I was once at a swanky dinner seated next to one of the pillars of our capitalist community. The conversation turned to farming, as he had just "invested" a few mill in a large sheep unit that was selling for an inordinately low price. While his intention was to make a quick capital gain when the wool and/or lamb prices revived, he had become rather fond of farming and was thinking of sticking around for the "long haul".

"The thing about animals," he offered in a particularly philosophical aside, "is that when they are unproductive you can kill them. If only I could do that with my workers."

"Yes, but nor do animals ever buy anything from you," I replied.

This was not a concept that had ever occupied his brain before, in spite of the fact that he had made his millions from selling overpriced goods to people. I wonder whether this particular disconnect with reality is the greatest single problem facing our grocery business?

Is this lack of even a basic understanding of humanity what drives retailers to escalate the price of milk so that their poorest customers must compromise their diets just to foster grocery profits? If so, the business is on a path to losing its consumer base, if not quite to the same degree as Mr Big's desire to murder the unproductive.

The problem grocery has is that too many of its corporate suppliers are so focussed on absolute profits that the wellbeing of their customers is relegated to insignificance. This has already happened to the motor industry, which for decades rejected notions of driver and passenger safety because these were "unprofitable".

Ralph Nader forced them to reconsider, as various public health lawyers did to the tobacco industry – And not just because they stimulated political reactions against those corporations whose intent was to spin the science so that they could protect their margins.

No, what forced change was public reaction to the idea that their wellbeing was secondary to corporate profits. If companies want to profit from selling to humans, the bottom line is that they must present as human friendly, not just in their public relations, but in fact.

So when science points out that clear labelling could reduce the health risks of certain dietary components, like trans-fats, instead of screaming "what about my profits", companies should ask what they can do to facilitate change. Now that the evidence of clear labelling reducing levels of trans-fats in American bodies has been released, some shift by food producers in support of labelling clarity and accuracy would be nice.

Unlikely to happen, however, without a flotilla of nasty lawyers and shrill politicians mounting a concerted attack. So far we have only had the politicians, but with Monsanto found guilty in France  and Native Americans launching a case against US brewers,  the tide is turning.

Corporate cash may be able to turn some scientists in favour of the profit motive, but as the great man once said: "you can't fool all of the people all of the time".

The opinions of the writer are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the publisher.