From Harper’s Weekly Review:<\/p>\n
Nestl\u00e9, who along with Cargill, Barry Callebaut, Mars, Olam, Hershey, and Mondel\u0113z was sued for child slavery in the Ivory Coast, announced that they intended to \u201cfocus on [the candies\u2019] personalities rather than their gender.\u201d \u201cI think we all win when we see more women in leading roles, so I\u2019m happy to take on the part of supportive friend when they succeed,\u201d said the green M&M, who no longer wears go-go boots.<\/em><\/p>\n Uh. Not sure why Nestl\u00e9 thought their new candy focus in any way was a reasonable response to the lawsuit against them, et al. for child slavery.<\/a><\/p>\n And was the comment of the green female M&M a not very subtle rebuke of Nestl\u00e9 — which does not own M&Ms? BTW, I don’t know how old the green M&M is but after 50, no sane woman would wear go-go boots or heels.<\/p>\n Another BTW: Because I was curious whether the Olam company, mentioned in the Harper’s item, was Israeli (tikkun olam<\/em> is a Jewish philosophy or human purpose meaning “repairing the world”), I entered their web site. I have thus discovered Olam provides cocoa<\/a> to candy businesses. Then I spotted toward the bottom of the screen the usual notice about allowing or not allowing cookies…and am finding this whole matter more or less surreal.<\/p>\n This should mean a boycott.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" From Harper’s Weekly Review: Nestl\u00e9, who along with Cargill, Barry Callebaut, Mars, Olam, Hershey, and Mondel\u0113z was sued for child slavery in the Ivory Coast, announced that they intended to \u201cfocus on [the candies\u2019] personalities rather than their gender.\u201d \u201cI … Continue reading