Chapter 04 – Demanding Ethical and Socially Responsible Behavior
4-59
Besides its less than appetizing marketing campaign, ProBugs simply does not work as adver-
tised. A study commissioned by Lifeway, owners of ProBugs, and published by Georgetown University
found that the yogurt does little to curb stomach problems or missed days in school. Other foods like Flax
Plus cereal and Sara Lee’s Soft & Smooth Plus white bread claim to be rich in heart-protecting omega-3
fatty acids, only they’re not the same beneficial fats found primarily in fish. Another product, Dream-
Water, advertises three additives that can lead to more satisfying sleep. In reality, the data on those addi-
tives are mixed at best, with one ingredient not even entering into the brain.
Food companies can make such broad claims thanks to a 1994 law allowing companies to pro-
mote the ways their products affect the normal “structure and function” of the body. However, the law
prohibits companies from making outright claims that a product can treat disease. Regardless, medicines
masquerading as snacks have become big business for food companies, pulling in more than $160 billion
worldwide annually. For now the FDA can’t do anything to stop these dubious claims due to another law
that exempts foods from pharmaceutical-style regulation. In the meantime, consumers are once again
warned not to believe everything they read on a product’s packaging. Many businesses fail because they
fail to please customers. If these products don’t live up to promises, do you think they will thrive or dis-
appear?v
lecture enhancer 4-8
APP-GATE AT UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI
By their nature, colleges are meant to foster thought and instill in students applicable knowledge
that will serve them well outside the university halls. Also hard at work within academic institutions are
scholars and researchers who, similar to their pupils, push past the current limits of human understanding
in order to better serve the world at large. Some would say that the only distinction between scholar and
student is that one is paid to gather information while the other pays for the privilege.
What happens, though, when the two intersect and the student begins making money off the fruits
of his or her knowledge and skills? A proud professor may mark the achievement as the sign of a job well
done, but the university’s bursar office may view it a bit differently. After all, many colleges claim a per-
centage of the profits from all ventures undertaken by faculty members who use school resources. Why
shouldn’t the same principles apply to students?
Administrators at the University of Missouri asked this same question when they demanded a 25% own-
ership stake and two-thirds of any profits from a student-made iPhone app. Undergraduate Tony Brown
devised the idea for a smartphone search engine of apartment listings in class and created the app on his
own time with three fellow students. Since its launch in March 2009, the app has had hundreds of thou-
sands of downloads and has led to a wealth of job offers for its creators. But the demands of the university
had Brown and company shaking as they squared off with an institution far older and better funded than
the lot of them. Luckily for the young entrepreneurs, resulting public outcry caused college officials even-
tually to relent. Mizzou subsequently implemented a policy that keeps the college’s hands off any student
project spawned from a school contest, extracurricular activity, or individual initiative. This issue is far
from resolved nationwide, however, as hundreds of other schools lack similarly explicit policies on their
books.vi