Softer Food Ethic Also Promotes Critical Thinking

I agree with Singer and Mason’s argument for a food ethic that is not fanatical because of my experience with ethical eating. The concept of fulfilling every ethical responsibility is daunting, and that is before you compound that difficulty with hunger. One avoids the ethical problems involving meat consumption only to find ethics in concern to the environment, people, and again animals. I think that Singer and Mason’s addition of context-sensitivity softens their ethic and makes it easier to accomplish. I think that an interesting part of this ethic is the emphasis on personal curiosity. The consumer must engage with the food they eat instead of submissively accepting it as an end-in-itself.

As a result of this curiosity, I attempted to research the “ethical nature” of two companies after a visit to a grocery store. The benefit of labels is that it distinguishes if big companies are potentially unethical even though it doesn’t legitimately denote ethicality to the labeled. The “Darling Clementines” that are manufactured by Sun Pacific are not organic or free trade . . . but they are not animal flesh either. The Sun Pacific website promoted the taste of its products and their efficiency of production, but I could not find what chemicals they use when farming. I do not think that they are the most ethical choice, but at the time I did not see any organic Clementines. I also tried researching “Sun Chips” and found some articles about the branding of certain foods as green foods. All in all, I can understand where curiosity and work meet in the process of becoming an ethical consumer. Singer and Mason’s book would be very useful for wading through the information acquired from such searches.