Hotdogs an Ethical Decision?

We have all bitten into America's favorite baseball food, the hotdog. Every since I was little hotdogs were a familiar food, one that I enjoy a bit less now that I am an adult. Hamburgers and hotdogs were the main dish at every BBQ I went to. Know I am hearing that they are dangerous for little kids. Although I made it through my hotdog stage just fine, it makes you wonder. The ethical dilemma that hotdog manufactures are now facing is if they should do anything about this danger.

When I first read the line about hotdogs: "And it's potentially deadly. Should manufacturers act?" from The Business Ethics Blog, by Chris McDonald I was worried that the actual food product was dangerous, that it caused cancer or something (as everything else seems to lead to cancer these days). As I read further, it discussed that hotdogs are a choking factor. I remembered reading an article from Fast Company that talked about redesigning the hotdog. Click here to read the article. The article shows many possible designs that make the product less hazardous to children.

Should the manufacturers be obligated to change the hotdog to make it less of a choking hazard? I mean, haven't hot dogs been around for generations? At what point is the possibility of a child choking on a product extreme enough to hold manufactures at fault? I am not sure about you, but I remember my mother cutting up all my food when I was little to prevent choking. A child could choke on just about any food out there. Does that mean we have to redesign all food?

So where is the line drawn between parent obligations and manufacture obligations? Perhaps consumers view hotdogs being marketed to children, placing more obligation on the manufactures than the parents. This issue, is becoming more than an ethical issue for the manufactures of hotdogs. If they do not do anything, they face being sued. Is it unethical to produce a product that is so easy to choke on?

In my personal opinion, I do not think that the manufactures (in this case) have any obligation to change the design of the hotdog. It has been around for so long, and it is not the manufactures job. It is the parents job to ensure the child does not choke. If we continue to put blame on the manufactures, then what do we hold the parents to? It is important for humanity that we expect parents to take certain precautions with their children at all ages. We cannot continue to baby everyone through life.

Perhaps you disagree with my logic. I want to know what you think about the hotdog. Take a bite, contemplate, and let me know.

Another Dilbert

Just because someone has the title, does that mean that they are qualified? Is it unethical to have a title that you are not qualified for, what if you have the background education but not the skill required to succeed. Is it unethical then? For example lets say you are a doctor, and you have the training, the credentials, but you don't have the skill to really understand what is going on with the patients, and you are constantly getting it wrong. Is that unethical? Is it more unethical than this cartoon?

Take a Bite of that juicy apple, I want to know what you think.

Who Doesn't Love Dilbert?

Although this company is making an effort to be ethical, it raises the question about real business ethics. Is the effort more for the public or for security, or do they really want to make an effort?

Take a bite. Tell me your opinion.