It’s not even “no slavery = no chocolate,” it’s just “no slavery = more expensive chocolate” so yeah no objections from me personally on this one

And the thing about “more expensive chocolate” is that it doesn’t even have to be more expensive to the CUSTOMERS…

It could be more expensive to the producers (Nestle) instead of passing on the extra cost to the people eating chocolate.

Nestle makes roughly $90 billion in profit every year. That’s pure profit.

They could stop using slavery, and still make upwards of $60 billion in profit every fucking year, and the consumer price of chocolate wouldn’t change at all.

But despite the fact that $60B is still a comically absurd amount of money and that they literally cannot spend it all, Nestle refuses to stop using slavery, and claims that if they did stop, consumers would have to pay more…. Y'know, in order to make sure they didn’t “lose” that extra $30B in profit.

🙄