Maria Brous, a Publix spokeswoman, is quoted as saying, “Our official position is we don’t get involved in the middle of labor disputes between our suppliers and other organizations.”

Well, Ms. Brous, Publix is already involved. I agree with Publix when it says that with more than 35,000 products it can’t get involved in all disputes with suppliers. Nor should they. But this is not just a labor dispute; this involves human rights.

How many of Publix’s suppliers are involved in actual convictions for slavery? I assume not too many. When Publix knowingly purchases tomatoes from fields tainted by the sweat of slaves (not just worker and human rights abuse but actual slavery convictions) Publix is involved in that “dispute” on the side of injustice and immorality.

In 1776 Adam Smith’s famous “Wealth of Nations,” advocating a free market economy, was published. But, before that, in 1759, Adam Smith’s “Theory of Moral Sentiments” was published, the book he considered as his “foundational” work. He said economics is not “amoral.” Any civilized social system (economic or otherwise) makes moral judgments and has moral consequences. Economics, wrote Smith, needs a moral base, which the free market does not provide.

Come on, Publix; you are much better than this. Until now your reputation has been exemplary. In this “labor dispute” moral principles should trump Publix’s company policy. Now I read that a Publix worker, claiming to be making an independent documentary, filmed our peaceful, nonviolent protests. This is a new low for Publix. Meet with the CIW. As a loyal Publix customer I expect nothing less.”