55 nations have now signed a global asbestos ban; chrysotile is a form of asbestos stakeholders say is 'safe.' Clearly no level of asbestos is safe, according to the WHO and Surgeon General. Why are we continuing to send such a mixed signal? India is heading toward 600,000 metric tons/year!
Proper labeling is a quintessential part of the purchasing process. You can't compare smoking labels to food labels. Smokers are aware that it is unhealthy to flood your lungs with putrid smoke. Smoking concerns are taught in schools at a young age, people are conditioned to know the hazards of smoking. Hidden dangers in foods are a different story. I don't recall an elaborate health class covering the dangers of trans fats when I was a child. If there is garbage in your food, and you have no idea that it contains garbage, how is that fair?
There are so many products on the market that are hazardous to your health over a length of time. Many people do not realize that certain foods, drinks and substances are not good for you. The Surgeon General should have to put a warning on these products to let consumers decide for themselves.
Government should have the best interests of its people in mind, including our health. While not restricting our freedom of choice, Surgeon General's warnings are informative and can aim to prevent use of cigarettes, alcohol, junk food, and other products. It is merely a way of informing the consumer, and it may save our nation a great deal of money with health care costs.
I agree that other products in addition to cigarettes should bear warning from the Surgeon General because it reminds people of the health consequences. Sadly, a big portion of cigarette and alcohol users are teenagers who have not completed the health class or dropped out of school. Also, the surgeon's warning will help people make informed decisions.
Avoiding hazardous things has been stressed in all schools and public facilities, especially in the most recent years. However, many people, much of these including oblivious teenagers, do not realize the effects that certain drugs and dangerous products can do to them. So, having a warning label allows all customers to know exactly what the consequences are.
Any product resulting in known, quantifiable, and definitive harm to humans should absolutely come with a warning. Cigarettes are a good example of the types of products that should have warnings, as they cause undeniable harm and death. Chewing tobacco, cigars, and other carcinogens should bear these same warnings. Food products that are deemed harmful to one's health should contain these warnings as well.
The justice system gets bogged down with needless lawsuits, and having more warnings might cut down on that. After all, if someone were warned, what right would they have to sue? It would free up money and time for real justice to be done.
Consumers have the right to make informed choices, and in addition to this moral justification for regulation, the government has a public health and an economic rationale for mandating labels on unhealthy products. Without public confidence that risks have been identified and acknowledged, how can people make confident choices either as consumers or as investors? Without regulatory oversight, how can companies be trusted to forsake their short to medium-term interest in only marketing their products based on their attractive attributes? To be sure, in the long term, under a free market regime, word might get out that a particular product was unsafe, long after the manufacturer had made handsome profits and countless people were sickened or killed. But the long-term is too long a time to ask people to wait. Companies offering decent products have little to fear from the timely provision of accurate health information to the public.
Products that are hazardous to one's health should bear warnings from the Surgeon General, so that purchasers can make informed decisions. Currently, nutritional labels, for example, are useful but incomplete. Note that this is different from giving control over the sale of these products to the government, a policy that has not only failed spectacularly, as in the case of prohibition and drugs, but has generated criminal empires to meet the demand for those products. It is better to make information available, and let people decide for themselves what to do.
Cigarettes and alcohol both bear surgeon general warnings. Once a product is proved to be a health risk it is incumbent that consumers be aware of the risk they are taking by using such products.
Some people will actually take the warning into consideration if they can read that the product can have negative effects on health. Some people will just ignore the warning, but it is worth it to put the warning on the product because it can save people's lives, and it contributes to awareness of the negative consequences of using the product.
I agree with the statement because sufficient warning should be provided on the product's label thereby preventing health problems which may in turn cause death. If we take the case of medicines, most people don't know that if they are having high BP level, they should avoid some medicines that are given for flu symptoms. Some warning here may save somebody's life. This is same as the case of cigarette and other beverages as well.
I have no problem with products having a warning label when it can be proven that what the warning is saying is true. However, that is where the line should be drawn. The warning is there now let people decide if they still want to partake in the activity. That is what freedom is about. You can inform the public, but do not dictate behavior.
Studies have shown that many of the ingredients in cosmetics are potentially hazardous to our health, so these should be labeled, too. Chemicals do not undergo adequate testing before showing up in consumer products, and the buyer should be aware of the hazards presented by the substances in products meant for personal use. For too long industry has fought complete labeling of products, it's time for consumers to be protected.
I believe all products that are hazardous to your health should carry warnings, especially if they are available to our younger citizens. For example, energy drinks are very popular, but a lot of young people do not realize how dangerous these can be and should be made aware of the negative side effects. While most products are safe there are some that when are used or taken too much, they can adversely affect ones health.
Although most people know that smoking can kill you, there might be other products which are dangerous that people aren't aware of. I can see someone reading a label and having a 'did you know' moment, and steering clear of that product and spreading the word to other people about it. That is a good idea that is probably fairly easily put into affect.
Cigarettes are the only items that carry a health warning; other hazardous substances do not carry any such warning. As s result some youngsters that such substances do not pose as great a risk as cigarettes do. They end up smoking weed, consuming heroine and cocaine and consuming tobacco in other forms etc. By the time they realize the ill effects of such substances, it is almost too late for them to walk out of their addiction. So, authorities should consider branding such substances as harmful will hazardous to the human health.
While I think it is important that people know which products are directly tied to terminal illnesses, like cancer, ultimately, a large percentage of foods and other consumer goods could be hazardous to your health if you do not use common sense. But, unfortunately, it is not the Surgeon General's job to teach common sense.
This one galls me to no end. Do we, as a nation, trust our people to make decisions or not? Where does it stop? Not long ago, there was a story about a lady that poisoned herself from drinking too much water on some local radio show. Should we require all purveyors of water to put warning signs on their water bottles? Her family then turned around and sued everyone in sight. If we are going to put warning labels on things, I think that it should be over the mouths of lawyers.
Cigarette Surgeon General's warnings are possibly one of the most ignored warning labels to date. Cigarette packs clearly have a warning from the Surgeon General, and yet smoking is still at a high. There are over 1.35 billion smokers in the world, which means these "warning" labels are not exactly cutting it. If people thought the labels were so effective, they would quit smoking. Its that simple. Tobacco advertisements are also practically eliminated as a whole. How would adding more warning that the general public ignore be more useful? Spending and taxation would only increase due to the fact that extra labels have to be printed so general prices on all goods would increase.