Klaus Schwab, aged 87, has abruptly withdrawn as the head of the World Economic Forum (WEF). Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, former CEO of Nestlé, a longtime member of the WEF and Schwab’s deputy, has accepted appointment as the interim chairman pending selection of a permanent successor at the controversial globalist forum. The interim director’s past echoes growing concerns about the mission and motives of the WEF itself.
WEF -- Global Elites or Saviors of Humanity?
If Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) wanted to jab his finger at oligopoly, he might start by pointing to the WEF. Schwab established the unelected entity in Davos in 1971 as a platform for corporate executives. The global consortium has swollen to international prominence, populated by corporate “stakeholder” partners representing the world’s largest banking, food, and pharmaceutical interests. These include Nestlé, where Brabeck-Letmathe began in 1968, selling ice cream before climbing the company’s corporate ladder to become its CEO and board chairman.
The WEF claims it is a globalist benefactor of humanity, touting climate change, social justice, equity, human health, and cures for famine as some of its lofty goals. Yet its membership consists of the wealthiest businesspeople (mostly white men) and multinational corporations who gather to reinforce their power. The WEF has promoted industry consolidation to control the world’s food supplies as a necessary antidote to anthropogenic global warming. The cabal of corporate foodmakers, including Nestlé, claims that only GMO technologies and the eradication of pesky cows can stave off existential disaster. Understandably, many are skeptical that a global body headed by moralizing corporations can achieve the task.
Brabeck-Letmathe serves as the perfect poster boy for such a dubious venture. His outspoken positions have stirred controversy, including his claims about water in a 2005 documentary in which he stated:
“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 [non-governmental organizations], 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."
Brabeck-Letmathe walked back these remarks following public outcry, claiming he would employ the privatization of water to equitably prevent the overconsumption by some citizens and that his remarks were taken out of context. Yet Nestlé has been accused of charging high prices for its Pure Life water brand in poor developing nations, including Pakistan and Nigeria. Like the WEF, the often-incompatible corporate profit and human health missions conflict.
The Techno-Food Vision
In a little-noticed interview in 2016 for Quartz, the WEF’s interim director offered confidence in industrially manufactured techno-foods for the future:
“In rising to the apex of Nestlé, he has become the chief architect of the company’s vision for the future, a reality in which food operates more like medicine ... Nestlé seeks to assert its dominance in this new industry that sits squarely between food and pharmaceuticals.
“In Brabeck-Latmathe’s future, people will undergo health testing during varying stages of life to learn more about the genetic material of the microbes — the bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and viruses — living inside their bodies. Each time, the tests would analyze genetics, caloric levels, predisposed illnesses, and more. Such information would allow Nestlé to create products that essentially act as medicine to alleviate known health issues.
“He also describes installing Nestlé data into sensors implanted beneath a person’s skin that might send an alert if you have an iron deficiency, or need to schedule a doctor’s appointment. Eventually, your sensor might directly connect to your doctor’s office, alerting a physician if an abnormality is detected.”
Food guru Michael Pollan criticized Brabeck-Letmathe’s vision: “Pollan pinpoints infant formula, a banner product in the Nestlé portfolio. It still can’t match the benefits of breast milk.” This recalls the company’s history relating to infant formula, including dubious market practices during Brabeck-Letmathe’s five loyal decades at Nestlé.
A Dubious Baby Formula Record
The implicit conflict between profit-making and health was evident in Nestlé’s marketing of baby formula in the 1970s. Ironically, the company was founded on pharmacist Henri Nestlé’s invention of baby formula in 1867, an alternative to breast milk praised as nutrient-rich and beneficial. Yet by the 1970s, the company had become unethically ambitious in peddling the product. Declining Western birth rates during the 1960s hurt sales, so Nestlé turned to aggressive marketing in developing countries using propaganda and free samples that seeded dependency and poor health outcomes.
Nestlé and other milk formula manufacturers dispatched “milk nurses” to developing countries in Africa, South America, and South Asia. Company representatives in nurse uniforms, most of whom lacked nursing credentials, hovered around maternity wards to push formula. Singapore banned them from hospitals; the milk nurses reportedly waited outside. In Jamaica, these faux nurses visited new mothers at their homes. In the Philippines, they frequented public housing. These sales reps gave away free formula samples, persuading new mothers to essentially wean their infants off vital colostrum and human milk as the “modern” way to feed. Once their breastmilk dried up, they were dependent. An international boycott of Nestlé ensued.
Recently, the company’s subsidiary Gerber came under fire for selling baby foods laced with heavy metals. A report by the Congressional Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy criticized Gerber “for selling products tainted with dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals.” WEF's signature simulates this pretense of embracing the global good while prioritizing the corporate bottom line.
Brabeck-Letmathe drags his tainted past to the WEF helm. He worked for Nestlé (Chiprodal) in Chile when dictator Augusto Pinochet took over in 1973. He supported selling products in Ukraine despite President Volodymyr Zelensky’s admonitions, in Cuba under Castro, and in South Africa despite apartheid. Nestlé built factories in Syria and Iran during the US-led Iraq War. Brabeck-Letmathe claims companies must stay out of politics and moral causes, stating in a 2023 interview: “The enemy image of the [multinational corporation] was quite normal in the 1970s … But nongovernmental organizations need surfaces on which to project. And Nestlé is ideal for this.”
The WEF is the surface upon which Brabeck-Letmathe projects his chameleon-like personal vision. He has been called by some “a titan in global leadership,” but the question looms whether he and the WEF are magnanimous or sinister. Brabeck-Letmathe is not expected to remain as permanent chairman, but his interim stint solidifies the declining trust the WEF has earned.
.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
