Some years ago, I was in one talk of a fundraising forum/workshop, where the speaker (who is one of my idols in fundraising) said as an example of fundraising ethics that Unicef refuses to accept donations from companies and organizations that have a history of activities unsafe for children. I remember that donations from Oreo, 3M, and Tanduay were refused. Tanduay, quite understandably, noh?
But Oreo and 3M?
As it turns out, Oreo's mother company is Nabisco, that merged with RJ Reynolds. RJR Nabisco became the #2 tobacco company and the #1 cookie and cracker maker in the US before beginning a slow and complex restructuring in 1999. Much later, the cookie and biscuit operations (Nabisco) merged with Kraft Foods under tobacco giant Philip Morris, and RJ Reynolds shifted its focus back to tobacco exclusively.
We all know how smoking has affected children (and adults), and sweets, well, that too (that was before studies showed that Oreo contained high amount of transfat -- Kraft later changed their formula for Oreo -- and that's another story).
And 3M?
Apparently 3M produces the adhesive/glue that keep some parts of landmines and other explosives together. We all know how many children (and adults) have died of or were maimed by landmines.
I say that Unicef's fundraising ethics have been used as part of my organization's ethical fundraising practices.
So, why do I say now that Unicef is anti-life, anti-family, if they do not accept funding from companies like those mentioned? I guess that was before. In fact, long before. (Or they have fallen victims of corporate funding requirements dictating where money is used. Or while they still follow their ethical practices, Unicef herself might actually be doing projects that are anti-life, anti-family.)
Whatever their reasons, I was shocked to read this. Read the pdf. You be the judge.
Oh, I got to this when I read in another blog that some pro-life groups made noise when they knew that "American Idol" included two pro-abortion groups among the charities that will benefit from its "Idol Gives Back" project. Guess who is in the list? The other is the usual suspect.
But Oreo and 3M?
As it turns out, Oreo's mother company is Nabisco, that merged with RJ Reynolds. RJR Nabisco became the #2 tobacco company and the #1 cookie and cracker maker in the US before beginning a slow and complex restructuring in 1999. Much later, the cookie and biscuit operations (Nabisco) merged with Kraft Foods under tobacco giant Philip Morris, and RJ Reynolds shifted its focus back to tobacco exclusively.
We all know how smoking has affected children (and adults), and sweets, well, that too (that was before studies showed that Oreo contained high amount of transfat -- Kraft later changed their formula for Oreo -- and that's another story).
And 3M?
Apparently 3M produces the adhesive/glue that keep some parts of landmines and other explosives together. We all know how many children (and adults) have died of or were maimed by landmines.
I say that Unicef's fundraising ethics have been used as part of my organization's ethical fundraising practices.
So, why do I say now that Unicef is anti-life, anti-family, if they do not accept funding from companies like those mentioned? I guess that was before. In fact, long before. (Or they have fallen victims of corporate funding requirements dictating where money is used. Or while they still follow their ethical practices, Unicef herself might actually be doing projects that are anti-life, anti-family.)
Whatever their reasons, I was shocked to read this. Read the pdf. You be the judge.
Oh, I got to this when I read in another blog that some pro-life groups made noise when they knew that "American Idol" included two pro-abortion groups among the charities that will benefit from its "Idol Gives Back" project. Guess who is in the list? The other is the usual suspect.
Blogged with Flock
No comments:
Post a Comment