Ok
so those words weren't said, according to Snopes, but it was said that the right to water was "extreme"
“Water is, of course, the most important raw material we have today in the world. It’s a question of whether we should privatize the normal water supply for the population. And there are two different opinions on the matter. The one opinion, which I think is extreme, is represented by the NGOs, who bang on about declaring water a public right. That means that as a human being you should have a right to water. That’s an extreme solution. The other view says that water is a foodstuff like any other, and like any other foodstuff it should have a market value. Personally, I believe it’s better to give a foodstuff a value so that we’re all aware it has its price, and then that one should take specific measures for the part of the population that has no access to this water, and there are many different possibilities there.”
Huh. So having a right that allows you to have access to a resource that allows you to keep on living is "extreme"?
"Personally, I believe it’s better to give a foodstuff a value so that we’re all aware it has its price, and then that one should take specific measures for the part of the population that has no access to this water, and there are many different possibilities there.”
And yet barely any measures were taken?
“The other view says that water is a foodstuff like any other, and like any other foodstuff it should have a market value."
The textile industry, oil and gas market, and pulp and paper sector would like you to back off on the claim that water is a foodstuff. Water has many uses. It's not just for consumption.
Nestle makes absolutely no sense.