Ethics Of Dumping

1277 Words6 Pages
The dumping of banned products is very controversial but can be appealing from both a financial and humanitarian viewpoint. Dumping refers to the practice of exporting products that have been banned or declared hazardous in the United States (US). Companies that would otherwise take large losses in the US can sell or donate their stock to foreign countries for profit, tax deductions, or to boost their public image. Currently, regulations applicable to dumping focus on a system of notification regarding the dangers of these products. However, it has been criticized as flawed because foreign officials inconsistently receive information. Often times when information is received, it is too vague or too technical to be of any use. Dibromochloropropane,…show more content…
But where America’s leading manufacturers saw a moral obligation to stop exposing employees and customers to a dangerous chemical, one California based company saw an opportunity and capitalized on it. There was no legal obligation to cease production and sales of DBCP because it is not illegal to produce in the U.S. and sell internationally. Amvac is very candid in its explanation of motives. With the competition out of the way Amvac, poised to fill the need, rushed to fill a vacuum created when the larger companies vacated the market. Survival of the company is largely attributed to international DBCP sales, without them, Amvac likely would have gone bankrupt in the late 1970’s. One would think that with all of the negative publicity about the pesticide that sales would slow down, not so for Amvac. The regulations may have changed the sales market, but Amvac and their customers quickly adapted. Prior to the emergency suspension, corporate giant and Dole parent company, Castle and Cooke was Amvac’s biggest customer. In a move motivated by public relations, Castle & Cooke established a policy that stated that “they would not use or purchase any pesticide which is not specifically registered for use with the US Environmental Protection Agency.”, which is a morally responsible and refreshing stance for a company to take. But why, then was Amvac reporting record…show more content…
The US State Department has a policy that reads: “No country should establish itself as the arbiter of others’ health and safety standards.” In fact, some governments equate denying them the right to purchase banned products to violating their countries’ national sovereignty. Those governments maintain it is their right to make their own laws regarding what’s legal to sell to their citizens, that they are best qualified to make these judgements for themselves. If a particular society maintains that using DBCP is the right thing to do, who is anybody to say otherwise by imposing our regulations on them? It would be very convenient for that to be the final answer, however some philosophers object to the idea. What is acceptable in one society is morally right merely by its widespread acceptance in that society, as an application of ethical relativism. Critics of this rationale argue that some countries aren’t qualified to make determinations about health and safety due to the fact that they aren’t advanced enough economically or technologically to fully understand the consequences. They further elaborate that even when a country is well informed the information does not reach all parties who need to know. It is unrealistic to think that the illiterate migrant Central American plantation workers are adequately informed of the risks. Even in America, where the ban
Open Document