Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • If you live in the U.S., you've probably seen

  • warning labels on products like these.

  • A warning label is a label designed to inform

  • consumers about a potential risk.

  • The more graphic, the more colorized the message.

  • It does change people's minds.

  • But here's the thing. Researchers aren't

  • convinced warning labels actually work.

  • One of my main complaints about warnings is that

  • they've become ubiquitous. With

  • everything in the supermarket is labeled as

  • dangerous, you don't know what to buy.

  • We're such a litigious society, and because of

  • that, we have unnecessary warnings.

  • Warning labels by themselves is just not

  • effective. They really need to be coupled with

  • safe design.

  • There's some controversy, I think, particularly in

  • the U.S., because it's a deep value we have, the

  • value of free choice and liberty.

  • And so when someone smacks a warning label on

  • something, we feel like our liberties have been

  • imposed despite the fact that we're still free to

  • purchase that item.

  • So why are warning labels so scary and do they even

  • work?

  • There are many different types of warning labels,

  • but let's split them up into two categories:

  • 'think twice before buying' and 'be careful

  • using this.' 'Think twice' labels are trying

  • to warn the consumer that they may want to

  • reconsider buying this.

  • So an example could be this product was

  • manufactured in a facility that also

  • processes peanuts, which is a known allergen.

  • 'Be careful while using this' is trying to

  • anticipate basically anything a person could do

  • wrong with the product.

  • A plastic bag could be dangerous to a child.

  • This should not be used as infant formula, and

  • this one involves electricity, so a lot of

  • things can go wrong.

  • Some types of warning labels work, and the

  • reason why they work is, in part, because they make

  • people feel bad.

  • They make people pause and think about the

  • negative health consequences.

  • Warning labels really were fairly rare until the

  • 1960s. So until then, about the only products

  • meriting a warning label were dangerous chemicals

  • such as sulfuric acid that would be labeled

  • poison or prescription drugs.

  • But beginning in the mid 1960s, cigarettes started

  • to have a warning label, and since that time other

  • products have followed suit trying to emulate the

  • cigarette experience.

  • One of the reasons for this rise is in 1986,

  • California passed ballot initiative, Proposition

  • 65, into law, which required consumer products

  • to declare warnings about "chemicals known to the

  • state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity."

  • The two kinds of labels that were mandated, labels

  • for carcinogens and labels for reproductive

  • toxicants. The carcinogens include

  • anything that would cause cancer, the over 70-year

  • lifetime of daily exposure.

  • So it now includes 800 chemicals on the list and

  • the reproductive toxicants include

  • everything that would affect the growth of the

  • fetus. So it created a lot of hysteria among

  • firms because almost everything is potentially

  • a carcinogen or a reproductive toxicant.

  • A coffee, for example, has many carcinogens in

  • coffee, but they're very small and what you want to

  • do is distinguish really tiny risks from larger

  • risks.

  • This has made it difficult for consumers to

  • distinguish between big risks and small ones.

  • Experts recommend that companies scale back on

  • warning labels that involve modest risk.

  • Researchers also want to know what makes an

  • effective warning label.

  • Leslie John did a study to see what it would take

  • to make people think twice about buying sugary

  • drinks.

  • What we did was we worked with a couple of

  • convenience stores in San Francisco and we varied

  • the labels that accompanied the sugary

  • drinks, and every couple of weeks we'd switch up

  • the labels and we measured, each week,

  • sales. And what we found, it was only these graphic

  • warning labels that curbed people's purchasing

  • of sugary drinks. So the text label didn't do

  • anything and I think that's partly because

  • people kind of already know this, but when you

  • show it graphically, it elicits emotion and

  • feeling, and it's the feeling that really moves

  • us to take pause at our actions.

  • The graphic warning labels decreased people's

  • propensity to buy sugary drinks by about 15%.

  • I've developed what I think are criteria for

  • when they will work.

  • First, they have to provide new information.

  • They have to be convincing, so they have

  • to be credible.

  • When companies are making statements against their

  • financial interest, that would tend to be credible.

  • When we do see labels that work, it's probably driven

  • by lots of things. But I would surmise that some of

  • it may also be driven by surprise, by salience.

  • This is a new weird thing, and so it catches

  • your attention and so you're more likely to pay

  • attention to it and it's more likely to affect you.

  • The 'be careful with this' warning labels may not be

  • effective either.

  • No one's reading a book before they use a product,

  • especially if it's a product that's easy to

  • use, intuitive to use, or where they can generalize

  • use. In other words, they've used a product

  • similar enough that they can figure it out.

  • You and I have probably seen hundreds of warning

  • labels in the last week and we probably don't

  • remember any of them. And that's the problem with

  • just relying on warning labels.

  • They're the icing on the cake rather than the end

  • all be all. As consumers, when we buy product from

  • online or in a store, we assume that they're safe

  • and we assume that they've been vetted for

  • safety. That's not always true.

  • Sometimes it's not possible to eliminate the

  • hazard. For example, you can't take the flame out

  • of a lighter or you're not going to light your

  • grill. There's something called the safety

  • hierarchy, and the safety hierarchy first begins

  • with designing out the risk.

  • So making sure that you're either eliminating

  • the risk completely, and then from there, if it's

  • not possible to design this risk out, it's really

  • about guarding against it, and that's like a

  • physical guard or like a procedural, like the

  • example of a lawn mower.

  • On my own lawn mower, I have to press a button and

  • pull a lever for it to run.

  • And the last tier is actually warning labels.

  • If you can't guard against it, you can't

  • eliminate it completely, then you warn.

  • There's not attempt to convey information

  • succinctly, it's really an attempt to cover

  • yourself against all the potential lawsuits and

  • problems that might arise, which is not that

  • effective.

  • The FDA is responsible for regulating things like

  • food and tobacco products, but the Consumer

  • Product Safety Commission or the CPSC doesn't have

  • the same authority to subject consumer products

  • to the same rigorous standards.

  • Under the Consumer Product Safety Act, the CPSC

  • generally needs to rely on voluntary standards

  • before they can create any mandatory standard.

  • And these voluntary standards are created in a

  • consensus-based environment where the

  • process is about bringing together industry

  • manufacturers, third-party testers,

  • consumer organizations, consumers, doctors, and

  • anybody else who wants to participate, they can.

  • ASTM is a standards development organization

  • that facilitates the development of voluntary

  • consensus standards.

  • So they bring together stakeholders who are

  • interested in developing a voluntary standard.

  • The CPSC is required by Congress to first work

  • through the voluntary standards process to

  • develop standards for products before moving on

  • to developing a regulation. And they can

  • move on to a regulation if one of three conditions

  • occurs. One is if they go to stakeholders and say,

  • 'hey, we think a voluntary standard is

  • needed,' and if stakeholders come back

  • manufacturers and say, 'no, we're not doing it,'

  • then CPSC can proceed.

  • Or if industry and stakeholders say, 'yes, we

  • are going to proceed and develop a voluntary

  • standard,' and they develop one, but it's not

  • stringent enough to address the key hazards,

  • then CPSC can move forward with the

  • regulation. Or thirdly, if they develop a

  • voluntary standard and it is stringent enough to

  • address the key hazards, but they aren't seeing

  • compliance in the field, then CPSC can move

  • forward.

  • One safety issue that has led to regulation is

  • furniture tipping over, especially onto children.

  • CPSC has documented nearly 200

  • tip-over-related child fatalities between January

  • 2000 and April 2022.

  • Now, there is a federal law called the Sturdy Act,

  • which was adopted into a mandatory safety standard

  • in April 2023.

  • It's currently in the transition to being

  • implemented across industry.

  • The Sturdy Act is a prime example of how warning

  • labels work really well with the strong standard,

  • but alone would be insufficient.

  • So everybody wants to do what they can to keep

  • dressers safe. There's just been a lot of

  • questions around what that actually means.

  • So it's really about the devil in the details.

  • There are good players, good actors and

  • manufacturers that are trying really hard to make

  • sure that they build a very stable dresser, but

  • there are also bad players who might be

  • trying to skirt the system because before

  • sturdy act, it was a voluntary standard.

  • And so you might get that one manufacturer that's

  • trying to cut a corner and save a little bit of

  • money by using a less stable design and putting

  • people at risk. So really Sturdy is very good at

  • making sure that everybody is playing by

  • the same rules.

  • Warning labels may also help companies' bottom

  • lines.

  • Companies often put warnings on products to

  • cover themselves with potential litigation.

  • So it's not necessarily to inform consumers, but

  • to try to head off a potential complaint down

  • the road.

  • The warning label from the U.S., as most people know

  • who have seen cigarette packs, is this small

  • little warning label says the tobacco industry was

  • lobbying for this.

  • The label does not have any noticeable impact on

  • public health and smoking, but provides a

  • very handy legal defense in a court case in case

  • the tobacco industry is sued for wrongful death.

  • Vasquez's research shows that cigarette warning

  • labels don't do much to change consumer behavior,

  • which hasn't really hurt companies' bottom lines.

  • And what I found is that there was no effect of the

  • warning labels, any of the different graphic

  • warning labels in terms of improving consumer

  • comprehension. You can find survey evidence that

  • says if you ask people, show them a graphic

  • warning label, does this make you think more about

  • quitting? And they'll say yes.

  • But in terms of actually affecting smoking

  • behavior, no evidence in any country that they've

  • shifted smoking behavior.

  • It has been used as a defense in a court of law.

  • 'Well, see, there was this warning label.

  • You should have known.

  • You assumed the risk.' This is the assumption of

  • risk argument.

  • Some people feel like certain warning labels are

  • an unnecessary overreach, and a federal court

  • recently agreed.

  • The FDA proposed new graphics, health warning

  • labels for cigarette packets in 2019 at the

  • direction of Congress.

  • These labels would take up at least 50% of the

  • front and back of the pack and would make it

  • more comparable to what more than 120 countries

  • require displayed on their cigarette packs.

  • Tobacco companies challenged the regulation

  • in court and they won.

  • The FDA did an analysis that they coupled with

  • their regulatory proposal analyzing the effect of

  • the warning label in Canada, smoking prevalence

  • rate. They said there's no effect, nothing there.

  • So this then reached the D.C.

  • Circuit and the D.C.

  • Circuit said the regulation doesn't

  • accomplish anything.

  • It limits what companies are allowed to put of

  • their product so they overturn this proposal.

  • The judge is essentially making a First Amendment

  • argument. He wrote that while the government can

  • require companies to include warnings, if it is

  • purely factual and uncontroversial

  • information, the government cannot use this

  • sort of imagery because "the image may convey one

  • thing to one person and a different thing to

  • another." But there's also the argument that

  • warning labels may backfire.

  • The graphic warning labels, they don't want

  • them to elicit so much shame and negative affect

  • that people turn away.

  • So there's something called an ostrich effect

  • where people just, it makes them feel so badly

  • that they turn off and it can even cause reactance

  • where they kind of do the opposite because they're

  • like, 'oh, you're trying to manipulate me.

  • I'll show you.' It needs to be strong enough to

  • make people think twice and capture their

  • attention, but it can't be so strong as to really

  • turn people off.

  • So the goal isn't to completely eliminate

  • warning labels. The goal is to make sure that

  • people, companies, consumers, whoever, don't

  • solely rely on warning labels because the main

  • responsibility for anyone or for any manufacturer is

  • to make sure that their product is safe.

If you live in the U.S., you've probably seen

Subtitles and vocabulary

Click the word to look it up Click the word to find further inforamtion about it