Most product labels are uncontroversial. They provide information that people want to know, or that somebody wants them to know. Labels on potentially harmful products are uncontroversial, too. Foods containing peanuts, for example, need a label so consumers with peanut allergies can avoid them. Ditto for workplace risks. A drum that contains a carcinogenic chemical needs a warning sign.  But should we label a product in the supermarket or a chemical in the workplace that contains a substance many people consider dangerous but most experts consider safe?  Take, for example, a food with a genetically modified ingredient. According to a 2015 Pew Research Center report, 88 percent of scientists think GM foods are safe, compared with only 36 percent of the general public. Should GM foods carry a label so consumers who want to avoid them can do so?  It’s arguably rational to steer clear of a food ingredient that confers no known consumer benefit and that 12 percent of scientists consider dangerous. But let’s ignore that for the moment and assume that it’s foolish to worry about GM foods. Does that mean it’s foolish to label them? The case for labeling a presumptively safe product that some people mistakenly consider dangerous is straightforward: transparency, or the “right to know.” Give people true information they want, thereby enabling them to act on their own judgments and preferences. To many people this is a self-evident ethical precept: if people want to avoid a particular risk, how dare companies deny them the relevant information merely because the companies think they’re being silly? 
What should you do with accurate information that you think may unduly alarm your audience?
Risk Communication Lessons from the Genetically Modified Foods Controversy
BY PETER M. SANDMAN

Labeling and INFORMED CONSENT
Disadvantages of being unacclimatized:
  • Readily show signs of heat stress when exposed to hot environments.
  • Difficulty replacing all of the water lost in sweat.
  • Failure to replace the water lost will slow or prevent acclimatization.
Benefits of acclimatization:
  • Increased sweating efficiency (earlier onset of sweating, greater sweat production, and reduced electrolyte loss in sweat).
  • Stabilization of the circulation.
  • Work is performed with lower core temperature and heart rate.
  • Increased skin blood flow at a given core temperature.
Acclimatization plan:
  • Gradually increase exposure time in hot environmental conditions over a period of 7 to 14 days.
  • For new workers, the schedule should be no more than 20% of the usual duration of work in the hot environment on day 1 and a no more than 20% increase on each additional day.
  • For workers who have had previous experience with the job, the acclimatization regimen should be no more than 50% of the usual duration of work in the hot environment on day 1, 60% on day 2, 80% on day 3, and 100% on day 4.
  • The time required for non–physically fit individuals to develop acclimatization is about 50% greater than for the physically fit.
Level of acclimatization:
  • Relative to the initial level of physical fitness and the total heat stress experienced by the individual.
Maintaining acclimatization:
  • Can be maintained for a few days of non-heat exposure.
  • Absence from work in the heat for a week or more results in a significant loss in the beneficial adaptations leading to an increase likelihood of acute dehydration, illness, or fatigue.
  • Can be regained in 2 to 3 days upon return to a hot job.
  • Appears to be better maintained by those who are physically fit.
  • Seasonal shifts in temperatures may result in difficulties.
  • Working in hot, humid environments provides adaptive benefits that also apply in hot, desert environments, and vice versa.
  • Air conditioning will not affect acclimatization.
Acclimatization in Workers