Warning label

Effectiveness

Warning systems promote attention, comprehension, and protective behavior. Research confirms that well-designed warnings based on scientific principles improve safety behavior, with effective warnings leading to greater compliance than their absence. However, not all research finds a direct correlation between warning design and safety outcomes due to methodological differences (e.g., user population, context of use). Some studies suggest that prior benign experiences or high compliance costs may reduce warning effectiveness, emphasizing the need for more forceful design strategies.  Comprehensive reviews of the literature indicate that the most reliable indicators of warning effectiveness are comprehension and behavioral compliance.

Meta-analytic reviews concluded that warnings increase safe behavior, stressing the need for testing with representative user groups. They found that the most effective strategy for boosting compliance is presenting uncluttered, task-integrated warnings in highly salient locations.

Regulation by country

Chile

Main article: Food labelling and advertising law (Chile)

European Economic Area

In the European Economic Area, a product containing hazardous mixtures must have a unique formula identifier (UFI) code. This is not a warning label per se, but a code that helps poison control centres identify the exact formula of a hazardous product.

Mexico

Main article: Food labeling in Mexico

United States

The American National Standard Institute (ANSI) develops a wide range of industry voluntary standards. The ANSI Z535 Committee develops a set of standards for the design, application, and use of signs, colors and symbols intended to identify and warn against specific hazards and for other accident prevention purposes. The ANSI standards were developed to standardize warning systems content and format.  They are informed by scientific input to maximize message recognition and comprehension with the aim of improving warning system effectiveness.  The two standards most relevant to consumer product hazard signs are ANSI Z535.4: Product Safety Signs and Labels and ANSI Z535.6: Product Safety Information in Product Manuals, Instructions, and Other Collateral Materials. Studies indicate that warnings that were consistent with the ANSI Z535 standard were rated as being more noticed, read, and understood and they promoted greater compliance in comparison with warnings that were inconsistent with the standard.

In the United States, warning labels have been mandated under a number of different government organizations. For instance, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. Cigarettes were not required to have warning labels in the United States until Congress passed the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA) in 1965 (in force in 1966).

Other organizations that create label standards in the US — the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and American National Standards Institute (ANSI) — govern their use. The US organizations pull from international organizations such as the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals and the International Standards Organization.

Chemical hazard level warning labels

In the United States or elsewhere, the terms Danger, Warning and Caution are regulated by the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) ANSI Z535. Graphic symbols are regulated by ISO 7010.

References

References

1. (January 2014). "The evolution of health warning labels on cigarette packs: the role of precedents, and tobacco industry strategies to block diffusion". [[Tobacco Control (journal).
2. Wogalter, Michael S.. (2006). "Handbook of warnings". Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3. (2006). "Handbook of warnings". Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Khoury, Clarke E.. (1989). "Warning Labels May Be Hazardous to Your Health: Common-Law and Statutory Responses to Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturers' Duty to Warn". Cornell Law Review.
5. "What Are Different Types of Product Defects and How Do they Affect Your Claim?".
6. Laughery, Kenneth R.. (April 2006). "Designing Effective Warnings". Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics.
7. Wogalter, Michael S.. (August 1993). "Behavioral compliance with warnings: effects of voice, context, and location". Safety Science.
8. Brelsford, John W.. (October 1994). "Enhancing Comprehension and Retention of Safety-Related Pictorials". Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting.
9. Cox, Eli P.. (July 1997). "Do Product Warnings Increase Safe Behavior? A Meta-Analysis". Journal of Public Policy & Marketing.
10. Hancock, P.A.. (October 2020). "How effective are warnings? A meta-analysis". Safety Science.
11. (2006-01-20). "An Overview of the ANSI Z535 Standards for Safety Signs, Labels, and Tags". CRC Press.
12. Laughery, Kenneth R.. (September 2002). "Guidelines for Warnings Design: Do They Matter?". Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting.
13. Federal Food, Drug, & Cosmetic Act, Pub. L. No. 75-717, 52 Stat. 1040 (1938) (codified as amended at 21 U.S.C. §§ 301-99 (2006))
14. (6 November 2006). "Hey, the labels are kind of stupid, but don't say they didn't try to warn you". The Seattle Times.
15. Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, Pub. L. No. 89-92, 79 Stat. 282 (1965) (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1331-40 (1970)).
16. (12 January 2014). "The changing public image of smoking in the United States: 1964–2014". [[Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention]].
17. (2006). "The Business Writer". Houghton Mifflin Company.