David S. Egilman, MD, MPH, Department of Community Health, Brown University, 8 North Main St., Attleboro, MA 02703 and Susanna Rankin Bohme, AM, Department of American Civilization, Brown University, 8 North Main St., Attleboro, MA 02703, 508-226-5091, susanna_bohme@egilman.com.

Warnings are an essential part of protecting worker health. While the duty to warn derives from the ethical principles of autonomy and beneficence, most warnings have been instituted not because of abstract ethical duty, but because of the constraints of statutory and common law. We review the history of occupational warnings over the past 150 years, with a focus on how corporations have responded to tort litigation, influenced legislation, and navigated the regulatory process. U.S. industry has long faced what we call the warnings conundrum: Corporations have a mandate to maximize shareholder value, and internal documents reveal that many businesses and industry groups have feared the impact warnings would have on sales. At the same time, failure to warn could expose companies to potentially huge litigation expenses. This conundrum has led to warnings strategies designed to fulfill safety requirements imposed by law, conscience, or public opinion, while at the same time minimizing the impact on sales. Drawing examples from various industries, we ask whether industry’s response to the warning conundrum has served to protect workers or profits.

Learning Objectives: By the end of the session, attendees will be able to

• Describe the development of the worker warning systems since the mid-1800s.
• Discuss the varying motives for warning of workplace hazards.
• Evaluate industry efforts to influence warning requirements.

Keywords: Workplace Safety, Communication

Presenting author's disclosure statement:
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.