At 4:53 this afternoon, it occurred to me that the day had flown by and it was time to say hasta manana, only to return tomorrow for more desk side debauchery. I wandered to the other side of the cubicle wall to say good-bye to my co-workers and they were engaged in an interesting conversation. Something about corporate logos on a nonprofit's website and the message they send to visitors.
Apparently, the bright, bold logos for Frito Lay and Kentucky Fried Chicken are featured on the Susan G. Komen For the Cure website. And of course because these companies have donated significantly to the organization they are featured on the Million Dollar Council Elite page - a little donor recognition isn't a crime.
This makes sense, doesn't it? I mean, it seems logical that the organization is recognizing the corporate social responsibility of these major donors and letting people who benefit from the research or programs that Susan G. Komen supports know about them. Right?
This makes sense, doesn't it? I mean, it seems logical that the organization is recognizing the corporate social responsibility of these major donors and letting people who benefit from the research or programs that Susan G. Komen supports know about them. Right?
However, they are also promoting brands of foods that contain chemicals and products that may lead to unhealthy living and increase the chances of breast cancer among an already at-risk population.
So what should Susan G. Komen For the Cure do? I discussed this with a few colleagues today and one of the women, shared that her mother lost her battle with breast cancer at an early age, and she felt that this was contradictory to the work that the organization is trying to do. She begged the question, "Why is the organization essentially endorsing products that lead to high-blood pressure, obesity and unhealthy living? These things endanger the women they are trying to help."
Well, I turned to our other colleague and she disagreed. Wow - did she disagree! She felt that the foods produced by these labels could be consumed in moderation and the organization trusted people to make their own choices. If these companies wanted to assuage their guilt and repair some of the damage they have done by putting unhealthy foods on the market then so be it. These companies needed to be educated and engaged too, just like the average consumer. While they were still selling unhealthy foods, many seemed to be creating alternative menus and trying to present healthier options, "They need time to completely change their lines of business. it won't happen overnight," she said.
She had a point, fast, cheap, junkfood allowed them to make millions so they can now give to the organization right? The first voice chimed in again and asked - "At what cost? If they hadn't made millions selling unhealthy food - would the country be healthier? "
I of course played the moderator for the discussion and when the two reached an impasse, I re-assured them that they both presented compelling arguments. But after the conversation, I was left a little jilted. Are dollars from the enemy a blessing or a necessary evil?
What do you think?
