As natural earth grown resources become usurped by thousands of companies competing in the market place, a shift towards making more sustainable synthetic solutions finds its way into consumer products. Monsanto a leader in the dairy product industry developed the Bovaine Growth Hormone (BGH) to help cow’s produces more milk. This product is marketed for farmers to buy and use it on cows to increase profit potential. To make this all happen Monsanto got every necessary approval including the FDAs’ to bring this product to market. With minimal research data collected the product was able to pass testing either because Monsanto misrepresented the findings of the safety of BGH or the FDA did not appropriately evaluate the potential safety concerns that may arise. Thus we have in society large corporations pushing aside possible human health concerns in order to make a considerable return on investment. Well according to a Kantian perspective this does not justify the means to an end nor would this pass under a “veil of ignorance” according to John Rawls. Canada had found conflicting results with those reported from the studies and banned the use of BGH as a result of their findings. So in turn, Fox News reporters Jane and Steve decide to do an expose of this story. In the process of writing it up Monsanto sends a letter saying that Fox News station would face ‘dire consequences’ if they aired the story. The threats eventually were able to crack senior management at Fox and they decided to pull the story to avoid a potential law suit and loss of advertising dollars. The implications here are contradictory to what the US promotes themselves as being, which is a free speaking democratic country. Censorship of this story by Fox News is not only violating peoples trust in hearing the truth from the news, but it is also allowing hazardous products for humans to make its way into society. Jane and Steve were threatened by their employer to be fired for insubordination because they refused to give in and not air the story. They were bribed to drop it and still refused, so Fox executives agreed to air the story if both can agree on a draft that was fitting. In other words in a way that would deter the public eye of seeing BGH as something harmful and thus protecting Monsanto’s reputation. After 83 drafts and the rewriting of the story to distort the truth, the message was clear. Fox was stalling for time waiting for a window in Steve and Jane’s contract so they could be fired. The resulting outcome was a conflict occurring with Fox, the employer and the news reporters that had been fired. In a democratic society you have freedom of speech something that is blatantly disregarded by Fox News. A society that values truth so much, that it is the basis in determining a guilty versus non guilty verdict in the court of law. Then you hear stories of major corporations trying to develop potentially harmful products to increase profit for the few while potential creating life threatening issues for the many. This is a failure to be corporately responsible, where the bottom line is valued more than the potential issues that arise for society. This coupled with the fact that corporations will even conduct unethical treatment of employees to prevent loss profits, is appalling to see happen. Yes the issue at hand here is that BGH has many potential harmful side effects for humans, which is clear. The bigger issue like the legality of purposely lying to the public about a product that has potential side effects is in actuality an illegal practice. The lie takes place not only in what they are telling consumers but as well as what they are not saying. What this implies is unwillingness on the corporations end to be transparent about their practices and how the News, our ‘allies in the public’ are facilitating such unethical behaviour. Are all companies like Pfizer or Johnson & Johnson producing products with things that can be harmful to our health but covering it up in order to financially profit? This type of practice starts to erase the line of what is social acceptable to make money and what is not. Threats at the corporate level are able to suppress information that is vital to the consumer. There needs to be strictly regulations set in place, and a more cohesive way of designing a process that is not easily corruptible. Fox News turns a blind eye to Monsanto’s Prosilac because of the staggering business they receive from them, while totally disregarding the effect milk drinking consumers will face. A solution to control such unethical behaviour needs to be put in place or the future of what we will buy as consumers can have ‘dire consequences’ on our health and safety.