Informer - Feature Article

Safety is not about "acceptable risk"
In the recent and ongoing separate class action lawsuits against tobacco companies, auto manufacturers and suppliers of everyday household products from food stuffs to cleaning goods, we keep hearing about "acceptable risk". It would seem, listening to the spokespeople for the various industries involved and their legal representatives that there is such a thing as a magic number of deaths or injuries that are "okay" because these represent a small percentage of lives compared with the high cost of doing business. One such spokesperson for one of the world's largest vehicle manufacturers, replying to a question about the economics of safety, replied with a straight face and an earnest expression, that "People take the risk of injury or death every time they get behind the wheel," as though being killed by a drunken driver is exactly the same as being killed by faulty equipment. A lawyer speaking for the tobacco industry was questioned about internal reports from his client that verified the company's awareness - thirty years ago - of the danger of additives to cigarettes that increased their danger to the public both in terms of serious illness and of addiction. His response was that people who smoke are aware that it is dangerous, which, in turn, relieves the tobacco companies from liability: after all, they do print warnings on their packaging. (It is useful to recall that it took many years and lots of legal action to get even that warning label implemented.) So, safety, to people who knowingly market substandard, dangerous, or untested products, is really a matter of statistics. It is a matter of balancing the risk with the dollar, of shrugging the shoulders and saying, "People die every day. We can't take care of everyone. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there and we have a right to protect our bottom line. We do the best job we can and still make the profit we want." Let's get real: the value of the profit margin against even one life is zero. The "acceptable risk" factor in calculating how unsafe a product can be to get by is zero. And the whole debate is ridiculous: when auto manufacturers were compelled to make seatbelts standard equipment in every American-made vehicle, they simply upped the sticker price by something like twenty times the cost of the equipment and labor, which actually IMPROVED their profit margin. There is no "acceptable risk" where safety is concerned: how much sense does it make, after all, if we build the road to safety but neglect to set a speed limit?

Safety is not about "acceptable risk"

In the recent and ongoing separate class action lawsuits against tobacco companies, auto manufacturers and suppliers of everyday household products from food stuffs to cleaning goods, we keep hearing about "acceptable risk". It would seem, listening to the spokespeople for the various industries involved and their legal representatives that there is such a thing as a magic number of deaths or injuries that are "okay" because these represent a small percentage of lives compared with the high cost of doing business.

One such spokesperson for one of the world's largest vehicle manufacturers, replying to a question about the economics of safety, replied with a straight face and an earnest expression, that "People take the risk of injury or death every time they get behind the wheel," as though being killed by a drunken driver is exactly the same as being killed by faulty equipment.

A lawyer speaking for the tobacco industry was questioned about internal reports from his client that verified the company's awareness - thirty years ago - of the danger of additives to cigarettes that increased their danger to the public both in terms of serious illness and of addiction. His response was that people who smoke are aware that it is dangerous, which, in turn, relieves the tobacco companies from liability: after all, they do print warnings on their packaging. (It is useful to recall that it took many years and lots of legal action to get even that warning label implemented.)

So, safety, to people who knowingly market substandard, dangerous, or untested products, is really a matter of statistics. It is a matter of balancing the risk with the dollar, of shrugging the shoulders and saying, "People die every day. We can't take care of everyone. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there and we have a right to protect our bottom line. We do the best job we can and still make the profit we want."

Let's get real: the value of the profit margin against even one life is zero. The "acceptable risk" factor in calculating how unsafe a product can be to get by is zero. And the whole debate is ridiculous: when auto manufacturers were compelled to make seatbelts standard equipment in every American-made vehicle, they simply upped the sticker price by something like twenty times the cost of the equipment and labor, which actually IMPROVED their profit margin.

There is no "acceptable risk" where safety is concerned: how much sense does it make, after all, if we build the road to safety but neglect to set a speed limit?