September 9, 2011
The philosopher Peter Singer tells a story in which he asks you to imagine walking by a shallow pond where you notice that a small child has fallen in. You are the only person around and unless you quickly wade into the water and get the child, he may drown. Doing so will, however, ruin the expensive pair of shoes you are wearing.
Singer notes that people readily say they will sacrifice the shoes to save the child. So he then asks, instead of buying expensive shoes, why not donate the cost of the shoes to an international aid agency that could use the money to save the lives of children in poor countries?
I recalled Singer’s question after a recent visit to Whole Foods.
If you look closely at the Whole Foods meat counter you will notice a color code on the signs that tell you the type of meat and price. A brochure explains it this way:
“Throughout our meat department you will find chicken, beef and pork labeled with the Global Animal Partnership 5-Step Animal Welfare Rating. It’s your way of knowing exactly how the animals were raised for the meat you are buying. We have made it easier for you to identify the steps with simple color coding…”
On the face of it, it seems that Whole Foods is responding to a demand by customers for greater transparency regarding the food they purchase. If your ethical concerns lead you to purchase a chicken that was raised on pasture instead of one that lived mostly indoors, Whole Foods is there for you.
But what struck me were the similarities between Whole Foods’ ethical choices and those which Singer raise, and how they shed light on the role of ethical concerns when it comes to many brand decisions today.
Having worked in the food industry for many years, and conducted considerable research among shoppers during that time, I’ve heard many consumers say that ethical concerns are important to them when making purchase decisions. They often cite the humane treatment of animals as an important issue when it comes to food.
Dig a little deeper, however, and it becomes more complex than that.
It’s no secret that the quality and safety of the food supply continues to be an issue for many consumers. This is understandable given the continuous stream of news reporting recalls of contaminated produce, eggs, beef and other foods.
Surveys also reveal that consumers perceive a connection between “humane” and “safe.” They believe that a producer attentive to ethical concerns in the raising and processing of animals for meat is also more likely to maintain higher standards in other ways that promise greater safety, such as raising the animals in sanitary conditions and without the use of artificial hormones, and providing only vegetarian feed.
Ethical claims, it seems, have also become proxies for many of the health and safety assurances that consumers want regarding their food today.
Where Whole Foods’ poultry and Singer’s child intersect is in the utility of the ethical decision.
A child in peril before us commands our attention in ways a thousand children in peril on another continent cannot. For one thing, the moral implications become so clear that we cannot imagine living with ourselves if we do not rush to his aid.
In a similar vein, the food we place on the table for our families also demands our attention for reasons of safety and health, and with an immediacy that the plight of pigs in a crowded barn in Iowa does not command for most people.
This is not to downplay consumer concerns about the ethical issues related to the purchases they make. Most of us report we want our purchases to help make the world a better place and we are even willing to pay a little more to do so. This sentiment surfaces frequently enough in surveys to be credible.
The practical takeaway here seems to be that we find it easier to make ethical choices when they have immediate and clear benefit. Conversely, the farther ethical questions move from our everyday concerns, the more abstract they become and thereby less urgent.
In short, it seems ethical concerns become most actionable when we can bolster our good intentions with a strong dose of pragmatism.
