# What if all companies were required to show the potential pitfalls of their product? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 6, 2003, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-all-companies-were-required-to-show-the-potential-pitfalls-of-their-product/186578 "2003-07-06T15:52:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-all-companies-were-required-to-show-the-potential-pitfalls-of-their-product/186578/21 "2003-07-07T19:51:19Z")
If 2% of the product users suffered ill efects, there would be the mother of all class action law suits against the manufacturer. If 10% of the populace uses a product, and 2% are harmed, that’s well over 400,000 people. Instead of a warning, the product should be fixed. Better ratched that down to about .02% to be realistic. Maybe lower. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2003, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-all-companies-were-required-to-show-the-potential-pitfalls-of-their-product/186578/22 "2003-07-08T13:26:18Z")
> [@](#): > > But I fall very far on the side of personal responsibility, and so don’t support product warnings. I can see where someone would support them, though, if they feel less inclinded to believe people are solely responsible for their own actions. But to use cigarette warnings as a example, the warnings are simply listing generally accepted facts about the likely side effects of using the product. So anyone who is considering buying the product will be aware of this information. Why is making it easier for people to make informed decisions a violation of personal responsibility? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2003, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-all-companies-were-required-to-show-the-potential-pitfalls-of-their-product/186578/23 "2003-07-08T16:14:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Little Nemo \* > \*\*But to use cigarette warnings as a example, the warnings are simply listing generally accepted facts about the likely side effects of using the product. So anyone who is considering buying the product will be aware of this information. Why is making it easier for people to make informed decisions a violation of personal responsibility? \*\* You answered your own question. It the facts are generally known, it’s your presonal responsibility to act on thost facts. There should be no need for someone to smack you over the head with them every day. After all, how much intelligence does it take to realize that breathing smoke into your lungs on a regular basis is not good for your health? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2003, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-all-companies-were-required-to-show-the-potential-pitfalls-of-their-product/186578/24 "2003-07-08T19:51:21Z")
On the other hand, what did it take to make everyone aware of that fact, really? You’d say it was common sense, but I don’t know, I wasn’t around when it became “public knowledge”, I don’t know if it was public knowledge until the Surgeon General’s warning came out. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2003, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-all-companies-were-required-to-show-the-potential-pitfalls-of-their-product/186578/25 "2003-07-09T04:29:38Z")
John, I said “generally accepted” not “generally known” - the two are not synonymous. Generally accepted information is facts that a consensus of impartial experts would agree are true. But unless these facts are passed on to the public in an understandable manner, they are not generally known information. I agree that people should have the right to use and consume products that may be hazardous to their well-being. But I can’t see how denying consumers information about the products they are buying serves any useful purpose (other than to sell the product in greater amounts). ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2003, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-all-companies-were-required-to-show-the-potential-pitfalls-of-their-product/186578/26 "2003-07-09T04:39:01Z")
Nemo: How many people in the US are unaware that smoking is bad for your health? I think we can say it is “generally known”. And they didn’t learn it by reading product warning labels. They learned it from watching TV and reading magazines and in school. You are eqauting the lack of forcing companies to discolose degative aspects of their products with denying consumers information. Those two are not at all the same. There are numerous health mags and TV shows that give consumers info about the goodness/badness of products. No one has been “denied” info if they have any inkling to find out. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2003, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-all-companies-were-required-to-show-the-potential-pitfalls-of-their-product/186578/27 "2003-07-10T02:53:19Z")
Damned post eating hamsters. John, it appears we are going to disagree on this issue. I think that the most logical place to provide information, both good and bad, about a product is at the point of sale. Media information would be a poor second choice for several reasons: it’s less convenient and efficient, the media generally focuses on extreme cases rather than the routine, media information is ephemoral, and media information is subject to editorial bias. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2003, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-all-companies-were-required-to-show-the-potential-pitfalls-of-their-product/186578/28 "2003-07-10T05:57:39Z")
OK. We can disagree. But I’m still right.🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-all-companies-were-required-to-show-the-potential-pitfalls-of-their-product/186578.md?page=1)