Conquer Club

Here something to put you off eating Nestle Kit Kats.
http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/campaigns/climate-change/kit-kat-video?easter

Nope, really don't care. In fact, next time I buy a candy bar, I'll make it a Kit Kat in honor of you.

Greenpeace = dumb shit

edocsil wrote:Greenpeace = dumb shit

I agree

Serbia wrote:Nope, really don't care. In fact, next time I buy a candy bar, I'll make it a Kit Kat in honor of you.

I agree

I'm pretty sure Greenpeace is considered a terrorist organization too.....

My new favourite snack... KitKats.

KiwiTaker wrote:Here something to put you off eating Nestle Kit Kats.
http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/campaigns/climate-change/kit-kat-video?easter

I gotta tell you...it may be knee-jerk, but if Greenpeace is against something, I'm for it. f*ck Greenpeace and their terroristic ways.

I'm going to buy some stock in Nestle because for some reason I think it's going to go up.

So we have a few tards who would choose large corporate interests over Greenpeace - wadda surprise.


Honibaz

There are better reasons to avoid nestle:

1) Their awful awful chocolate
2) That whole thing where they told poor people in Africa that breastfeeding was bad, and their crappy substitute formula was better for babies.

Symmetry wrote:There are better reasons to avoid nestle:

1) Their awful awful chocolate
2) That whole thing where they told poor people in Africa that breastfeeding was bad, and their crappy substitute formula was better for babies.

Well if your against it I am going to go Nestle shopping. BTW. kit kats rock.

Greenpeace = sewage.

jefjef wrote:

Symmetry wrote:There are better reasons to avoid nestle:

1) Their awful awful chocolate
2) That whole thing where they told poor people in Africa that breastfeeding was bad, and their crappy substitute formula was better for babies.

Well if your against it I am going to go Nestle shopping. BTW. kit kats rock.

Greenpeace = sewage.

I'm pretty anti-Greenpeace too, but I could just be saying that to see if you'll donate. Or maybe I just added that last bit to make you anti-Greenpeace.

Like me.

Maybe.

Nestle to Make Fairtrade KitKats in U.K., Ireland (Update1)
Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A

By Thomas Mulier

Dec. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Nestle SA, the world’s biggest food company, will start certifying some KitKat bars in the U.K. and Ireland as Fairtrade, following Cadbury Plc, which started producing mass-market Fairtrade chocolate this year.

KitKat four-finger bars will carry the moniker from January, the Vevey, Switzerland-based company’s U.K. unit said in an e-mailed statement released today. Cadbury switched its Dairy Milk brand to Fairtrade in the U.K. in July.

Chocolate makers in the U.K. sold 28 million pounds ($46 million) of Fairtrade chocolate in the U.K. last year. The share of Fairtrade in that market will rise to 10 percent in 2010 because of Nestle and Cadbury’s changes from 1 percent in 2008, said Eileen Maybin, a spokeswoman for Fairtrade in the U.K. The Fairtrade designation requires chocolate makers pay an extra $150 per ton of cocoa and guarantee a minimum price of $1,600 a ton, she said. The extra money is used for development projects.

KitKats make up about 23 percent of Nestle’s U.K. confectionery sales. A quarter of that is the four-finger bars, which had U.K. sales of 43 million pounds in 2008, Nestle said. The price of the Fairtrade KitKats will be the same, Andrew Lewin, an external communications official for Nestle, said by phone. Nestle sells about 250 million four-finger KitKats in the U.K. each year, he added.

Nestle plans to provide 12 million stronger, more productive cocoa trees to farmers over the next decade. The company has said it will spend 460 million Swiss francs ($456 million) on cocoa, coffee science and “sustainability” projects over the next decade.

Mars Inc., Cadbury’s largest rival, said in April that all cocoa it uses will be sustainably sourced, with the approval of the Rainforest Alliance, by 2020. The Rainforest Alliance is a U.S.-based group that certifies goods have been produced from farms that meet its social and environmental standards.

Kraft Foods Inc. has bid 10.3 billion pounds ($16.8 billion) for Cadbury.

b.k. barunt wrote:So we have a few tards who would choose large corporate interests over Greenpeace - wadda surprise.

When those large corporate interests head into terrorism, I'll change my tune. I don't know much about Nestle's business practices, but I'm well aware of Greenpeace's activities. f*ck Greenpeace. And anyone that supports them.

jefjef wrote:Nestle to Make Fairtrade KitKats in U.K., Ireland (Update1)
Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A

By Thomas Mulier

Dec. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Nestle SA, the world’s biggest food company, will start certifying some KitKat bars in the U.K. and Ireland as Fairtrade, following Cadbury Plc, which started producing mass-market Fairtrade chocolate this year.

KitKat four-finger bars will carry the moniker from January, the Vevey, Switzerland-based company’s U.K. unit said in an e-mailed statement released today. Cadbury switched its Dairy Milk brand to Fairtrade in the U.K. in July.

Chocolate makers in the U.K. sold 28 million pounds ($46 million) of Fairtrade chocolate in the U.K. last year. The share of Fairtrade in that market will rise to 10 percent in 2010 because of Nestle and Cadbury’s changes from 1 percent in 2008, said Eileen Maybin, a spokeswoman for Fairtrade in the U.K. The Fairtrade designation requires chocolate makers pay an extra $150 per ton of cocoa and guarantee a minimum price of $1,600 a ton, she said. The extra money is used for development projects.

KitKats make up about 23 percent of Nestle’s U.K. confectionery sales. A quarter of that is the four-finger bars, which had U.K. sales of 43 million pounds in 2008, Nestle said. The price of the Fairtrade KitKats will be the same, Andrew Lewin, an external communications official for Nestle, said by phone. Nestle sells about 250 million four-finger KitKats in the U.K. each year, he added.

Nestle plans to provide 12 million stronger, more productive cocoa trees to farmers over the next decade. The company has said it will spend 460 million Swiss francs ($456 million) on cocoa, coffee science and “sustainability” projects over the next decade.

Mars Inc., Cadbury’s largest rival, said in April that all cocoa it uses will be sustainably sourced, with the approval of the Rainforest Alliance, by 2020. The Rainforest Alliance is a U.S.-based group that certifies goods have been produced from farms that meet its social and environmental standards.

Kraft Foods Inc. has bid 10.3 billion pounds ($16.8 billion) for Cadbury.

So, they'll just be doing this in the UK and Ireland? And just Kit-Kat bars?

As a commitment to ethical business standards, that seems a bit weak.

Woodruff wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:So we have a few tards who would choose large corporate interests over Greenpeace - wadda surprise.

When those large corporate interests head into terrorism, I'll change my tune..

Well i guess i can understand one who is so easily terrified coming to that conclusion.


Honibaz

b.k. barunt wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:So we have a few tards who would choose large corporate interests over Greenpeace - wadda surprise.

When those large corporate interests head into terrorism, I'll change my tune..

Well i guess i can understand one who is so easily terrified coming to that conclusion.

Well, I guess I can understand one who is so used to coming to idiotic conclusions coming to that conclusion.

Woodruff wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:Well i guess i can understand one who is so easily terrified coming to that conclusion.

Well, I guess I can understand one who is so used to coming to idiotic conclusions coming to that conclusion.

Another classic "Woody Comeback".

Woodruff wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:So we have a few tards who would choose large corporate interests over Greenpeace - wadda surprise.

When those large corporate interests head into terrorism, I'll change my tune. I don't know much about Nestle's business practices, but I'm well aware of Greenpeace's activities. f*ck Greenpeace. And anyone that supports them.

That's bullshit though. While Greenpeace does indeed use questionable tactics, most of what could be considered terrorism is at most loosely associated with them. They're kind of dicks, but that's a far cry from "terrorism" and certainly a far cry from being worse than Nestlé.


I mean, f*ck dude, Nestlé! The horrible shit that company has done for their profits is astounding.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:So we have a few tards who would choose large corporate interests over Greenpeace - wadda surprise.

When those large corporate interests head into terrorism, I'll change my tune. I don't know much about Nestle's business practices, but I'm well aware of Greenpeace's activities. f*ck Greenpeace. And anyone that supports them.

That's bullshit though. While Greenpeace does indeed use questionable tactics, most of what could be considered terrorism is at most loosely associated with them. They're kind of dicks, but that's a far cry from "terrorism" and certainly a far cry from being worse than Nestlé.
I mean, f*ck dude, Nestlé! The horrible shit that company has done for their profits is astounding.

I've admitted that I don't know much about Nestle's business practices (and I hate their chocolate), but I will have to disagree with your conclusions regarding Greenpeace. f*ck them.

I consider the Sea Shepherds to be more militant than Greenpeace.

KiwiTaker wrote:I consider the Sea Shepherds to be more militant than Greenpeace.

Interesting...I'd never heard of the Sea Shepherds before. Thanks for mentioning them. And based on the very little bit I've read so far, I would DEFINITELY agree with you.

Woodruff wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:So we have a few tards who would choose large corporate interests over Greenpeace - wadda surprise.

When those large corporate interests head into terrorism, I'll change my tune..

Well i guess i can understand one who is so easily terrified coming to that conclusion.

Well, I guess I can understand one who is so used to coming to idiotic conclusions coming to that conclusion.

"Idiotic conclusions?" Some internetz tuff guy threatens you and you shit your drawers, squeal about your life being in danger and run into hiding. I would say that it doesn't take a fooking rocket scientist to deduce from that that you are easily terrified. "Idiotic conclusions indeed".


Honibaz

b.k. barunt wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:So we have a few tards who would choose large corporate interests over Greenpeace - wadda surprise.

When those large corporate interests head into terrorism, I'll change my tune..

Well i guess i can understand one who is so easily terrified coming to that conclusion.

Well, I guess I can understand one who is so used to coming to idiotic conclusions coming to that conclusion.

"Idiotic conclusions?" Some internetz tuff guy threatens you and you shit your drawers, squeal about your life being in danger and run into hiding. I would say that it doesn't take a fooking rocket scientist to deduce from that that you are easily terrified. "Idiotic conclusions indeed".


Honibaz

B.K. A class act, as always.

b.k. barunt wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:

Woodruff wrote:When those large corporate interests head into terrorism, I'll change my tune..

Well i guess i can understand one who is so easily terrified coming to that conclusion.

Well, I guess I can understand one who is so used to coming to idiotic conclusions coming to that conclusion.

"Idiotic conclusions?" Some internetz tuff guy threatens you and you shit your drawers, squeal about your life being in danger and run into hiding. I would say that it doesn't take a fooking rocket scientist to deduce from that that you are easily terrified. "Idiotic conclusions indeed".

Your willingness to not only draw conclusions out of ignorance but to revel in it is frankly fascinating, albeit in an "I'm embarrased for you" sort of way.

Symmetry wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:

Woodruff wrote:When those large corporate interests head into terrorism, I'll change my tune..

Well i guess i can understand one who is so easily terrified coming to that conclusion.

Well, I guess I can understand one who is so used to coming to idiotic conclusions coming to that conclusion.

"Idiotic conclusions?" Some internetz tuff guy threatens you and you shit your drawers, squeal about your life being in danger and run into hiding. I would say that it doesn't take a fooking rocket scientist to deduce from that that you are easily terrified. "Idiotic conclusions indeed".

B.K. A class act, as always.

That's just B.K.'s way of pretending he's some internetz tuff guy.