Originally Posted by ApK
I'm sure they see it that way. It might even be true. But it's also possible that, like TV news and conspiracy theorists, they are needless creating fear, uncertainty and doubt by spreading needless warnings, about questionably researched, ultra-low-probability effects.
The same arguments were made by the tobacco industry before, not too long ago.
Tell me: have you ever changed your mind about buying something because of those labels?
Same for medications. Would you refuse to take a needed medication because of those low-probability side effect warnings? I'm not saying they should be removed, I just question their value over trusting the prescribing physician.
One specialist told me outright when he prescribed a med and I asked about the side effects: "If I told you all the possible side effects, you'd never take it. In twenty years of prescribing it, I've never seen ANY of the side effects. Please take it."
Yes and yes. When the study that uncovered the existance of acrylamides became known, then confirmed, my entire familiy changed eating habits. Perhaps one is more willing to make those changes when a family member is dealing with cancer, but the switch was a no-brainer for us.
I have indeed refrained from taking medication after reading the smallprint. That should be my choice to make after being given all information, it is not right to withhold it from me - I am not a child.
Also, I would not trust a healthcare professional who'd give me this type of answer.
PS: Sorry, I will stick to the sales tax topic henceforth.