot or pull into their driveways at home. It's so much cheaper than settling (or fighting) a lawsuit in California.

They haven't printed enough money for me to step into your new job.

Edited August 28, 2015 by impulse

[Mudcrab]

Prove it.

With all due respect I think the average US consumer is stupid. Blunt but there you go!

An ex US girlfriend (in her 40's mind you) went into shock when she saw the cattle trucks going to the abattoir (slaughterhouse) in OZ.

She really did believe that meat came from supermarkets and didn't realise cattle had to be killed for her to chew down on her favourite cuts of beef.

The only people who win in this legal nonsense will be lawyers (as always).

The losers will be the consumers who will end up paying for the litigation by way of higher prices. And the many fishermen and their families unjustly forced out of business.

I'm not suggesting that there aren't some dodgy operators out there but this subject has taken on a persona all of it's own as though subsidised by some very rich entities to prove the existence of something that may not exist for their own purposes.

The rabid anti coal movement come to mind.

Meanwhile ISIS captures, rapes and beheads real slaves....and we worry about cat food.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Mudcrab

[zaphod reborn]

Now we're getting into my area. First, Thailand doesn't have a class action lawsuit procedure . . . yet. The class action act goes into effect on 8 December 2015 and is modeled after the US procedural law (hence my new job).

Sadly, I'm forecasting a lot more lawyers in 2016 and future Thailand being shot by pillion scooter riders when they leave their office parking lot or pull into their driveways at home. It's so much cheaper than settling (or fighting) a lawsuit in California.

They haven't printed enough money for me to step into your new job.

Don't worry I'm very safe. I'm in a very low profile position as you can't practice law in Thailand without being a Thai national. Also, law firm security is much higher ever since this incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/101_California_Street_shooting

[yardrunner]

You have got to be kidding right?.....lordy lordy lordy, when will this outrageous stupidity stop.

but this will indirectly put more pressure on the Thai government to ensure anti slavery measures are enforced, their is nothing like the possibility of a lawsuit to make companies think twice about who they do business with

[gandalf12]

Eventually what will happen is that these companies wont buy from Thailand until Thailand proves beyond a shadow of doubt that slave labour has not been used in any part of the production process. That is going to be interesting to see how Thailand handles that one.

[impulse]

Eventually what will happen is that these companies wont buy from Thailand until Thailand proves beyond a shadow of doubt that slave labour has not been used in any part of the production process. That is going to be interesting to see how Thailand handles that one.

They'll buy it from the Koreans, the Japanese or the Chinese, who will buy it from Thailand and slap a "Product of Korea" sticker on it and call it good.

I can't tell you how many containers of stuff I saw leaving Chinese factories with "Made in Korea" on the boxes. A quick stop in the Busan port (it's right on the way after all), and who's the wiser?

Another possibility is that the US companies will buy it from Ecuador (just an example), where China buys their cheap fish from now. China will, of course, have to find a new source of cheap fish. Which make Thailand's cheap fish look really appealing. (Substitute France for China if you want a Euro conspiracy story)

Boycotts in a global economy seem to only create a tangled web of unintended consequences. Outside market pressures don't seem to work as long as there are outlet nations that are perfectly ecstatic to make a buck off the suffering of fellow human beings. And there are plenty of them- and unfortunately, it seems there always will be.

[BadBouy]

End result: Slavery will continue, cat food will be more expensive, and lawyers will be richer.

[Thai at Heart]

End result: Slavery will continue, cat food will be more expensive, and lawyers will be richer.

End result. Companies wont risk buying in Thailand.....End of

[BadBouy]

End result: Slavery will continue, cat food will be more expensive, and lawyers will be richer.

End result. Companies wont risk buying in Thailand.....End of

More likely they will get it from a wholesaler who bought it from Thailand and changed the label....but continue with your righteous dream

[BudRight]

These big companies have a lot of choice where they source their product and they hate bad press. The Thai finishing industry will soon find itself without customers.

[arrowsdawdle]

Good to see that Cats have a conscience. Can't wait for them to be deposed. Only one winner.... the Lawyers.

And the enslaved kids on those boats are irrelevant to you?

[arrowsdawdle]

These big companies have a lot of choice where they source their product and they hate bad press. The Thai finishing industry will soon find itself without customers.

It is inconceivable to Thais that something they respect, making money at all costs, could cause customers the thing Thais despise most, a loss of face.

[willyumiii]

There are going to be a lot of class action lawsuits filed over the failure to label that seafood products had been harvested using slave labor. I've been monitoring this as part of my work. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm not sure they can prevail on this claim for unfair and deceptive advertising. They're basically arguing that if the customers had known through labeling that slave labor was used to catch the fish, the customers would not have purchased the food products. This consumer protection law has never been used in this manner - to prosecute for failing to disclose something (other than a safety risk associated with use of the product).

In deciding whether it is an unfair and deceptive trade practice, the courts consider whether it violates some established concept of fairness, whether it is immoral or unethical, whether it is likely to cause substantial harm to consumers and whether it is dishonest and/or violates the general notion of fair dealing between sellers and buyers. The buyer does not have to intend to act unfairly. There is no intent requirement. If the conduct is conduct that most people would consider unfair, it is illegal whether or not the seller meant to act unfairly.

It's not like failing to disclose that your candy factory also makes candies using peanut products, an act that could endanger people allergic to peanuts. Or, labeling a product organic, which isn't organic.

So, the class action is quite speculative. However, there's going to be a lot of them filed, until some of the federal appellate courts make rulings.

I wonder if the fact that Nestle lists protection of human rights as one of its Corporate Business Principles could have any impact on a ruling?

For me that's the big issue here, they claim to be a responsible entity, yet it appears that is nothing more than hot air. If a corporation is going to make such a claim then surely they need to provide evidence that they have investigated people and businesses they are dealing with.

Here's what Nestle says about protection of human rights:

We fully support the United Nations Global Compact’s (UNGC) guiding principles on human rights and labour and aim to provide an example of good human rights and labour practices throughout our business activities. We

• support and respect the protection of international human rights within our sphere of influence (UNGC Principle 1);

• make sure that we are not complicit in human rights abuses (UNGC Principle 2);

• are against all forms of exploitation of children;

• recognise privacy as a human right;

• expect each of our companies to respect and follow the local laws and regulations concerning human rights practices. Where our own principles and regulations are stricter than local legislation, the higher standard applies;

• recognise the responsibility of companies to respect human rights irrespective of the fact that governments are ultimately responsible for the establishment of a legal framework for protecting human rights within their jurisdictions.

We uphold

• the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining (UNGC Principle 3);

• the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour (UNGC Principle 4);

• the effective abolition of child labour (UNGC Principle 5);

• the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment occupation (UNGC Principle 6).

We adhere to the eight fundamental Conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), in particular Convention 87, Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise (1948), as well as Convention 138, Minimum Age for Employment, and Convention 182, Worst Forms of Child Labour, which are based on the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child (Article 32). Furthermore, we adhere to the

Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy (ILO) of March 2006 and the OECD Guidelines for

Multinational Enterprises of June 2000.

http://www.research.nestle.com/asset-library/documents/corporate-business-principles-en.pdf

I'm not sure this will have any impact on the consumer class action. SCOTUS in the Halliburton shareholder class action put up a big causation obstacle. In other words, the plaintiffs in the class action are going to have to prove they relied upon Nestle's representation that Nestle supported the elimination of forced labor (UNGC Principle 4). I'm not sure many consumers would have been looking at the corporate policy statement.

On the other hand, if Nestle stock drops, and it will now, there is going to be a shareholder class action lawsuit. The false statement in the corporate policy makes them per se liable, and all the shareholders need to do is prove that they relied upon Nestle's corporate policy statement, and the stock price dropped because it was proven false.

"• the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour (UNGC Principle 4);"

" I'm not sure many consumers would have been looking at the corporate policy statement."

Thanks to you a lot more of us have read it now.

Good job.

Spread the word!

[Thai at Heart]

End result: Slavery will continue, cat food will be more expensive, and lawyers will be richer.

End result. Companies wont risk buying in Thailand.....End of

More likely they will get it from a wholesaler who bought it from Thailand and changed the label....but continue with your righteous dream

In the USA? Yeah. Wholesalers selling go Nestlé do that all the time. I mean. Origin of food doesn't matter them either does it.....

Note. They buy it directly from Thailand.. Not through a wholesaler.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Thai at Heart

[bill1369]

There are going to be a lot of class action lawsuits filed over the failure to label that seafood products had been harvested using slave labor. I've been monitoring this as part of my work. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm not sure they can prevail on this claim for unfair and deceptive advertising. They're basically arguing that if the customers had known through labeling that slave labor was used to catch the fish, the customers would not have purchased the food products. This consumer protection law has never been used in this manner - to prosecute for failing to disclose something (other than a safety risk associated with use of the product).

In deciding whether it is an unfair and deceptive trade practice, the courts consider whether it violates some established concept of fairness, whether it is immoral or unethical, whether it is likely to cause substantial harm to consumers and whether it is dishonest and/or violates the general notion of fair dealing between sellers and buyers. The buyer does not have to intend to act unfairly. There is no intent requirement. If the conduct is conduct that most people would consider unfair, it is illegal whether or not the seller meant to act unfairly.

It's not like failing to disclose that your candy factory also makes candies using peanut products, an act that could endanger people allergic to peanuts. Or, labeling a product organic, which isn't organic.

So, the class action is quite speculative. However, there's going to be a lot of them filed, until some of the federal appellate courts make rulings.

As long as California doesn't start to thinks its laws or the way its courts interpret them are the world's laws then fine.

I'm no fan of Nestle or other large Western organizations that have turned a blind eye at best at illegal labor practices, unsafe conditions, child labor, slave labor, bonded labor all whilst claiming wonderful CSR in their bs annual reports.

But, American state law is for that particular state - not the world.

You do see this is a Federal action - and not Calif - don't you? Or are you just bitching?

[NeverSure]

This great news. I've stated here before that when the American and EU public come to realize they are eating food caught with slave labor the SHTF. The public can control the retailers. It's about money.

It isn't important first that the slaves get no money or that lawyers get rich. This case isn't a slam dunk and the plaintiffs and lawyers may lose and get nothing. The claim is a bit of a reach and looks to be what's called "a case of first impression" where something hasn't been claimed about a law before the courts before.

Whatever it takes to put this into the consciousness of the consumers is great because it's apparent that the governments haven't done anything.

[NeverSure]

There are going to be a lot of class action lawsuits filed over the failure to label that seafood products had been harvested using slave labor. I've been monitoring this as part of my work. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm not sure they can prevail on this claim for unfair and deceptive advertising. They're basically arguing that if the customers had known through labeling that slave labor was used to catch the fish, the customers would not have purchased the food products. This consumer protection law has never been used in this manner - to prosecute for failing to disclose something (other than a safety risk associated with use of the product).

In deciding whether it is an unfair and deceptive trade practice, the courts consider whether it violates some established concept of fairness, whether it is immoral or unethical, whether it is likely to cause substantial harm to consumers and whether it is dishonest and/or violates the general notion of fair dealing between sellers and buyers. The buyer does not have to intend to act unfairly. There is no intent requirement. If the conduct is conduct that most people would consider unfair, it is illegal whether or not the seller meant to act unfairly.

It's not like failing to disclose that your candy factory also makes candies using peanut products, an act that could endanger people allergic to peanuts. Or, labeling a product organic, which isn't organic.

So, the class action is quite speculative. However, there's going to be a lot of them filed, until some of the federal appellate courts make rulings.

As long as California doesn't start to thinks its laws or the way its courts interpret them are the world's laws then fine.

I'm no fan of Nestle or other large Western organizations that have turned a blind eye at best at illegal labor practices, unsafe conditions, child labor, slave labor, bonded labor all whilst claiming wonderful CSR in their bs annual reports.

But, American state law is for that particular state - not the world.

You do see this is a Federal action - and not Calif - don't you? Or are you just bitching?

Ignore him. The uneducated and unwashed American haters on here come out of the woodwork even when Americans are doing something good. These are private Americans, not the state or the federal government, trying to put a stop to slave labor and he finds an ignorant point to bitch about.

Cheers.

[theonetrueaussie]

And the fishing companies that use slave labor get off scott free as always...GOOD OL THAILAND!!!

[NeverSure]

And the fishing companies that use slave labor get off scott free as always...GOOD OL THAILAND!!!

These are private Americans suing. US courts don't have jurisdiction over Thai fishing companies so the suit is against those where there is jurisdiction - sales in the US. This is about the US and consumer issues within the US and nothing more.

It's a great thing these people are doing.

[theonetrueaussie]

And the fishing companies that use slave labor get off scott free as always...GOOD OL THAILAND!!!

These are private Americans suing. US courts don't have jurisdiction over Thai fishing companies so the suit is against those where there is jurisdiction - sales in the US. This is about the US and consumer issues within the US and nothing more.

It's a great thing these people are doing.

no it isn't all it is going to do is give producers another reason to raise prices.....The slave labor Fishers will just find someone else to sell to and nothing will change so how is that GOOD???

[NOC]

Prove it.

With all due respect I think the average US consumer is stupid. Blunt but there you go!

An ex US girlfriend (in her 40's mind you) went into shock when she saw the cattle trucks going to the abattoir (slaughterhouse) in OZ.

She really did believe that meat came from supermarkets and didn't realise cattle had to be killed for her to chew down on her favourite cuts of beef.

The only people who win in this legal nonsense will be lawyers (as always).

The losers will be the consumers who will end up paying for the litigation by way of higher prices. And the many fishermen and their families unjustly forced out of business.

I'm not suggesting that there aren't some dodgy operators out there but this subject has taken on a persona all of it's own as though subsidised by some very rich entities to prove the existence of something that may not exist for their own purposes.

The rabid anti coal movement come to mind.

Meanwhile ISIS captures, rapes and beheads real slaves....and we worry about cat food.

It's not cat food that concerns people. Go read the New York Times article about the 'sea slaves' in the fishing industry here, then rethink what you wrote.