In addition to cigarettes, should other products that are hazardous to your health bear warnings from the Surgeon General?

  • Not wasting money

    People think it wastes money, but it doesn't considering how much money you save the NHS in the UK on preventable diseases all because you ate too much calories for your body to take.11% of A&E calls are because of food related diseases such as diabetes, arthritis, heart failure and etc. the levels of childhood obesity are rising in the UK and must be stopped!

  • U.S. Asbestos imports are condemned by health experts.

    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 allow for a happier, healthier life.

    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?

  • I support the Surgeon General labeling all products with warnings when they are hazardous to your health.

    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.

    Posted by: TMacias
  • Products that are dangerous to your health should have warnings from the Surgeon General because public health is important to the nation.

    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.

    Posted by: babyuniqh
  • I agree that other products in addition to cigarettes should bear warning from the Surgeon General because it reminds people of the health consequences.

    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.

    Posted by: SecondNoel50
  • I believe that it is only right to state to the customer the health risks of hazardous products.

    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.

    Posted by: DisastrousFerdinand30
  • Yes, because any product that can cause harm to people should come with a warning.

    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.

    Posted by: TedieDelight
  • I think more harmful products should have the surgeon general's warning, because it would inform people and also cut down on frivolous lawsuits.

    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.

    Posted by: darcyska
  • Yes, labeling unhealthy products is a good idea for reasons of health and fairness alike.

    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.

    Posted by: M4I4cFeIine
  • Because so many products can ultimately be hazardous to your health if used without sense, I do not believe that Surgeon General warnings should be placed on anything other than cigarettes.

    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.

    Posted by: ToughEfrain26
  • No, I don't think that cigarettes should even carry a warning, because if people have not figured out by now that they are dangerous, or can't tell from the experience of smoking, then they are not going to figure it out.

    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.

    Posted by: wahsfone
  • No, current labeling does not have a large enough effect on people to initiate more labels.

    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.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.