Current industry lobbying should not compromise the public's access to information held by the government. But new requirements that use disclosure as a means of regulation should pass four tests. If the threat to health is serious enough, banning the product may be warranted. Assuring a reasonable level of safety may call for national standards. Reducing risks when information is plentiful may require the use of taxes or other economic incentives.
Costs can be substantial.
Disclosure should give the public more bang for the buck than spending the same amount of money to improve health, safety, and the environment in other ways. Information requirements can be expensive, ineffective, or counterproductive. And legitimate concerns about corporate confidentiality, personal privacy, and national security may limit the information that can be made available to the public. So may political maneuvering. Kip Viscusi, at the Harvard Law School, suggests developing a uniform risk vocabulary that clarifies the degree of danger.