Now she tells us!!! Body Shop founder Dame Anita Roddick has called for a consumer boycott of Nestle products, such as Perrier, Kit-Kat and Nescafe. She apparently has deep ethical concerns about Nestle's practices.

This is despite the fact that Nestle is a major shareholder of the French cosmetic behemoth L'Oreal which bought the Body Shop for £652 million ($US1.2 billion).

You can find the report of Dame Anita's play for the moral high ground here.

Yeah right, says activist Baby Milk Action. You can read their response here. Baby Milk Action's campaigns and networking coordinator Mike Brady said: "We cannot ignore the fact that buying Body Shop products will put money in the coffers of Nestlé, the world's 'least responsible company'."

Which raises the obvious question: if she has concerns about a major shareholder, why the hell did Dame Anita sell in the first place. At the time of the sale, she tried justifying it on her website:

"For me it is absurd to complain that we are selling out our values by escaping from the direct clutches of the city traders. Because we are instead coming under the auspices of a company that has gone on record as saying that it will protect those principles."

Right. So the selling to L'Oreal was okay because they would look after Body Shop. I mean, they said so. This is despite the fact that the same company has a major shareholder that Body Shop has concerns about. Pick the logical flaw.

^Not surprisingly, her spin did nothing to stop Body Shop's reputation getting a hammering following the sale.. Of course, there was one very good reason why Dame Anita did it. She made £130 million ($US246 million) from the sale although she has vowed to give the money away.

This is why she has been accused of trying to have her cake and eat it in the Financial Times.

Is Dame Anita's purported moral outrage justified?