Additionally, while the advertisement is filmed and aired without audible warning regarding the feeding of substitute to children under the age of 6 months, there is small text in written Urdu stating “for 6 months and above.” However, in a country with a mere 58% literacy rate, and even lower among women (the target audience), this small disclaimer is hardly sufficient to dissuade or even effectively communicate the safe consumers of the product. In the commercial advertisement featuring Ali from 2024, there was no audible disclaimer regarding the age range which Cerelac is intended for. 

Despite a number of petitions filed in various High Courts calling for investigation of the company’s current practices and enforcement of the Ordinance, many of these cases wind up in litigation for years until furor surrounding the issues die down. 

But the criticism of Nestlé’s baby food products in Pakistan doesn’t stop at their marketing strategies, however unethical. It extends to the ingredients and composition of the baby food products themselves. 

A 2024 report published by the International Baby Food Action Network, a network of international groups applying pressure on Nestlé to improve its baby food practices, and Public Eye, a Swiss NGO, reveals the extent of the multinational’s double standards in low and middle income countries. The report unveils that the company takes liberties in developing economies not only with regard to its marketing practices but even with the ingredients and composition of its baby food products.

The report found that, in Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Germany, Nestlé Cerelac contains no added sugar. Meanwhile, in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and South Africa, the exact same product contains between 2.0 grams to 6.0 grams of added sugar per portion. In some of these countries, including Pakistan, the packaging of this product fails to disclose the amount of added sugar. Instead, the box is covered in declarations of the added vitamins and minerals essential for a child’s development. 

The high levels of added sugar in Cerelac are alarming not only because the addition has no nutritional benefit, but because the product is targeted at children as young as six months. Young children consuming high amounts of sugar can get hooked on sweeter cereals, leaving them vulnerable to unhealthy sugar dependencies and cravings. For years, the World Health Organization has called for a ban on added sugars in baby foods of all kinds. The WHO Guidelines in Europe forbid the addition of sugar in baby food products and public pressure on baby food manufacturers in European countries is high, keeping the company accountable for the health claims of its products. That the same product contains no added sugar in European markets but contains high amounts of added sugar in developing markets speaks to the hypocrisy of the company and their willingness to exploit their position in such markets.

In such markets, political disinterest in regulating the baby food market may be one cause for the double standards that the company is allowed to get away with. However, at the root of the problem is that low and middle income countries heavily rely on the market presence of large multinational companies such as Nestlé for their market contribution. Regulators in countries like Pakistan hesitate to introduce (and implement) policies that police international companies’ manufacturing and marketing practices; the trade-off is between economic growth and public health. 

Yet, substantial responsibility lies with the company itself. In response to the regulations and pressure it faced in Europe, the company has evidently adapted its product to still sell without the ingredient. If, as it claims, Nestlé truly has the interests of young mothers and children at the heart of its policy—it should treat the health of children in developing countries as equally valuable to the lives and health of European children. Nestlé’s prioritization of profit over the health of children from low and middle income countries is both transparent and appalling.

The cost of Pure Life

However, Nestlé’s questionable practices do not end at its marketing of breastmilk substitute, nor are violations of regulations limited to the health industry. One of the most popular products manufactured by Nestlé Pakistan is Nestlé “Pure Life”, its range of bottled water marketed and sold as safer, cleaner drinking water than water from faucets and wells. In producing their bottled water line, Nestlé extracts groundwater from the Indus Basin aquifer located in Punjab, one of the most populous provinces of Pakistan. 

One of Nestlé’s main extraction and bottling plants is located in Bhati Dilwan, a small village outside of the city of Sheikhupura, which sits above the Indus basin aquifer. The village is nondescript, with a population of 5,000 and relatively unknown even to locals in the province of Punjab until recently. In 2013, however, every major news outlet in Pakistan blasted the name of the village when locals poured out of the village to protest outside the Nestlé factory extracting groundwater beneath the village. They claimed that the village’s ancient source of groundwater was being depleted by their multinational neighbor. In response, the company installed a filtration plant for safe drinking water for the locals. While this quelled the immediate outrage, the move does nothing to address concerns regarding the sinking of the aquifer by hundreds of feet with no plan for sustainable use of the resource.

Draining of the aquifer

How is Nestlé entitled to extract water from a natural resource without accountability to the local population? At the time that Nestlé established its plant, the government of Pakistan offered a concession to Nestlé to establish two factories on a large tract of land above a major underground well. Under the terms of the concession, and as per the law of easements and groundwater abstraction, the company has ownership rights over the part of the well underground—so Nestlé technically has the right to drill and extract water until the well is dry. These property rights are pursuant to legislation that has remained stagnant since the British colonial regime in the subcontinent.

A map showing Pakistan’s water stress levels from 2007.

In the background of Nestlé’s extraction with impunity is the acute water crisis faced by Pakistan. Reports show that 80% of the population of Pakistan faces “severe water scarcity” and only 36% of Pakistanis have access to water considered to be “safe for human consumption”. One of the major reasons for the worsening of the water crisis is the alarmingly high rates of water withdrawals. Out of 178 countries, Pakistan ranked 160 for the rate of water withdrawal in proportion to available water resources.

The Indus Basin aquifer, in particular, ranked as the second-most over-stressed groundwater source of underground water in the world. This is the same aquifer which feeds the groundwell that the Nestlé plant in Bhati Dilwan sits atop. Pakistan relies heavily on groundwater, which plays a crucial role in providing water for both drinking and agricultural purposes. 

However, excessive extraction of groundwater has resulted in decreasing water tables and the depletion of aquifers across the country. Groundwater sources are restored through the process of infiltration, when rainwater seeps through the ground and replenishes the underground well. However, the rates of depletion in countries such as Pakistan far outpace the rate of water recovery. Estimates suggest that in certain regions, Pakistan’s groundwater is being depleted at a rate of approximately 1 to 2 meters per year. 

However, of the 4.4 billion liters extracted, a forensic report submitted before the Supreme Court of Pakistan demonstrated that approximately 1.9 billion liters of water were wasted.

Worse still, the foreign company pays the local government mere pennies for the water they extract. As per the terms of their property rights described above, the company has ownership over the water lying beneath the land it owns. Therefore, it only pays taxes for the water the company extracts and does not have to pay for the extraction of the water itself. Nestlé is charged only Rs. 0.00021 [$0.0000016] for each liter that it extracts. Meanwhile, a one-liter bottle of Nestlé Pure Life costs between Rs. 40 to 90. Conversely, there has been a global move by sustainability activists to price groundwater extraction to adequately protect the limited resource. 

To make matters worse, in a country already severely stressed for water, much of the water being extracted by Nestlé is wasted in the process of filtration. Between 2013 and 2017, Nestlé extracted an estimated 4.43 billion liters of water. However, of the 4.4 billion liters extracted, a forensic report submitted before the Supreme Court of Pakistan demonstrated that approximately 1.9 billion liters of water were wasted—a loss of 43%. When the company was called to account for the loss of nearly half of the water extracted, the management stated that 15% of the water was wasted due to the reverse osmosis process used to treat the water before bottling. However, the company was unable to account for the remaining 28% of water that it had wasted. As is typical of cases filed against Nestlé before the courts of Pakistan, the matter was taken up by the court while public scrutiny of the company was high. However, after the initial furor died down, there was little follow-through or implementation of the judgment. 

In response to the controversy regarding Nestlé’s depletion of groundwater tables in Punjab, the province enacted the Punjab Water Act 2019. The Act requires that a Punjab Water Resources Commission shall be set up. However, approximately five years have passed since the Act was introduced and a Commission has yet to be set up. Environmental activists have expressed concern that the mammoth company has been exerting pressure on the government to delay the establishment of the Commission. In the intervening years, there has been little to no change in Nestlé’s groundwater abstraction rates, nor the price that the company pays for each bottle of water manufactured, despite the outrage expressed by the Supreme Court at the time that the controversy first came to light.

Nestlé’s water extraction in the United States

Unfortunately, the villagers of Bhati Dilwan have something in common with residents of a small town tens of thousands of miles away in Osceola County, Michigan. Both groups accuse Nestlé of draining and drying up their local water sources due to its bottled water operations in their area. In 2018, over 80,000 Michigan citizens publicly criticized the company’s operations before the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy during a permit approval process. Nestlé had sought expansion of its water withdrawal permit to pump twice the amount of groundwater it had already been extracting near Evart, MI. 

As is the case in Bhati Dilwan, the Swiss company pays no fees for its extraction of groundwater. It pays a mere $200 per year for its water withdrawal permit. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality granted Nestlé the permit anyway, despite the overwhelming number of comments it received against the move. However, in response to several legal challenges and immense public criticism, the company ultimately surrendered its permit, declaring it would not significantly increase its water withdrawal rates at its Michigan withdrawal facility. But the abysmally low price of water extraction persists.

In other regions affected by rapid depletion of groundwater resources, there have been calls for fees for extraction and mandatory reporting of annual extractions of groundwater. In water-scarce California, the State Water Resources Control Board introduced such measures to force high-volume users to report extractions and pay commensurate fees. In order to avoid negatively impacting domestic users, the Board exempted de minimis users from the reporting and fee requirement. 

A Nestlé milk collection point in Punjab province, Pakistan

Even though multiple whistleblowers have come forward to publicly decry Nestlé’s unethical exploitation in Pakistan, there is little motivation for the government or the courts to take direct action against the company. This is exacerbated by the current regime’s efforts to encourage foreign investment in Pakistan. In light of the recent currency devaluation crisis, the pressure to maintain an inflow of foreign currency ensures that no consistent action is taken against foreign companies, regardless of the health and environmental repercussions that such investment may bring with it.

Unlike the movements in the United States, however, the movement in Pakistan to hold multinational companies accountable has fallen by the wayside and, according to some reports, been hushed up by the companies themselves.

Despite the litany of crimes listed above, Nestlé is not the only villain of this story. As a multinational company, the aim of investment in low and middle income countries such as Pakistan is inevitably growth of the company and future profits. Rather, it is the lack of political will to regulate foreign corporations that create an environment in which international investors are given the space to operate without fear of accountability to the public.

The Nestle scandal in Pakistan reveals a troubling reality: multinational corporations often operate with impunity in developing countries, exploiting regulatory gaps and prioritizing profits over people and the planet. Despite repeated violations and harmful consequences, Nestle has continued its unethical practices, underscoring the urgent need for stronger oversight and accountability mechanisms.

From aggressive marketing of baby food products to environmental degradation caused by groundwater depletion, Nestle’s actions have had far-reaching impacts on public health, the environment, and local communities. Yet, the company has faced little repercussion for its actions, highlighting the systemic failures in regulatory enforcement and corporate responsibility. In response, the company (and others, just like it) publishes statements declaring its commitment to public health and the environment. Meanwhile, the government passes lofty regulations insisting for the protection of the welfare of the public and the environment, yet these words ring hollow when no follow-up measures are taken and enforcement is entirely lacking.

In response, the company (and others, just like it) publishes statements declaring its commitment to public health and the environment.

This case is not unique. Similar stories of corporate abuse and exploitation can be found in countries around the world, where multinational corporations wield immense power and influence, often at the expense of vulnerable populations. The hypocrisy of companies such as Nestlé becomes most apparent when their disparate practices in Europe or the United States are considered. It is clear that shareholder profit takes precedence over the welfare of other stakeholders, unless those stakeholders come from developed economies not strictly reliant on foreign investment.

To address this global issue, it is essential for governments, civil society organizations, and consumers to demand greater transparency, accountability, and ethical conduct from corporations. Strengthening regulatory frameworks, closing loopholes, and promoting sustainable business practices are essential steps in ensuring that corporations prioritize people and the planet over profit.

Ultimately, the Nestle scandal in Pakistan serves as a wake-up call—a reminder of the urgent need for systemic change to prevent further harm and promote a more just and sustainable future for all.