Applying theories to food and fat content

Business Ethics - Food Marketing

Business: PRODUCT MARKETING and CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

Do people have a right to choose good-tasting foods even if they are unhealthy?

It is not the role of government to protect adults who are mentally competent from the consequences of their own choices. As long as those consequences are limited to the person choosing to overeat, or to eat unhealthily, or to skydive, or to sunbathe, or to smoke, people have the right to make autonomous decisions without justifying those choices to others. It is difficult to justify penal laws against private vices like gambling and illicit drug use in private, let alone eating habits, because they do not cause harm to anyone else.

The right to personal autonomy ends only where choices affect others, such as where a person consumes alcohol or illicit drugs and then disturbs his neighbors or otherwise allows his choice to endanger others, such as where he chooses to drive while impaired by alcohol or drug use.

Should Flavorful Health be allowed to have a "100% Vitamin RDA" package icon despite the fat content, which is listed on the back?

No. Doing so is deceptive and violates the fundamental principle of honesty, or truth in advertising. The phrase itself is true only in a literal sense, but deceptive in context, because it purposely implies that the product is one that is more healthful than it is unhealthful. By referring to one minor "recommendation" when the product completely violates a more significant "recommendation" (to limit saturated fat intake), the label is intentionally deceptive. The company should be allowed to sell the product but not to market it, either directly or indirectly, as a healthful dietary choice by purposely creating that inference in any respect. The ethical choice would be to avoid any reference to healthfulness on the wrapper or market it as a vitamin-rich alternative to other junk food.