:
It is permissible for fast food chains to implement healthier food practices.
Explanation of the Claim:
The fast food chain is a large business design of multiple restaurants such as: McDonalds, KFC, Chipotle, Taco Bell, and etc. This chain of fast food restaurants caters to low prices and quickness. Their main focus is to make food cheaper and faster to obtain. However, when doing this fast food chains do not prioritize their nutritional or quality value within their food items. It is lawfully and morally right for the fast food chain to implement healthier food practices. These healthier food practices would be picking more organic ingredients such as meat, fruits, vegetables, and dairy, adding more vegetarian or vegan choices to their menu, and lessening their calories, sodium, sugar, and fat in their menu items.
Reasons For the Claim:
1. Fast food chains need to implement healthier food practices because it is their job to also take care of their consumers. Consumers are the main reason why fast food chains are still in business and making profit. Without consumer there would be no fast food chains, nor will there be any profit made. Since consumers play an important role and have such a huge impact in this business, the fast food chains needs to take care of them. It is ethically right for this business to not cause any harm to the consumers health. Consumers may know the food is not the healthiest to eat, but it is the fast food chains job to remind them about the foods nutritional value and provide healthier options.
2. Having the fast food chains implementing healthier food practices will reduce many health issues within society. As the fast food chains grow bigger and bigger the more people will began developing more health issues. In fact, “since, 1970, the amount of fast food restaurants in business doubled, which equates to about 300,000 establishments in the United States. Coincidentally, 33.8 percent of the U.S. population is affected by obesity and 19 percent of children and adolescents are also affected.” Putting in time to take out food items that have no nutritional value and replacing it with those with a balance diet will help improve reducing health risks within society. This is morally proper because fast food chains will be saving lives instead of risking lives.
3. It is morally right for fast food chains to serve safer products; moreover, this would mean they must have healthier food practices. Currently most food chains serve non-nutritional and harmful products which does not help any consumers or us as a country grow. For example, “fast food is usually higher in fat, calories, cholesterol, and sodium in comparison to homemade meals. Eating too much fast food can increase risk for health problems such as high blood pressure, heart disease, and obesity.” Also, most of the time fast food chains buy cheaper food products due to them selling their food items for a low cost. The risk of buying cheaper food products would be the quality of it. These cheaper meats, fruits, vegetables, and dairy products may have been in contact with some chemicals. There are farmers that spray their crops and feed their animals with chemicals because it enhances the crops production rate, limit pests, and makes the animal fatter. These chemicals being use can be harmful to us humans. Consuming products that has been contaminated by any chemicals can make a human ill, moreover, “about 1 in 5 resistant infections are caused by germs from food and animals.” It is ethically right for fast food chains to buy safer products even though it may raise their prices a little higher. By buying safer products and limiting the amount of fat, sodium, and sugar within their food will help them keep their consumers healthier which will bring more profit.
4. Implementing healthier food practices would mean the fast food chains must add more variety of choices on their menu. These choices would include vegetarian, vegan, and diet options. Morally, it is right for fast food chains to provide food for everyone and not discriminate on those who do not eat meat, animal products, or are in a diet. Adding food items that everyone can eat and enjoy will bring in more consumers and provided a healthier standpoint within the business world.
Reasons Against the Claim:
I. This claim may not hold because the fast food chains may insist they will gain a larger profit with the food items they have already. If they did add meat substitutes for vegan people such as tofu and mushroom it will not increase the fast food chains profit; moreover, profit may go down due to not selling enough products with the tofu or mushroom. Not selling enough food items for those who are vegetarian, vegan, or who are in a diet will actually make the fast food chains lose money. They will lose money because the new products they would have bought would not bring enough profit to pay back the original cost of ordering it. Thus, keeping the food items they have and making it cheaper will increase their profit rather than bringing in newer and healthier items to their menu.
II. Fast food chains can also say that the cost of organic products such as meats, fruits, vegetables, and dairy will not make profit and business will go down. This would mean that the expenses of buying all these healthier products will not reward them at the end. The product they are buying right now is making them profit and benefiting them so why waste more money. They have not had any enormous amounts of complaints and not many people are vegetarian and vegan which makes there no reason to consider their food restrictions.
III. Consumer would not like healthier options in the fast food chains. They like their food to contain more flavor. Moreover, they want their food to not be blain or just to have natural flavors such as lemon and salt. The food items on the menu are already tasty and good so there are no reasons to change or “improve” the menu. Another thing is that the food items on the menu are cheap and large which leaves consumers always coming back for more. However, increasing the price and limiting the portion size of the food items will angry the consumers which would decrease the amount of profit earned in the fast food chains.
IV. Fast food chains main target are kids and the millennial generation. This would make sense because most of their income come from kids and millennials eating their food. Thus, fast food chains can argue applying healthier food practices will not be good for business. Kids and millennials do not care about healthy food nor do they care about what is in their food. They mainly eat anything that tastes good. Having the food taste healthier and more expensive will not encourage the kids and millennial to come back. Kids and millennials do not really make money and only have the money their parents give them which makes these fast food chains very affordable for them.
Decisions:
The strongest set of reasonings would be the “reasoning for the claim” because they have more of a moral standpoint of business ethics. With business ethics you must think about what is right and what is wrong. The “reasoning for the claims” provided four moral indications of what the fast food chains must do to become ethical. It is morally right for the business to take care of their consumers. The consumers are how they make profit and stay in business. Yes, organic products may be more expensive than non-organic products, but the fast food chains will be decreasing the rate of health issues that people are increasingly obtaining. Also, for the fast food chains not to discriminate anyone’s food restrictions is ethically right. Within a business you have to see who you are making profit from and how you can help them. Not implementing healthier food practices will not benefit the consumers, moreover, it will just harm them. Businesses must be fair and care for society as a whole.
Rebuttals:
The weakest set of reasonings would be the “reasons against the claim,” because they were greedy reasons. The reasonings looked more toward the business benefits instead of the business ethics.
I. The first reasoning against the claim was that fast food chains already gain a large profit with the food items they have; moreover, adding meat substitutes for vegan people will not increase the fast food chains profit. Fast food chains assume this accusation. They must at least test out the products to see if they can gain profit from it. Even though they may not gain a large amount of profit from these meatless items such as tofu or mushrooms they should still have a little in stock. More and more people are getting into healthier foods or going vegetarian and vegan which would mean that adding these meatless substitutes will bring in more consumers. The more consumers buying their food the more profit the fast food chains will earn.
II. The second reasoning against the claim would be that the cost of organic products such as meats, fruits, vegetables, and dairy products will make profit go down due to the expenses of buying these supplies. This large business should already be buying good supplies if you look at it from an ethical standpoint. The food product that they serve should not be harming or risking anyone’s lives. Their food should really just be benefiting the consumers. Even though buying these organic products will be more expensive they can always increase the prices of the food items on their menu. In the end, having people get sick by the germs in the food is worse than raising the price and losing a little profit within the business.
III. The third reasoning against the claim would be that consumers want cheaper and tastier food that is serve in large portions. The concept of this was evolved over time. The reasoning people want cheaper, tastier, and bigger portion of food is due to the not knowing any better. The fast food chain has drilled this concept into everyone mind since they were little. Consumers may get angry about the price increase and smaller portions, but it is the business’s job to look at the consumers best interest. Ethically, the business’s main goal should be to help society as a whole get healthier. Having the consumers become healthier and changing the fast food chains dynamic will benefit the consumers and the business. For instance, when one looks at Europe their fast food chain is healthier than the ones in America. If the fast food chains in Europe are still going strong than the ones in Americas will continue to rise even with adding healthier options in their menu.
IV. The last reasoning against the claim would be that fast food chains mainly targets kids and millennials. They believe that kids and millennials do not care about healthier food nor where their food comes from. So, there is no reason to change up the menu to implement healthier food practices. Ethically, fast food chains should have food items on their menu that everyone can eat. Yes, the business can target certain groups of people to gain profit from; however, targeting a broader group of people will raise the profit more. Them targeting just two certain groups makes their menu limited which is ethically wrong. Ethically the business should not discriminate anyone on their food restrictions. In fact, “Nielsen data shows that nearly 40% of Americans are trying to incorporate more plant-based foods into their diets. According to Baum and Whiteman, 58% of adults choose to drink non-dairy milk instead of dairy milk, yet most fast-food chains don't carry any alternatives to dairy milk. In the past year alone, Google has seen a 90% increase in vegan-related searches.” Looking at this fact, one can see that many Americas have been considering or is eating healthier, vegetarian, or vegan foods. Considering this statistic fast food chains can gain a larger profit by targeting a more diverse group of people and adding more organic and healthier food option in their menu.