Today at SCOTUS: Nestle and Cargill would like to use child labor and slavery to maintain low prices for you, the consumer.

black jesus

OT Supporter
Apr 30, 2002
Denton, TX
Supreme Court weighs child-slavery case against Nestlé USA, Cargill

An effort to hold U.S. chocolate companies responsible for child labor on farms supplying their cocoa goes before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, as justices consider a lawsuit against Nestlé USA and Cargill brought by six Africans who say that as children they were trafficked out of Mali, forced to work long hours on Ivory Coast cocoa farms and kept at night in locked shacks.

Child labor is widespread on the cocoa farms of West Africa, where about two-thirds of the world’s cocoa is grown, and attorneys for the Malians argue Nestlé and other chocolate companies should better monitor child labor on the farms that produce their cocoa.
These companies “have long supported and maintained a system of child slavery and forced labor in the Ivory Coast,” according to the filings for the six Africans by Paul L. Hoffman and other attorneys. “This is extremely profitable. … They could end the system; instead they chose profits over ending their exploitation of children.”
The Malians are seeking damages from Nestle USA and Cargill, as well as a halt to the corporate practices they say abet child labor. The Supreme Court is deciding whether their case against the companies can continue in the lower courts.
Washington Post investigation: Child labor in the cocoa industry
Nestlé USA and Cargill respond in legal filings that they, too, deplore child slavery and trafficking, and that they have taken steps to eradicate such practices among their suppliers.
Nestlé USA “firmly believes that traffickers deserve punishment,” the company said in court filings. “This case is not about any of that.”
The proliferation of global supply chains in recent decades has led to recurring debates over the responsibility of multinational companies to monitor the adherence of their far-flung suppliers to human rights and environmental standards.
Business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers have pushed back against lawsuits like the one against Nestlé and Cargill arguing they are burdensome and could discourage investment in developing economies. U.S. and foreign companies have been sued 150 times over the past 25 years under a statute that permits foreign nationals to sue in the United States for international law violations, the business groups said.
Allowing the cases imposes “heavy legal and reputational burdens on companies that are sued on the basis that they conducted business with foreign actors accused of committing torts abroad,” their attorneys argued.
Moreover, in the view of the companies, such cases ought to be filed, not against the companies, but against the traffickers and farmers involved.

“This case is about a 15-year old lawsuit brought against the wrong defendant, in the wrong place, and under the wrong statute,” according to the brief on behalf of Nestlé USA filed by Neal Katyal and other attorneys. “The true wrongdoers are the Malian and Ivorian traffickers, farmers, and overseers.”
There is plenty of evidence, however, that the world’s chocolate supply depends heavily on child labor and that despite two decades of industry promises, it remains widespread. While much of it occurs on family farms, some is also arranged by traffickers who ferry in children from neighboring Mali and Burkina Faso.
A Washington Post investigation of the use of child labor in the cocoa industry found representatives of some of the biggest and best-known brands could not guarantee that any of their chocolate was produced without child labor. It featured children from Burkina Faso working in appalling conditions on Ivory Coast cocoa farms.
According to a recent report sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor, the world’s chocolate companies depend on cocoa produced with the aid of 1.6 million West African child laborers.
Most of those laborers were involved in tasks considered hazardous, such as wielding machetes, carrying heavy loads or working with pesticides, according to the report.
U.S. report: Much of the world’s chocolate supply relies on more than 1 million child workers
While connecting any child laborer with a specific company is difficult to do, human rights advocates blame the industry in general for refusing to pay enough for cocoa and for failing to institute systems for tracing cocoa beans to specific farms.
“The business practices of these companies clearly have contributed to the use of forced and child labor in West Africa,” said Charity Ryerson, an attorney for the Corporate Accountability Lab who has traveled to Africa to investigate cocoa practices.
She noted that some smaller chocolate companies, such as Tony’s Chocolonely, pay higher prices and take extra care to eliminate child labor from their cocoa suppliers. Those added costs can make it difficult for them to compete against the companies using cocoa produced with child labor, some of the companies said.
“As slave-free cocoa and chocolate companies, [we] are at a competitive disadvantage to companies that source cheap cocoa produced with forced child labor,” the companies said in a legal filing. “The higher production costs associated with compliance with international human rights norms require [us] to sell … chocolate at higher prices.”
Cocoa prices are critical to the debate. As the Supreme Court begins to weigh the case, a war over the right price for cocoa appears to be breaking out in West Africa between the multinational companies and the governments of Ivory Coast and Ghana, which regulate cocoa exports.
Doubts about chocolate: U.S. officials investigate whether to block critical cocoa imports
The West African governments have added a $400 cost per ton in an attempt to give farmers what they call a “living income,” a move that has been met with some reluctance from the chocolate companies.
“Unfortunately, industry steps to lower the price are going in precisely the wrong direction,” said Antonie Fountain, managing director of the Voice Network, a group that pushes for environmental and human rights reform in the cocoa industry. “Prices need to go up, not down.”
The Voice Network issued an annual report on the industry on Tuesday, citing the lack of progress despite promises by the companies to eradicate child labor.
“Twenty years into rhetoric, the challenges on the ground remain as large as ever,” it said. “Poverty is still the daily reality for virtually all West African cocoa farmer families, child labour remains rife, and old growth forests continue to be cleared to make way for cocoa production.”

Sadly, SCOTUS will rule that child labor and slavery is allowed. I'll happily be wrong about this:
Facts of the case
The plaintiff/respondents in this case are former enslaved children who were kidnapped and forced to work on cocoa farms in the Ivory Coast for up to fourteen hours without pay. They filed a class-action lawsuit against large manufacturers, purchasers, processors, and retail sellers of cocoa beans, including petitioner Nestle USA (and Cargill Inc., petitioner in a consolidated case).
Nestle USA, Inc., and Cargill, Inc., both domestic corporations, effectively control cocoa production in the Ivory Coast and operate “with the unilateral goal of finding the cheapest source of cocoa in the Ivory Coast,” resulting in a “system built on child slavery to depress labor costs.” The respondents allege that the defendants are aware that child slave labor is a problem in the Ivory Coast yet continue to provide financial support and technical farming aid to farmers who use forced child labor.
The children filed a proposed class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the defendant companies were liable under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) for aiding and abetting child slavery in the Ivory Coast. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss based on its conclusion that corporations cannot be sued under the ATS, and that even if they could, the plaintiffs failed to allege the elements of a claim for aiding and abetting slave labor. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that corporations are liable for aiding and abetting slavery, in part because it found that norms that are “universal and absolute” can provide the basis for an ATS claim against a corporation, and the prohibition of slavery is “universal.” It did not address the defendants’ argument that the complaint sought an extraterritorial application of the ATS, which the U.S. Supreme Court had recently proscribed in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013). On remand, the district court dismissed the claims alleging aiding and abetting slave labor under the ATS, finding that the complaint sought an impermissible extraterritorial application of the ATS.
In the interim, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, 584 U.S. __ (2018), holding that foreign corporations cannot be sued under the ATS. Again the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that the holding in Jesner does not disturb its prior holding as to the domestic defendants, Nestle USA, Inc., and Cargill, Inc., and that the specific domestic conduct alleged by the plaintiffs falls within the focus of the ATS and does not require extraterritorial application of that statute.
1. May an aiding and abetting claim against a domestic corporation brought under the Alien Tort Statute overcome the extraterritoriality bar where the claim is based on allegations of general corporate activity in the United States and where the plaintiffs cannot trace the alleged harms, which occurred abroad at the hands of unidentified foreign actors, to that activity?
2. Does the judiciary have the authority under the Alien Tort Statute to impose liability on domestic corporations?


Official Pointy Boot Guey Ver 1.0
Jan 3, 2001
North Of Chi-town
" The West African governments have added a $400 cost per ton in an attempt to give farmers what they call a “living income,” a move that has been met with some reluctance from the chocolate companies. "

Yes, I'm sure the payments go right to the pockets of these farmers and not into the hands of some tribal war lord.

Users who are viewing this thread

About Us

  • Please do not post anything that violates any Local, State, Federal or International Laws. Your privacy is protected. You have the right to be forgotten. Site funded by advertising, link monetization and member support.
OT v15.13.2 Copyright © 2000-2023
Served by

Online statistics

Members online
Guests online
Total visitors

Forum statistics

Latest member