J. Toxico1.-Cut. & Ocular Toxicol. 6(4), ix-~(1987)

EDITORIAL

PLAY AT YOUR OWN RISK

Last summer, my wife and I took our nephews for a walk to the school playground in their neighborhood. To my surprise, there was a large sign posted on the fence surrounding the playground that stated “Play at Your Own Risk!”

As I mused over the sign’s message that evening, my thoughts quickly ran through the numerous and frequent regulations and litigations that continually appear in the Federd Register, the trade and public press, and on television and radio.

Over the past year or two, for example, we have witnessed a marked decline in certain community activities because of insurance liability requirements. An annual strawberry festival in a small crossroads town in Virginia, for example, is now a thing of the past because they need a million dollars of insurance coverage for liability.

The 90 or so colors once used in our foods, drugs, and cosmetics now number less than 40 because of potential toxic hazards. A world without color is impossible to imagine. Trying to sell products without color is equally impossible.

Perhaps labeling products will put the burden of responsibility on the consumer where it belongs. After all, caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) should still apply. California’s Proposition 65 appears at first glance to use this approach, were it not for the bounty hunter clause that legislation contains. What this legislation will pro- duce is litigation, not a safer environment.

Or maybe we just need to inform everyone of the hazards in their homes and workplace. Does a radon scare accomplish this? Are the Occupational Safety and Health Act and community right-to-know laws really effective? Life is not a zero- risk proposition. Neither are our homes or our place of work. Intelligence, common sense, and good judgment are needed, along with the information on chemical hazards we are passing around these days.

ix Copyright 0 1987 by Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Cut

aneo

us a

nd O

cula

r T

oxic

olog

y D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y N

yu M

edic

al C

ente

r on

11/

09/1

4Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

X JACKSON

The clear message in all this is that the world wants to move toward a zero-risk society. And it is just as clear that this is impossible. The real danger is not from chemicals, but from killing the goose that lays the golden eggs: industry. We sometimes forget that industry generates money through taxes, wages, and profits. Service organizations (schools, hospitals, churches, and synagogues) and regulatory agen- cies run on money initially generated by these monies from industry. Sooner or later we are going to have to choose between the unrealistic and unobtainable goal of a zero-risk society and the compromise on the degree of safety we can psychologically and biologically tolerate.

EDWARD M. JACKSON Editor

Cut

aneo

us a

nd O

cula

r T

oxic

olog

y D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y N

yu M

edic

al C

ente

r on

11/

09/1

4Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.