"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message ...
"Elizabeth Reid" wrote
At some level I agree with what I'm charitably going to assume
is your underlying premise, that at some point dangers are
small enough that it's not 'worth' mounting a big
societal effort to eradicate them. ...

The warnings become meaningless if every product has scary
warnings. Even toothpaste now has warnings on it.

Why 'even' toothpaste? Toothpaste having a warning on
it doesn't seem all that strange, it's a quasi-medical
substance even though most people don't think of it that
way. Most products don't have warnings of any kind.

As long as each warning message isn't just WARNING: THIS
PRODUCT MIGHT BE DANGEROUS, I don't think they necessarily
become meaningless as more products are labeled. If each warning
specifies the conditions for safe use and the conditions
under which the product is dangerous, they're not all the
same. In fact, if more things are labeled, people might
get in the habit of looking for the labels and that
would make them more meaningful rather than less.

Beth