Upon reading the first part of Singer and Mason’s The Ethics of What We Eat, two main questions consumed my thought the entire time. The first by its nature is directly related to the second but never the less they address two spate issues. The biggest question I had involved consumers and what drives them to act in relation to what they eat and the ethical implications there in. It seems that Singer and Mason feel that this is a vital question that needs answering. Through examining the food consumption trends of the Hillard-Nierstheimer, it seems that to the average American cost and ease are the two most influential forces in pushing them to purchase certain foods. While this suggests that many Americans are concerned about cost both in dollars and time, they are still susceptible to the ethical conditions in which their food is produced. Jake said that the label on the bacon she purchased suggests the producers were using ethical practices. It good enough for her to think that it was in some way more ethically run than its competitors. This was enough evidence to get Jake to buy the bacon, but as the authors point out the packaging is misleading and often a downright lie. What the authors go on to say is if Jake could see past that deceiving label she would be less inclined to buy that bacon and maybe even bacon at all. The authors give a great example to illustrate this point of consumer trends.
On page 47 they give the example of the inhuman treatment animals in zoo’s once had to endure. What changed those practices was the outcry from the Zoo’s patrons. This seems to suggest hearing about the atrocities of animal cruelty isn’t enough; rather people need to see and more importantly feel something in order for them to act. Who can care about a chicken though? We care more about dogs in this country because of the human qualities they possess. We can see and feel when they are happy or sad, but when it comes to chickens their mental state never enters our mind. This mainly occurs because they are out of our mind, on the whole we never interact with these animals and therefore have almost no inclination to view them as having value other than the value we get in eating them. So it seems that as human consumers we respond mostly to what evokes emotion. How can animal rights groups achieve this on a large enough scale? Although the authors don’t say this explicitly I wonder if they discount a free market approach all together. This leads me to the second question that consumed me through out. The authors seem to demonize the free market for the corporate greed it produces but don’t really think twice about the change it can bring about in consumer trends.
On page 75 the authors note an example which serves to answer in some way my question of the role the free market could play in curbing or changing consumer trends. The example of McDonald’s veggie burger being better for the consumer and the environment suggests that there is room for the market to help improve the environment. Erika Frank, a professor at Emory, says the McVeggie burger tastes similar to the regular burger at McDonalds. While I doubt this is actually true, what if McDonalds was to improve the taste of this burger. If people started buying this burger after seeing that it was better for their health and the environment on top of it tasting the same as the regular burger this would force other chains create a similar burger. This may result in an improved environment while utilizing consumer trends instead of trying to combat them!