Creating effective strategies for marketing food products often brings ethical issues to the forefront. This is particularly true for products, such as natural foods, in which health claims are under consideration for inclusion in the marketing mix. The Natural Cereals case provides one example of how such ethical concerns may arise, as well as the complexities which may be associated with these.

Natural Cereals is a division of Breakfast Foods, Inc. (BFI), a national food products manufacturer with multiple product lines. Sally Thompson is a new assistant branch manager in the marketing department. Her initial project is to develop a marketing strategy that will boost the company's share of the adult cereal market, using both product advertising and labeling approaches. The line has four bran/fiber brands which in the recent past have been losing market share to competitors' cereals that have promoted a link between consumption of fiber and possible reduction in cancer risk in their marketing.

Two other BFI marketing staff members are involved in shaping the strategic marketing approach: Tom Miller, a 20-year BFI group product manager, is Sally's supervisor, but -- because of his busy schedule -- Tom has assigned his protégé, Joe Bradley, a 4-year BFI employee and relatively new product manager, to informally supervise Sally on this project.

To complete this first important assignment, Sally has to achieve a balance between several demands -- some of which are conflicting. Specifically, Joe and Tom have somewhat different approaches to advertising strategies, with Tom placing greater emphasis on truthfulness and persuasion, and Joe placing greater emphasis on products' sales results or bottom line impact. Tom has even developed a list of questions he uses to evaluate the ethical and legal impacts of advertising for which he is responsible. These questions assess accuracy, competent/reliable evidence of health claims, disclosure of limitations or qualifications, consideration of context of claims, and consistency of label and advertising; Joe, on the other hand, discounts these

Sally also recognizes that if BFI's natural cereals' labels contain health-related claims (as do the company's competitors' products), they must conform to the FDA's (November 1987) criteria for food labeling. These criteria include that information on labels must be: (a) truthful , not misleading; (b) based on and consistent with scientific evidence that is publicly available; and, (c) focused on total diet rather than specific foods.

At the same time, Sally has personal issues that impinge on her decision as well, including a family history of cancer and a recent personal cancer "scare." Furthermore, she is new on the job, and has her own high expectations, as well as those of Tom and Joe to factor into her performance of this task. Additionally, in his role as manager, Tom's success is judged, in part, by the success of individuals whom he manages. In informally delegating project oversight to Joe, Tom has passed along the same standard to him. Also impacting the situation is a relationship between Tom and Joe, in which personal friendship and a work relationship seem intertwined, providing Joe with additional ability to leverage Sally's decisions through both formal and informal channels.

Sally faces a difficult decision: BFI's Natural Cereals are similar to competitors in their nutritional composition. Competitors have gained market advantage in the recent past by touting the health benefits of their products vis a vis specific ingredients (bran and fiber, for instance) which they have asserted are associated with lowering the risk of certain cancers. But BFI is coming late to the cancer-fighting, health-benefits bandwagon.

In the years since cereal products of BFI's competitors first started pushing the fiber/bran cancer prevention connection, both new scientific evidence as well as new federal regulations have been promulgated. New advertising campaigns and food labels have to meet more stringent standards; moreover, studies are now showing the link between consumption of bran/fiber and cancer prevention may not be as strong as was first believed. There is even evidence that BFI's competitors' health claims are misleading. Because of this, Sally feels that BFI's advertising and product labeling should be more cautious and perhaps "toned down" with respect to its health claims.

A memo from Tom suggests that he is likely to agree with a more conservative approach, but Joe -- to whom Tom has delegated authority -- has a different opinion. The crux of the ethical issue for Sally is whether she should design a labeling and advertising campaign that strongly promotes the health benefits -- thereby ignoring new scientific evidence, new FDA standards and Tom's criteria -- as Joe obviously wants her to do; or whether she should design marketing strategy that less aggressively links Natural brands to cancer reduction and is more scientifically-grounded and aligned with the FDA's standards and Tom's criteria. The ethical problem has principally to do with how accurate, reliable and truthful the health claims made on the label and in Natural brands product labels are. Should she press ahead with marketing strategies adopted earlier by BFI's competitors, even though she has evidence that their claims have now been scientifically challenged, because she doesn't want to go head-to-head with Joe? Will harm come to BFI's customers from misleading them into thinking that Natural brands' ingredients will help them prevent cancer -- when such ingredients do not offer any such prevention potential? Will BFI be placed at risk if its advertising claims are proven misleading? These questions highlight the ethical conundrum Sally is facing.

• Option 1: Promote "Vitamin Enrichment" in a hard-hitting packaging and advertising campaign;
• Option 2: Promote the products' increased percentage of bran and fiber and their cancer-prevention properties and/or add "natural" to the brand name; and,
• Option 3: Promote the products as high-fiber, low-fat natural foods and use other marketing strategies (coupons, discounts, cookbooks) to build brand loyalty and identity via a broad-based marketing approaches that avoid specific mention of health claims.

Outcome I

If Option 1 is pursued, Sally would have difficulty showing any link between vitamin enrichment and product benefit for most potential customers in the U.S., for whom vitamin enrichment is not necessary. A case can be made that encouraging individuals to pay for vitamin supplementation they don't need (and that their bodies cannot use) is inherently unethical.

Likely Impact

If Sally promotes Option I, it will promote the consumption of vitamins that are unnecessary and unusable by most consumers' bodies, with a misleading impression that this consumption is somehow healthy and good. This is tantamount to promoting a benefit that is actually no benefit at all. Consumers will be wasting their money and not receiving the health benefit implied.

Moreover, Option I is unlikely to boost the sales of Natural brands in any significant fashion because vitamin deficiency is not a concern to many customers. Furthermore, Sally will have to directly confront Joe -- and ultimately take her ideas directly to Tom -- to get this option approved. This confrontation is not worthwhile for such a weak strategy, because it challenges her work reputation without providing a discernable benefit to anyone.

If Sally values telling consumers the complete story in advertising, and incorporating accurate and credible scientific evidence -- as she seems to -- she will not pursue this option. Additionally, if she values making a good impression early in her career at BFI, she needs to come up with a strategy that is more creative and more likely to have a strong impact on consumer behavior than this one. This option is not one worth challenging Joe's authority over.

If Sally pursues Option 2 -- pushing the brands' fiber/brand cancer-prevention connection -- she would be basing Natural brands' claims on insufficient scientific evidence and/or flying in the face of evidence that increased percentages of bran and fiber do not necessarily have significant cancer-prevention properties. She may also risk BFI's reputation and brand status.

It is likely that BFI brands would (at least temporarily) pick up market share from individuals hoping to prevent cancer by consuming the cereals. This, of course, would be a false hope, since cancer prevention is not known to be associated with consumption of any single food item or brand, but with many lifestyle choices, environmental conditions and genetic predispositions. Option 2's only advantage would be that Joe would support this course of action; however, his support is not a good reason to proceed, especially since Sally has evidence that Joe and Tom are not in as much agreement about making unsupported health claims as Joe has tried to imply. Tom's memo provides Sally with pretty strong evidence that Tom would not support Option 2, and Tom is her actual boss.

Sally would have to value cooperation and avoidance of conflict (with Joe) above truth, honesty and corporate or personal responsibility to customers to send Option 2 forward. From the material provided, it appears, however, that she knows the value of consumers having accurate, up-to-date information about health benefits of foods. It seems that she would be very unlikely to press for Option 2 under these circumstances.

Option 2 violates FDA standards, many of Tom's criteria, and her own personal inclinations. In fact, its only attractive feature is that it has Joe's enthusiastic support. But this cannot be enough to sway Sally.

As a person who has had cancer in her family and personally experienced a health crisis, she knows how easy it is to exploit consumers' fear of this disease; but she also knows that new research shows that her company's products do not offer much (if any) protective function. Because of her personal standards -- including the Categorical Imperative and the "Golden Rule" -- she will not be a party to advertising her brands as cancer prevention agents when they are not. She would not like to be mislead by such claims and will not mislead others.

Because Joe is in the picture, standing between her and Tom, Sally may perceive this is a situation in which TRUTH is in competition with her CAREER INTERESTS at BFI. She will therefore have to weigh what crossing Joe will mean to her long-term prospects at the company as she makes her decision on Option 2; however, even if Joe and Tom are friends and Joe will one day be Tom's successor, she should face this critical question now, rather than later: Can she falsely promote a product with health claims that she knows are untrue, just to avoid confrontation and conflict with a supervisor? If this is what the job at BFI requires, is this the right position for her?

Outcome III

Option 3 -- that is, to promote the products as high-fiber, low-fat natural foods and use other traditional cereal marketing strategies ( such as coupons, discounts, cookbooks) to build brand loyalty and identity via a broad-based marketing approaches that avoid specific mention of health claims -- has much to recommend it. First of all, it is honest and scientifically supportable. It meets all of the FDA criteria and Tom's guidelines. It also is an approach Sally can personally feel comfortable about -- she is pushing for the inclusion of methods that have been shown to boost product sales.

It is likely that the cereal consuming public will be attracted to this campaign because it ties overall healthy lifestyles with promotion of premiums. Individuals who are seeking a high-fiber, low-fat diet (either on their own or on a recommendation of their physician) will be attracted to the product for these qualities -- without having the product specifically spell out, promise or imply that certain health benefits will occur. Sales of the product should increase, as the company wishes it to. Moreover, it is an approach that will not threaten BFI in any way.

This option places a premium on the value of truth, with an associated stress on healthy lifestyles overall. It also values consumer intelligence and consumers' ability to think and make decisions, as adults. The strategy links diet and exercise, which provide a good, solid role model for BFI's adult consumers, without being preachy or promising too many benefits that can't be delivered. The associated promotions are "opt in" opportunities for consumers to gain even further benefits from product purchase, so that there is a monetary value component, as well. Overall, this is a strategy that has balance and mass appeal.

The single difficulty with the approach is that it will not meet with Joe's approval. He will be advocating for hard-edged health-related claims, as used by competitors. He does not seem to care that such an approach may not meet with FDA approval -- or that it is not appropriate to claim a product does something without solid evidence.

The core issue in this case revolves around truth in advertising and Sally's need to establish her reputation and status in her new workplace. Her primary obligation to BFI is to produce a marketing strategy that is legally defensible, fair and ethical to BFI's consumers as well as results-oriented (sales enhancing). The major stumbling block to achieving these at present is Joe, whose sole emphasis is on product sales.

Morally, Sally must balance her need for workplace status -- and perhaps even her job itself -- against the need BFI's consumers have for truthful information about the cereals' ingredients and their real benefits. She knows that promoting the cereals as cancer prevention agents is not truthful, therefore such a course of action is morally indefensible.

Ethically she cannot place her own status ahead of the status of millions of consumers who could be mislead by false advertising into thinking they were receiving a health benefit when there was not one. This would allow the company to profit -- or gain an economic advantage -- based on misleading, untruthful information.

In addition, because Sally is aware that both scientific evidence and FDA regulations are evolving and changing, she cannot allow BFI to be placed in a position where their reputation or economic position would be threatened because of a misleading, untruthful advertising campaign. She is in possession of information that this could occur if such claims are made, therefore she cannot pursue Option 2 without incontrovertible evidence that the company's products do actually help prevent cancer. Because such evidence is not in hand (and is unlikely to be forthcoming at any time), another option has to be pursued.

As to the problems posed by Joe, these are not insurmountable. Joe is unlikely to have the power to fire Sally; his authority over her is informal. Tom's perspective on health claims are already aligned with Sally's; his memo provides the evidence for this. The close relationship between Tom and Joe will confound the resolution of the issue, but it cannot be used as an excuse not to do the right thing.

Sally's professional and personal obligations are best satisfied by pursuit of Option 3. Her concern for her status at BFI must be secondary to her concern for BFI's customers and for the reputation of the company itself. She cannot avoid confrontations (such as with Joe) or difficult decisions because she wants to keep peace with a nominal supervisor. She has no choice but to recommend the advertising and labeling messages and methods which she knows best serve consumers' and the company's interests. Even if she should experience negative feedback or adverse career consequences, she should be guided by these higher ethical principles.

It is impossible to determine how Tom or Joe will react to Sally's recommendations; whether she would be reassigned to other work with Joe taking over and implementing Option 2, for example, or whether this would result in a break in Joe and Tom's relationship. Sally can probably anticipate that Joe will not have a positive reaction to her recommendation, however what he will specifically do in response is unknown.