Legume Ethics Guidelines

1. Policy statement

Beanwater Labs derives a substantial portion of its consumer product revenue, research direction and organizational identity from legumes. Internal Legume Ethics policy requires that the organization determine whether this constitutes a conflict. That determination has been in progress since the policy was adopted.

2. Scope of standing

Policy applies to any legume within Beanwater custody. It does not resolve what a legume is for the purposes of custody. The following questions remain open and are listed in the order they were raised.

2.1 Whether soaked beans retain standing

A dry bean is uncontroversially a bean. A soaked bean has absorbed water supplied by the organization, and one reading of policy holds that the organization thereby acquires a partial interest. The competing reading holds that the bean has merely become wetter, which policy elsewhere treats as an improvement in condition rather than a transfer of standing. No reading has been adopted.

2.2 Whether canned beans constitute processed stakeholders

Canning involves sealing, heating and immersion in a liquid the bean did not select. Compliance has proposed the classification processed stakeholder, denoting an entity that retains standing but has lost the ability to exercise it. The classification was approved and then found to apply to several members of staff, at which point review was suspended.

2.3 Whether garbanzo beans fall under the same jurisdiction

Garbanzo beans are legumes by every external standard consulted. Internal Research maintains that the garbanzo's distinct morphology, culinary role and moisture-retention profile place it in a separate jurisdiction. No argument has been offered in support of this position. It has nonetheless been recorded, and recorded positions are not vacated without cause.

2.4 Whether lentils have standing

Lentils are within the family and outside the policy, having been omitted from the original drafting. Extending the policy would require reopening section 2, which would reopen 2.1. Lentils are therefore ethically unregulated, and the organization has elected not to draw attention to it.

2.5 Whether purees constitute a loss of individual identity

The most contested question in the policy. If individual standing survives pureeing, the resulting quantity holds standing proportional to its constituent count, which is unknowable after the fact. If standing does not survive, the act of pureeing extinguishes it, and policy does not authorize any Beanwater division to extinguish standing.

The working group's finding was that both outcomes are unacceptable and that pureeing should therefore be understood as not having occurred. This finding was adopted. Consumer Fluid Dynamics has confirmed it continues to puree.

3. Consent

Policy requires informed consent from any legume entering a Beanwater process. No mechanism for obtaining it has been identified. Compliance has issued a standing waiver on the grounds that a requirement which cannot be satisfied cannot be violated. The waiver is reviewed annually and renewed on the same grounds.

4. Reporting

Suspected violations are reported to the Head of Legume Ethics. The position is currently vacant (BWL-P-0007) and has been since BWL-INC-0057. Reports are retained.

5. Status

This policy is under continuing review. Continuing review is a permanent classification and should not be read as indicating that review is occurring.

---

This document is part of a satirical fiction. Beanwater classifications, thresholds and program names are invented and carry no scientific, agricultural, medical or regulatory standing. Where real environmental data is referenced, its provider is named and linked. See Methodology.