Nutritional Foods the First, Main Ethical Issue

¶ … Nutritional Foods

The first, main ethical issue at stake in "The Case of Nutritional Foods" is the question of what happens when ostensibly 'good foods' go wrong? In the scenario, the county health departments of Seattle and Southern California have reported a possible link between acute food poisoning of children and un-pasteurized apple products produced by Nutritional Foods. The decision makers in question are the President of Nutritional Foods which is a $50 million manufacturer of healthful foods and John Healy, the company's vice president for production. They first must take into consideration their personal economic stake in the company, their shareholder's interests in keeping the company profitable, and the potential health risk of the issue. At first since no batch numbers have been identified, the ethical issues of informing the public are murky -- no one wants to cause a health scare for no reason, but no one wants anyone else to get hurt. This is an ethical decision, as the company is not legally bound to release the data to the public until a clear causal link is made, or to the manufactures until such a link is established. At the end of the study, after reports escalate, a decision is made to pull the product, but the question of whether to continue to market un-pasteurized products, even if consumer demand continues, vexes both men.

Corporate Social Responsibility: What is this corporation's social corporate responsibility for each ethical issue or concern for the four areas of corporate social responsibility?

Legally, the issue is not conclusive at first as no batch numbers for the products in question were available. Nor had the health departments yet ruled out all other possible causes. After the release of data and the pulling of the product, the company is entitled to continue to market products that do not pose a danger to consumer health, so long as they are properly labeled in a way that the consumer knows they are un-pasteurized.

Economically, however, Nutritional Foods is rapidly becoming well-known as a brand of natural or non-pasteurized foods in the Western United States. To change the company product's 'branding' from an un-pasteurized to a pasteurized product could rob it of its economic 'niche,' even if such products may be legally purveyed in the United States.

Ethically, because he company markets its goods specifically as health food goods, however, consumers of its products are buying into something more than simple 'juice.' Consumers are paying more for something they believe is fresher and healthier for their children. But ironically, the handling of non-pasteurized products was critical in the poisoning, as contamination could occur in picking, transporting, or processing a completely fresh and un-pasteurized product. Consumers must be aware of this as well as the controversial benefits of non-pasteurization and the company has an ethical as well as a legal responsibility to assure customers they are not putting themselves at a risk they do not wish to take -- much as cigarettes are available but clearly labeled.

Lastly, from a philanthropic stance, even if the law does not provide a clearly basis for an ethical decision regarding pasteurization of the products in question, the company's stance as a health company means it must say more than 'buyer beware.' Presumably, the company stands opposed to the murky ethics of large conglomerates, and in addition to paying more for the product, the consumer hopes to purchase additional health, safety, and freshness that cannot be obtained in a bottle of Mott's Apple Juice, for example.

Thus, legally, the company must release data if it believes its product is causing harm to the public and from a pure economic basis the company must hold the best interest of its stockholders as a potential cause of consideration. But even if one grants that legally and economically the company must and need not cause health scare regarding its most popular goods, it cannot market a potentially toxic product with questionable health benefits, particularly a health food geared to children.

Conclusion and Recommendation