ADA

The article linked about ethics and the American Diabetes Association brought up a lot of interesting points. In my opinion the issue this organization is facing brings up the glaring flaw in the PRSA Code of Ethics. If being an advocate for your organization is the primary goal of a PR Practitioner, then the ADA is acting ethically. Without sponsorship money, they cannot function. As long as they inform the public on healthy lifestyle choices, then they are being ethical. However letting food companies use the ADA logo on their packages is leading the public to believe that those foods are safe for a diabetic and healthy for consumers. In actuality the logo simply means they have donated money to the ADA’s cause. When the ADA does not allow them to use their logo, then that costs them sponsorship money, which in turn hurts them. So the question is, what hurts more? Food giants like Cadbury make both junk foods and healthy ones, so where does the ADA draw the line. My vote would be to not accept money from companies that do not on some level promote a healthy lifestyle. Denying the Burger King money is understandable and essential. Credibility is an important principle in PR and the ADA would be nothing without it. The logo should only be placed on recommended foods.