How can labeling laws be used to effectively help communicate risks to consumers?

Let people know how much of a product they would need to be exposed to to reach the warning level. More public education that the warning exemption levels are NOT safety limits but are levels at which consumers have a right to know about the chemicals in products.

Labeling laws can provide to consumers useful information about the content of components/ingredient. Labels, when they try to do too much, are not effects; specifically they are a poor way to educate consumers.

Labeling always give information to the people and make them to look for more information to make their decisions

It is important to have a thorough understanding and impacts of these laws could have in terms of aiding the general public of the risk due to chemicals. There needs to be a robust information dissemination plan about these laws and how they help the public to understand the risks beforehand.

Presence of agents that are carcinogenic or toxic to reproduction are supposed to be tightly controlled in consumer products such that any risk would be quite low-to-nonexistent from use of that product.

Provide available scientific fact about the potential hazard, with a measure of the quantitative risk level that is calibrated with a real-life event such as smoking ½ of a cigarette per day, or risk of a fatal traffic accident in Los Angle, CA.

Consumers reward system may be introduced to implement the law successfully. Each valuable and true complain about chemical contamination shall get a reward that will encourage all to have a community participation to implement Prop 65.

They need to be in simple terms or have an image that a 7-year-old could understand.

I think what is required by the U.S. EPA is quite informative which is based on the hazards, Prop65 is an overkill.

I'm all for providing interpretable, factual hazard & risk information to consumers, but I really wonder whether the regulation, as it is implemented, optimally achieves this goal. A simpler notification system accounting for both the toxic hazard and, importantly, the magnitude of the likely exposure & consequent risk under a typical consumer product usage scenario could be better.

This is difficult, it implies that all potential hazards could or should be labeled. Nutrition facts are most important, trace presence of contaminants or ingredients that don’t pose a meaningful risk do not necessarily warrant over labeling.

Labels should clearly state how a product should be used in order to reduce exposures to a level of de minimus risk. These labels should be short, simple, and obvious.

Make the label way more clear as to what the risk is. Just saying its on the list isn’t so helpful. It should also say which ingredients caused the product to be listed.

The language on labeling should be in plain English and helpful. For example, if a can liner has BPA, it should state how much BPA is "consumed" by eating the whole unit (can). The serving size should correspond to the dose received.

Rather than label everything under the sun, why not advocate for education in public schools (i.e., don't wait to people go to college, because most people do not even take enough science courses, yet alone a toxicology course, to understand the differences between toxicity, hazard, and risk). What we need is a lot more chemistry and advanced biology education in public schools. However, if one wants to perish on the sword of labeling everything, change the motivation for labels from one of communicating hazard to one of communicating risk. Going back to my exposure to BTEX, of the four priority chemicals, benzene has some strong epidemiology to conclude that not only is exposure a hazard, but more importantly on a comparative basis it is also risky. But risky under what context cannot be conveyed on a label. Perhaps my response should be you can virtue signal all you want by promoting labeling everything, but nothing will be accomplished. Perhaps the whole Prop 65 thing is based on a false premise about the effectiveness of chemical hazard labeling for the general public. Final answer...labeling laws for chemical hazards sounded like a great idea in 1986 (?) but now that everything seems labeled, they outlived their utility. Thus, they can't be used effectively.

They cannot. Labeling laws are by definition hazard-based. Regulations are an important part of ensuring safety, but are only useful when based on risk, that is a comparison of hazards and exposures.

Labeling laws for health risks should be sufficiently informative (and relevant) so that an individual can make informed choices. They might follow the learnings from food labeling. Nutritional content, fat and calories are helpful to the consumer to understand what is in the food and how to gauge personal consumption (if desired, to consume more or less). I have seen Prob 65 labels at the airport for which I have no idea what action I should or could take to reduce my personal risk. I would want to know the pathway of exposure (diet, inhalation, contact) and the amount (dose) at which I would be at increased risk. In contrast, we don't see labels on cookies that say "This product can make you obese, and/or give digestive distress to certain individuals."

The product label according to Prop 65 allows the customer to know what product they're using and allows the consumer to know how healthy, or unhealthy, the product is. It's also important to display the ingredients for those who may be allergic to certain ingredients.

To begin with manufacturers of such products should be held accountable for the potential harms they cause to the consumers by promoting such products. Furthermore, instead of heavy publicity for consumption of such products, health officials should publicly and effectively educate the consumers on potential health hazards of numerous products.

Product labelling laws are certainly a great tool to warn consumers about the potentially harmful consequences of specific species present in them.

If a risk can be shown to be below what is a de minimus level, then labeling about that risk should be unnecessary.

Labeling laws provide useful information about the products that consumers encounter in their daily lives.

Perhaps limit to certain product categories with greatest exposures or risk potential - children's products, etc.

Skull & Crossbones designations have been used for decades to warn consumers of chemical dangers.

Individual product labeling is useful. I think many people have an interest in what they are putting inside their bodies, and the nutritional value.

Labels should be graphical / visually explicit, and visible enough for customers to easily find and read them.

Why do you assume that they are necessary? And Prop 65 does NOT communicate risk. It communicates a potential hazard.

Improve education from the ground up so people can even understand what (if) they read. In this century, putting the words "American" and "education" in the same sentence is becoming grammatically illogical. Or maybe hire Twitter influencers (aka "twits") to direct risk-conscious consumers to the best poop modifying supplements. The fact is that only paranoid semi-literates read labels and then don't have a clue what the reality is.

Labeling laws could be more effective by communicating RISKS, not hazards, to consumers. A SmartLabel component that contextualizes risk relative to exposure in consumer-centric language could go a long way in furthering consumer understanding of the concept of risk.

Laws requiring labeling for chemicals with known adverse effects can communicate the need for caution by the consumer.

When labelling is selective such as when surgeon general warning on cigarettes was implemented it carried greater weight with the public. At this point I think the public has become decent

Plain language labels with images that are more selectively applied according to established exposure pathways and risk assessment rather than an arbitrary list.

Short sentences pictures etc help more in labelling otherwise it is often not read and thus doesn’t provide the outcome that is sought

labeling should be used only where there is clear scientific (experimental, hygienic and epidemiological) evidence of the possibility of exposure of the substance (release from the product) of interest to the consumer at levels where the "danger" has the opportunity to be realized in the "risk", and there must be indicates of the uses types (modes) of the product in which such exposure is possible

First of all, it helps raise awareness. One thing to consider is the disbalance for labeling. Are biologically grown fruits and vegetables exempt from this labeling law? If so, is that always justified. How about plants (possibly via seeds) for in the garden?

By addition of a short explanation that only excessive exposure may lead to actual health risks

Most if not all consumers always see the label for guidance, ingredients and if there are any harmful effects of product so I believe labeling will help to consumers to understand the risk associated with the food or products

An emphasis on appropriate product usage might be helpful. Providing such would give consumer's more information about exposure. Prop 65, as applied, appears to be based solely on hazard.

Only require labels if realistic exposures under realistic conditions of use have been shown to cause adverse health effects in humans. Communicate uncertainties as well as risks and clearly distinguish between correlation and causation (e.g., by writing "Some California regulators believe that this chemical causes cancer based on experiments in rats with exposure concentrations much higher than those experienced by people. There is no direct evidence that people are harmed by this product."

Labeling is a very important medium by which we can inform the consumers about the dangers posed by various chemicals and these chemicals are nowadays are extensively used. This is the best way of communicating the risks.

Consumers are likely lost in government overreach land. Does the product have a real issue or is it more government rules?
I used to be able to buy a toaster oven that worked but now they do everything except make---toast---due to bad government overreach.
They and many other items are nonfunctional now due to really bad government intervention.

Labeling laws might be more effective if they were governed by a non government agency. They need to tie back to real levels of toxins that pose real harm.

Please see my answer to (2).

put in percentages of any and all hazardous incredients above 10 ppm.

The warnings need to be more specific. Is this a respiratory hazard, cancer, gut bacteria, ect.

As scientists we know that the presence of a chemical doesn't mean there is a risk, that its about exposure. Prop 65 is exposure-based but there is a reluctance to conduct the necessary exposure/risk assessment to determine if warning is really necessary due to time/cost concerns. The laws need to find a way to protect the consumer without creating a litigation stream for the plaintiffs.

Risk communication might be improved by reference to dose-response. However, how this type of labeling could be worded without being too long or cumbersome would require the concerted efforts of scientists/risk assessors/risk manager like myself. The intent would be to develop language that communicates the fact that "the dose makes the poison" without being either too technical or too detailed. A challenging but doable task.

don't understand question

I think that it is a pure toxicológica distraction

With clear indications

Be simple (use of ideograms or emojis) and don't label EVRYTHINGS!

Labeling requirements could be made more specific to the actual receptor at risk and not just refer to both cancer and reproductive harm. Is the sensitive receptor a fetus, is it only a cancer causing agent that requires a lifetime of exposure, it is only a male reproductive toxicant?, etc.

In order to be effective, labeling laws must:
- be based on scientific data only
- must not be influenced by ideologies
- the risk must be effectively communicated - in a way that general public understands

The warning itself is not the problem for Prop 65, its the ubiquity of the warnings. Once its on every product, consumers don't really know which ones are truly risks to their person, and simply ignore it. If it was better tailored, it would be more informative to the public and there would be proper alarm when they saw a product containing said warning.

They can't. When labeling is focused on one product with extreme health effects, like cigarettes, it may have an effect at the margins, but it still took decades for smoking rates to decline. I think Proposition 65 had its most important and significant effects in the first 10 years and now the labels are so prevalent that they don't serve to change industry behaviors or to change consumer preferences.

Limit to those items where risks are highest and are direct result of the product. For instance, lumber does not cause cancer, but breathing in dust continuously and consistently does. Therefore, it seems silly to label all lumber with the warning. However, that is how the law was interpreted.

The information should give more context.

Warning labels on tobacco and alcohol clearly show the effectiveness of measures, if the warning are based on real risks

It must be a very simple scaled 1-5 and color coded (green yellow red) approach that considers exposure during normal/directed use and the acute hazards (chronic as well if the product is routinely used more than a few days per month).

Need to focus on risks, not hazards.

By effective design and implemention of ground rules and regulations.

Labeling laws should be used to provide appropriate information on risk in context to conditions of use of a chemical.

Governmental agencies such as FDA carry the weight of allowing the marketing of consumer products. An uniform labelling of such products by federal agencies would be more reliable for the public, more effective in preventing over-labelling and litigations, and it would pose a lesser burden to the manufacturers and the public.

Labeling needs to be clear and positive in construction. This _____ contains _____. Negative labeling is problematic. This ___ does not contain ______. Negative labeling may exaggerate the harm. Label needs to distinguish between different groups of people, such as children or immune-compromised. Label needs a corollary media campaign to be effective.

labeling should be related to specific advice about preventive measures

Scientists should be involved in presenting opinions of what risks are noteworthy (clear and high) and only those products should be labeled.

no clue

CLP and GHS are already in place to do this.

Listing ingredient and making factual statements without attempting to scare consumers.

The key is providing information to consumer in a form that they can easily understand otherwise it is no use as they will simply ignore. A star-like system to provide an overall indication of the potential risk of a product would be effective. It would require to be underpinned by information that can be easily accessed by those interested in getting more detailed information on specific ingredients etc. It needs to be easy to use as most consumer will be primarily driven by cost.

A label says a lot about a product. Firstly, consumers must have faith in the label, that the contents are true and reliable. If this is the case, then consumers can confidently make decisions based on information disclosed on the label. It's important that the labels be legible and strategically located for consumers to spot. Besides, enforcement of labeling laws might cause reduction in the demand for high risk products. This will compel manufacturers to source for safer alternatives to harmful constituents in their products.

CalEPA or some other body in CA should reduce this down to a color code or rank (1-5) to display the overall risk to the user incorporating carcinogenic potential and potential exposure when used as directed so that a consumer can decide whether the risk to them is worth using the product or not.

If the chemicals are indeed carcinogens (based on data) and the threshold of concerns (based on exposure) is reached, in my opinion, the consumer have the right to know. Prop65 created an environment of "fear" in which industry prefers to label "by default" because many of the companies do not understand or do not have the capability of conducting exposure based risk assessment in each product.
this can cause unnecessary panic
a better way to communicate is by educating the consumer on the risk/benefit and dose concepts.

This is a tough one, for risk is dose and exposure time related. Nevertheless, the US has a long (over 100 years) history of providing the consumer with information regarding food and drug safety (starting in 1906). The laws are always fought against by industry, but once passed they are useful.

Allow a way to indicate level of exposure needed to reach warning level

Incorporate effective labeling laws. Conduct studies on what works best.

The resulting labels must be simple and clear.

Display the chemicals used and unbiased information on their properties, let the consumer decide.

The label should bear a relationship to risk, considering reasonable over use

Reserve labeling to products with verified hazards.