WHEN IT COMES TO THE SAFETY OF YOUNG children, fire is a parent’s nightmare. Just the thought of their young ones trapped in their cribs or beds by a raging nocturnal blaze is enough to make most mothers and fathers take every precaution to ensure their children’s safety. Little wonder that when fire-retardant children’s pajamas first hit the market, they proved an overnight success. Within a few short years more than 200 million pairs were sold, and the sales of millions more were all but guaranteed. For their manufacturers, the future could not have been brighter. Then, like a bolt from the blue, came word that the pajamas were killers. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) moved quickly to ban their sale and recall millions of pairs. Reason: The pajamas contained the flame-retardant chemical Tris (2,3-dibromoprophyl), which had been found to cause kidney cancer in children.

Because of its toxicity, the sleepwear couldn’t even be thrown away, let alone sold. Indeed, the CPSC left no doubt about how the pajamas were to be disposed of—buried or burned or used as industrial wiping cloths. Whereas just months earlier the manufacturers of the Tris-impregnated pajamas couldn’t fill orders fast enough, suddenly they were worrying about how to get rid of the millions of pairs now sitting in warehouses.

Soon, however, ads began appearing in the classified pages of Women’s Wear Daily. “Tris-Tris-Tris . . . We will buy any fabric containing Tris,” read one. Another said, “Tris—we will purchase any large quantities of garments containing Tris.” The ads had been placed by exporters, who began buying up the pajamas, usually at 10 to 30 percent of the normal wholesale price. Their intent was clear: to dump* the carcinogenic pajamas on overseas markets.24 Tris is not the only example of dumping. There were the 450,000 baby pacifiers, of the type known to have caused choking deaths, that were exported for sale overseas, and the 400 Iraqis who died and the 5,000 who were hospitalized after eating wheat and barley treated with a U.S.-banned organic mercury fungicide. Winstrol, a synthetic male hormone that had been found to stunt the growth of American children, was made available in Brazil as an appetite stimulant for children.
DowElanco sold its weed killer Galant in Costa Rica, although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) forbade its sale........

Discussion Questions 1. Complete the following statements by filling in the blanks with either “moral” or “nonmoral” (e.g., factual, scientific, legal):

a. Whether or not dumping should be permitted is a question.

b. “Are dangerous products of any use in the third world?” is a question.

c. “Is it proper for the U.S. government to sponsor the export of dangerous products overseas?” is a question.

d. Whether or not the notification system works as its supporters claim it works is a question.

e. “Is it legal to dump this product overseas?” is a question.

2. Explain what dumping is, giving some examples. Does dumping raise any moral issues? What are they? What would an ethical relativist say about dumping?
3. Speculate on why dumpers dump. Do you think they believe that what they are doing is morally permissible?
How would you look at the situation if you were one of the manufacturers of Tris-impregnated pajamas?
4. If no law is broken, is there anything wrong with dumping? If so, when is it wrong and why? Do any moral considerations support dumping products overseas when this violates U.S. law?
5. What moral difference, if any, does it make who is dumping, why they are doing it, where they are doing it, or what the product is?
6. Critically assess the present notification system.
Is it the right approach, or is it fundamentally flawed?
7. Putting aside the question of legality, what moral arguments can be given for and against dumping?
What is your position on dumping, and what principles and values do you base it on? Should we have laws prohibiting more types of dumping?