THE HARMFUL nutritional effects of the sale of infant formula in Africa, Asia and Latin America where illiteracy, poverty and lack of sanitary conditions prevent its proper use, pose a serious question for the corporations which market this product: will they choose increased profits over the health of millions of babies?

Studies by such groups as the World Health Organization and the World Bank have noted a sharp drop in the peak age of child malnutrition in these areas as a result of the "alarming" decrease in breastfeeding in the past two decades. Babies are now commonly suffering from the deadly combination of malnutrition and diarrhea--often caused by bacteria-infested, diluted or ill-prepared formula--as early as three to six months after birth. In light of the fact that the critical period for brain development is the first two years of life, this situation is indeed tragic.

The largest producer and seller of infant formula in the Third World is the Swiss corporation Nestle. Nestle operates 81 plants in 27 underdeveloped countries, raking in $300 million annually in infant formula sales. While some corporations--such as Bristol Myers and Borden--have responded to complaints by consumer, church and health organizations by terminating sales to consumers in poor countries, Nestle has refused to acknowledge its role in this serious nutritional problem. It continues to send "milk nurses" (sales personnel dressed in medical-like uniforms) to villages, sales representatives to hospital maternity wards, and free samples to many hospitals. Unfortunately, when the free or reduced rate samples run out after the first few months, many mothers find themselves unable to afford the formula that their babies are now dependent on.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY Food Services should heed the call of the various student groups who are concerned about this situation by terminating its purchasing contract with Nestle. Besides the fact that comparably priced substitutes are available for the hot chocolate and iced tea that we now buy from that company, it is important that Harvard recognize the gravity of the misdeeds Nestle is being accused of. A few years ago, University Food Services took a stand by refusing to purchase non-union lettuce for the dining halls. We hope that they will take a similar stand in this case.

Earlier this year, Wellesley College stopped buying Nestle products because of the situation described above. The issue is now coming before the Harvard community. The House Committees of Lowell, Quincy, Mather and North Houses have already passed resolutions recommending a boycott of Nestle by the dining halls. Other houses have yet to consider the question.

This Monday, a resolution concerning the Nestle boycott will come before the Committee on Houses and Undergraduate Life (CHUL). We strongly urge that both CHUL and University Food Services follow the president of Wellesley and the advice of the various house committees and join in the call for a worldwide boycott of Nestle Corporation products.