|
Abstract
|
It's too hard to tell what's actually harmful.
Warning labels are everywhere. They alert us to the risks of eating unhealthy foods, smoking cigarettes, taking prescription drugs, driving cars, using power tools, and performing many other activities. Ideally, these warnings provide requisite risk information, allowing people to decide for themselves whether an activity or a product's benefits outweigh its risks, whether to take those risks, and, if so, with what precautions.
But are our current warnings effective? Do they convey sufficient information for individuals to balance the risks and benefits? Our answer is a resounding "no." Our reasoning is that the present system fails miserably at distinguishing between large and small risks. A way to understand this is what we term wolves and puppies. Wolves are rarely seen but may eat your sheep -- and perhaps you as well, according to the fable of the shepherd boy. Puppies occasionally nip, but when they do, the results are rarely serious.
The problem with our present warning system is that it shouts "Danger!" for both wolves and puppies. Such a system is of little value; people quickly learn to ignore warnings since they encounter vastly more puppies than wolves. The result is that when a wolf is truly present, people pay little heed.
How did we get here? Warnings on widely used consumer products are a relatively new phenomenon. In the United States, beginning in 1927 with the Federal Caustic Poison Act, government policies requiring warnings initially focused on exposures that posed immediate, toxic hazards. Warnings for food and drugs followed in 1938 with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Cigarette warnings emerged in 1966. In the 1980s warnings for less-immediate, and often far less substantial, risks blossomed, mostly due to government requirements. Now, in the early 21st century, despite the large differences among products bearing warnings, our system is often one-style-fits-all....
Language: en |