Using federal standards to determine adequacy of consumer product's precautionary labeling

The results of the present investigation indicate that a majority of the more hazardous products provided some type of warning, although they may not necessarily contain the specific phrases required by the Act. In contrast, products that were deemed minimally hazardous were more likely to omit important precautionary information. In addition, our study also demonstrated that the primary labeling deficiency was the lack of comprehensive first aid information. For the health care professional, the importance of clear, correct, concise and complete first aid information for each potential route of exposure is well appreciated; however, it appears that the manufacturers are reluctant to provide complete first aid information on their product labels. Many manufacturers or sellers offer arguments against providing comprehensive precautionary and first aid information such as: the consumer never reads the label; if the warning label is "too busy", the warning's effect will be minimized; or a seller may lose a competitive edge if his/her product contains a panel of hazard warnings while his/her competitor's identical product provides no warning which may lead a consumer to believe that the competitor's product is safer. While the above arguments may be viable, they are significantly weakened when one considers the potential health risks or costly litigation that may ensue as a result of an inadequate label. Therefore, it is imperative that product manufacturers and sellers become aware of all of the potential hazards associated with their products, and disseminate all of this information through sufficient warning labels.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)