In 1969 the FDA banned cyclamates from the U.S. Market. By FDA criteria cyclamates presented an unacceptable level of risk to the public. Many years of laboratory findings concerning the effects of cyclamates on chick embryos concluded that cyclamates produced grotesque malformations in chick embryos. After the ban was in place, Libby, McNeil, and Libby sold approximately 300,000 cases of cyclamate-sweetened fruit to customers in Germany, Spain, and other countries where cyclamates had not been banned and were still in use.
Singer's argument for preventing something bad from happening is based on three premises. The first premise is if we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, we ought to do it. The second premise is that the introduction of cyclamates is bad. The third premise is that if we can prevent the introduction of cyclamates without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance. The conclusion is that we ought to prevent introduction of cyclamates abroad.
Fda
Libby
LibbyWith the knowledge they had about cyclamates, Libby, McNeil, and Libby should not have introduced cyclamates into the foreign markets. Cyclamates could be very damaging to one's health, and that is why the FDA banned their use in America. Based on Singer's first premise, if we can prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, than we ought to. For his second premise, based on the FDA's ban of cyclamates, they are obviously bad. For his third premise, by not introducing cyclamates, Libby, McNeil and Libby would not be sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance. The comparison is based on the effects cyclamates could have on human health. The sacrifice to not introduce cyclamates would probably save lives and Libby, McNeil, and Libby would not be sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance. In conclusion...