Hazards to Your Health
For the last 20 years Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) has been trying to persuade Congress to require health warning labels on containers for beer, wine and liquor. Thurmond is back again this year, getting a respectful hearing for his proposed legislation and support from such organizations as the National Council on Alcoholism, which along with other witnesses calls attention to the fact that about 100,000 Americans die each year from alcohol-related causes.
The alcohol warning labels, like those on cigarette packages that may have helped encouragea reduction in smoking, would be meant to alert consumers to hazards that they may be unaware of, perhaps even saving some lives. This surely is a humane and selfless goal, and it would be ignoble and insensitive to question it. But it strikes us as neither ignoble nor out of line to wonder whether the trend toward sticking warning labels on an increasing number of products is going too far. Or is it not going far enough?
The modern world is a complicated place, but it would be hard to argue that the people who live in it face any greater individual risks than did their ancestors in the 19th Century, or the 14th. What has changed as society has evolved isn’t so much the degree of risks that people are exposed to as the sense that there are things that can be done, sometimes through government intervention, to reduce possible harm. And so the makers of hair dryers caution their customers not to use them in the bathtub, and over-the-counter drugs carry warnings about possible side effects, and gasoline pumps now have little signs advising that exposure to what’s in them has been shown to be unhealthy.
Some of this undoubtedly does some good. But if the purpose of warning labels is to help protect health and life by alerting the public to possible risks, then surely consistency and the desirable aim of broadening potential protectiveness require that a lot more be done. Some examples of where more would be better:
Salt. In some people sodium works to raise blood pressure, and untreated high blood pressure can kill by bringing on such things as strokes and kidney disease. In view of this, shouldn’t all salt boxes and all restaurant salt shakers be required to carry warning labels? And shouldn’t the same advisories be applied to pickles, olives, sauerkraut and soy sauce, as well as the hamburgers, fried chicken and similar salt-laden products sold by fast-food restaurants?
Soda pop. The typical non-artificially sweetened soft drink contains 9 or 10 teaspoons of sugar, 150 or so empty calories. Sugar can produce tooth decay. It also can help make people fat, and obesity is clearly associated with heart disease, diabetes and some cancers. Ultimately, then, it can be argued that soft drinks may kill. Shouldn’t the public be alerted to this risk through a warning notice on each and every can and bottle it buys?
Vegetables. Scientists now know that many fruits and vegetables that have been eaten for perhaps thousands of years contain natural toxins and even carcinogens, nature’s way of protecting against disease-causing organisms and predators. Some experts think that exposure to these natural poisons may over time be more dangerous than exposure to man-made pesticides. Given this finite risk, shouldn’t the possible dangers of all that lovely stuff in the supermarket be publicly noted?
Transportation. Motor-vehicle accidents claim close to 50,000 lives a year in this country. Perhaps some of these victims could be spared if each car had a notice on its dashboard warning that driving can be hazardous to health. The same notice should of course be posted in airplanes. While we’re at it, how about elevators, which are definitely not good places to be in the event of earthquake or fire?
The point in all this, to underscore the obvious, is that life is not and never can be entirely risk-free. Certainly, where it’s practical and where the public-health risks are indeed broad, people ought to be informed about the potential dangers of the products that they use. But some common-sense standards must apply. Yes, overdoing it with alcohol can kill. But overdoing it with potato chips or ice cream or T-bone steaks may also eventually contribute to serious illness or early death; if people are to be advised of the risks of one thing that they eat or use, then why not of others? When all is said and done, perhaps what’s needed is not a steady stream of alerts but a single universal applicable advisory, something on the order of WARNING: THE VERY ACT OF LIVING IS KNOWN TO BE DANGEROUS TO HEALTH.