Current ethical issues in contemporary society

¶ … Tainted Meat

Recalls of tainted meat by government authorities

Consumers don't know when and where it's being recalled from III. The Solution -- Disclosure

The Case Against Disclosure

Why Disclosure, ethically, is the right thing to do.

"Tastes like (the California State Legislature is being) Chicken"

Public threats to health and safety in the food industry pose unique ethical quandaries for public health officials. On one hand, full disclosure seems to be the best option. No one wants people, especially children, becoming ill, from tainted food. Even from a capitalist's potentially self-interested perspective, nothing was worse for the fast food industry when a child died from e.coli poisoning from a Jack n' the Box hamburger. Eric Schlosser's landmark Fast Food Nation, the expose of the hamburger and fast food industry was the result, and sales of the chain have been plummeting since the revelation.

However, on the other hand, no one wants to cause a public health crisis that is greater than the threat posed to public health, and potentially bankrupt innocent members of an often-fragile food industry that is dependant upon world as well as local demand, and weather and soil conditions. The sympathy the consumer might feel for members of the food industry runs rather thin, however, when one passes the meat counter at one's local Whole Foods or (for the more cost conscious) the local Piggly Wiggly.

Imagine this -- you're walking past the meat counter in your supermarket one day. It is fully stocked. You buy several steaks and pop them in the freezer. The next day the shelves are empty. Why? Did suddenly half the population of your neighborhood go on the Atkins diet? Was there a 'run' on beef? Or is the explanation more sinister?

Well, don't trouble your pretty little protein-packed head or stomach. You'll never know -- unless those steaks do happen to be tainted of course. Then only you and your local emergency room will know for sure. For "details about where recalled beef and poultry have been sold will remain secret in California." As reported by Mike Lee, noted "Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed SB 1585, which would have made public information from a federal tracking system for potentially tainted meat. He directed the state Department of Health Services to work with the federal government to give more recall information to local public health officials." (Lee, 2004)

Schwarzenegger said in his veto message that the legislation could have compromised the state's ability to get information from USDA because it conflicts with the current state-federal agreement. However, it seems tragic that concerns about proper dealings with a Washington agency could put Californian's health at risk, considering that, first of all, the consumer surely has a right to informed consent as to what goes into his or her stomach -- ethically speaking, this is why nutritional information is included on food in the first place. Also, the consequences of tainted foodstuffs can be potentially deadly. Cars and toys are recalled when they are potentially dangerous to consumer health -- why not know when food has been recalled, because it has been tainted, so one can decided if one wants to have chicken or tofu for tonight's supper? Or, in the words of Ken Kelly, an attorney with the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a public safety watchdog group based in Washington, D.C., said, "Federal and state (officials) should be more concerned with protecting consumers from unnecessary ... food-borne illness, and less concerned with protecting grocers and meat producers from bad publicity." (Lee, 2004)

Even the most avowed exponent of capitalism could hardly deny consumers the right simply not to buy something, after receiving full disclosure as to its contents. Because meat is not a packaged good like, for instance, Wonder Bread, consumers of agricultural products must rely on government agencies to know that indeed the food they consume is organic, if advertised as such, and is wholesome. The argument against such large-scale advertisement, of course, is that a public health scare along the lines of those directed at apples, because of harmless sprayed pesticides, might cause a panic.

Merely because one batch of chicken is bad does not mean that all chicken is bad, any more that merely because one batch of Jack n' the Box burgers meant that all such hamburgers, at all fast food establishments were tainted. And it cannot be denied, even by consumer advocacy groups, that bad publicity for one sphere of the industry can bleed over into the public's imagination into other spheres. A McDonald's hamburger looks less tasty after hearing that a little boy died from eating hamburgers at his birthday party at Jack n' the Box.