Cyclamate's Into Foreign Markets example essay topic
419 words
In 1969 the FDA banned cyclamate's from the U.S. Market. By FDA criteria cyclamate's presented an unacceptable level of risk to the public. Many years of laboratory findings concerning the effects of cyclamate's on chick embryos concluded that cyclamate's produced grotesque malformations in chick embryos. After the ban was in place, Libby, McNeil, and Libby sold approximately 300,000 cases of cyclamate-sweetened fruit to customers in Germany, Spain, and other countries where cyclamate's had not been banned and were still in use. Singer's argument for preventing something bad from happening is based on three premises. The first premise is if we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, we ought to do it. The second premise is that the introduction of cyclamate's is bad. The third premise is that if we can prevent the introduction of cyclamate's without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance. The conclusion is that we ought to prevent introduction of cyclamate's abroad.
With the knowledge they had about cyclamate's, Libby, McNeil, and Libby should not have introduced cyclamate's into the foreign markets. Cyclamate could be very damaging to one's health, and that is why the FDA banned their use in America. Based on Singer's first premise, if we can prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, than we ought to. For his second premise, based on the FDA's ban of cyclamate's, they are obviously bad.
For his third premise, by not introducing cyclamate's, Libby, McNeil and Libby would not be sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance. The comparison is based on the effects cyclamate's could have on human health. The sacrifice to not introduce cyclamate's would probably save lives and Libby, McNeil, and Libby would not be sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance. In conclusion they should not have introduced the cyclamate's into foreign markets. I believe that Libby, McNeil, and Libby took advantage of many people. Just because foreign standards are not necessarily as high as national standards, it does not mean we can act anyway we want, if we know better.
What I am trying to say is human health is priceless. If we know something is damaging to human health, and others do not know. We should at least let them know that the product could be potentially dangerous through warning labels. Not doing this violates their basic human rights to good health..
