Summary by Mayara Jordani
Kashi brand was first created in 1984 by
Phil and
Gayle Tauber and is owned by the Kellogg’s
Company. Kashi’s goal is to “give people
what the need to live their best lives, while making great tasting, naturally
nutritious foods.” Kashi does this by offering minimally processed foods, with
no artificial colors, flavors preservatives or sweeteners.
However in October of 2011, Cornucopia
Institute tested Kashi’s GoLean cereal and found that it contained 100 percent
genetically engineered soy. In August of
2011, shortly before this controversy broke, Michael Bates and his attorneys in
California brought forth a law suit against Kashi and Kellogg’s for falsely
advertising their products as “All Natural” and “Nothing Artificial.”
Kashi was finally exposed of their
secret in late 2011. Kashi used all natural ingredients except when it came to
their soy, which was genetically engineered with a gene inserted to protect the
soybeans from the herbicide Roundup, which kills weeds. However Kashi still
continued to advertise their products as “natural” and “only natural
ingredients used.”
David
DeSouza, Kashi’s general manager stated that they had done nothing wrong.
DeSouza stated that the FDA had chosen not to regulate the term natural.
DeSouza states that Kashi defines natural as "food that's minimally
processed, made with no artificial colors, flavors, preservatives or
sweeteners.” Shortly after this controversy occurred, Kashi, in an effort to
gain their reputation back has partnered up with the Non-GMO Project. The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization that verifies
foods to make sure they are clear of any genetically modified ingredients.
Kashi has seven of their cereals verified by the Non-GMO project.
There are
laws against false advertising which is why Michael Bates and his attorneys won
the law suit against Kashi and Kellogg’s. As a result, Kashi violate ethical standards. Under the Individualism theory and part of
the Utilitarian theory Kashi did nothing wrong. However, under the Kantianism
theory, Virtue theory and part of the Utilitarian theory, Kashi acted
unethical.
The Utilitarian Theory states that we must act in order to maximize
the overall good to the greatest amount of people. The stakeholders in this
situation were Kashi’s customers, Kashi brand
and Kellogg’s. Looking at Kashi’s customers, the company was not able to bring
happiness to their customers. This is because the customers were tricked into
thinking that Kashi’s products were actually natural. Many of Kashi’s faithful
customers after finding out Kashi’s definition of ‘natural’ have stopped buying
their products. Many store owners have also removing Kashi products from their
shelves until Kashi completely removes all genetically engineered ingredients
from their products. On the other hand, the sale of the genetically modified
cereals brought a lot of happiness to the company. Kashi and Kellogg’s were
able to maintain their products on the shelves while marketing them as
‘natural’ and using genetically modified ingredients in their cereals. By
marketing the products as ‘natural’ the company was able to sell the products
for more, increasing the company’s profit and ultimately increasing their
happiness. The sale of the genetically modified foods has also allowed many
employees to keep their jobs, where as if the company had to recall the cereal,
some employees could have been fired.
The Kantianism theory has several different parts. Part one states that one must act rationally and not consider one exempt from the rules. According to the first principal, Kashi did not act ethical because they felt that they were expect from telling consumers the truth about their products. Kashi felt exempt from the rule of being honest with customers. The second part of the theory states that it allows and helps people make rational decisions. With this, Kashi did not act ethical because although it seemed like the company acted ethical because they allowed the customers to make their own decision as to whether or not buy the products that contained genetically modified soy, Kashi lied about their ingredients which took away from customers making rational decisions, the decision to either consume the products or not. The third part to Kantianism states that it respects people, their autonomy and individual needs and differences. Kashi did not act ethical in under this principle because they did not respect people’s needs in eating healthy. They took advantage of those who wanted to eat healthier and better by marketing their products as natural when they were not. Lastly, the fourth principal states one is motivated by the good will, seeking to do the right thing because it is right. Kashi did not act under good will because they were not being honest about the ingredients in their products. If they had acted under good will, Kashi would have been honest about the ingredients in their products and not had advertised the products as ‘natural’ even if the FDA was vague about the definition of ‘natural.’
Lastly, the Virtue theory is based on four characteristics, courage,
honesty, temperance/self-control and justice/fairness. Kashi did not display courage because they were not
willing to tell their customers what their products actually contained. When
Kashi was faced with the issue, their representatives stated that they had done
nothing wrong. They used excuses to try to take the blame away from them. Kashi
was also not honest in owning up to their mistakes and being honest to consumers
about their products. Kashi was also unethical in the temperance/self-control
aspect of this theory. This is because the company had no self-control in
advertising their products. If the company wanted to advertise the products as
natural, then they should have used all natural ingredients and stayed clear of
genetically modified ingredients. Kashi should have had the self-control and
done the right thing when advertising their foods. Lastly, the final
characteristic is justice. Kashi did not
act upon this characteristic because they did not work hard to try to get the
best product out to their customers. They took the easy way out and simple
labeled their product as natural instead of using natural ingredients. The
company was also not fair in the price of their products. The company sold the
cereal for the same price as a certified organic cereal would be sold at.
Overall, Kashi did not act ethical according to the virtue theory in this
controversy.
According to the four ethical theories described above, Steve Madden
Ltd. acted unethical in their work and to their stakeholders. The only ethical
theory that Kashi is able to argue they acted ethical under is individualism.
However, the remaining ethical theories would find Kashi’s actions to be
unethical and incorrect.
These analyses and facts are based upon the original paper by Mayara Jordani entitled "Kashi’s Claim on Natural Foods (2011)?" (Apr. 15, 2013).
DesJardins, J. (2011). An
Introduction To Business Ethics. (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages.
Holter, M. (2012, August 16). Kashi
false advertising class action lawsuit survives in court. Top Class Actions,
Retrieved from http://www.topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/2288-kashi-false-advertising-class-action-lawsuit-survives-in-court
Johnson, L. (2013, March 28). GMO
Controversy Heating up as Kashi Cereal Comes Under Scrutiny. Retrieved from http://www.naturalnews.com/039676_Kashi_GMO_ingredients.html
Kashi Seven Whole Grain Cereal Snacks
Entrees. (n.d.).Kashi Seven Whole Grain Cereal Snacks Entrees. Retrieved
March 30, 2013, from http://www.kashi.com/ourcommitment
Kellogg Company 2012 Annual Report. (2013). Retrieved from annualreport2012.kelloggcompany.com
Philpott, T. (2011, September 30). Mother
jones. Retrieved from
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/09/gmos-safe-eat
Salazar, H. (2013, January).
Individualism. Lecture conducted from Western New England University, Springfield,
MA.
The Non-GMO Project. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.nongmoproject.org/about
Weise, E. (2012, March 29). Kashi cereal's 'natural'
claims stir anger. Retrieved from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/story/2012-04-29/kashi-natural-claims/54616576/1
Excellent and informative, A+!!
ReplyDeleteInteresting...I purchase Kashi products often and other natural products. Makes me want to review them more closely before spending the extra buck for the "natural" label... Interesting theories you mentioned....
ReplyDeleteYikes, good to know! Very interesting topic and very well written!
ReplyDeleteThis information is very helpful considering I buy Kashi products at times. Great job, mayara.
ReplyDeleteVery full of information and interesting!
ReplyDelete