Aggrevation Breeds Inspiration

Last night I found myself witness to yet another series of platitudes about food production, food service, the environment and this ephemeral concept: "corporate responsibility."  Let me describe what set me off:  I am a student of culinary management.  A description of just what that is is the subject of further discussion.  Being this student I found myself witness to a lecture on emerging trends and how small operators can define and participate in those trends, without the funds to engage in the requisite market research.  The example before us was McDonald's.  Before we go any further let me be clear: I am not a McDonald's hater, nor do I ascribe to the philosophy that all corporations of a given size are evil.  Rather I am of the mind that corporations, their power and size, are socially created, supported and justified.  Again, the subject of further discussion.  Returning to the lecture, McDonald's has 'uncovered' through its extensive and expensive market research that there are several trends which are of interest to their potential consumer base, including the environment and consumer health.  In response McDonald's has made available a summary of their corporate referendum aimed at addressing these concerns (http://www.mcdonalds.com/usa/good/report.html).  In this referendum McDonald's lists a number of achievements in its changing relationship to environment.  Several of us voiced concern that these achievements were for the most part based on goals set internally, without the direct input or oversight of organizations devoted to the monitoring of environmentally-helpful modes of production.  To give an analogy, this is much like a doctor saying that she has determined for herself what defines ethical practices in the domain of medicine and based upon that determination and her own observations of herself has found herself to be an ethically sound practitioner.  See the problem?  Our concerns were met with defensiveness and an element of disdain (and the accusation that we were just McDonald's haters).  And yet this lecture was literally being given under the title "Corporate Responsibility".  So what I wanted to know was whether we, as potential food service operators, were being encouraged to produce the semblance of care and responsibility in relation to production practices or if we were being encouraged actually to produce food and food service with an attitude of care and responsibility?  In the dismissal of that question, I got my answer:  The consumer (aka the person who pays the bills) wants to think that we care, but it doesn't really matter if we do.  It should be obvious by now that I have some serious problems with that answer.

As food service operators and as consumers we wield incredible power: the power of the dollar.  With incredible power should come incredible responsibility, (remembering of course that the domain of ethics deals not with what is but what should be (and perhaps how to get from 'should' to another, better 'is')).  There is no stronger force in American politics, or American social practices, today than the persuasive power of the dollar, and as consumers and operators we can choose to use that power to develop a future or to eradicate the possibility of a future at all.  The choice is there and no matter where your sympathies lie, it is anything but an easy question and anything but a platitude to be swept under the rug.

As a final thought, I find it particularly insidious that this kind of responsibility can be so easily dismissed when dealing with food, the original and most primal sign of care.  Food production and food service, that is, feeding each other, is the first, the last, and sometimes the only tangible care we can show for each other.  If that fact alone does not encourage a legitimate discussion of responsibility, corporate or otherwise, I am at a loss for what can.