SHOULD LEGAL MARIJUANA HAVE A WARNING LABEL?

For millions of Americans April 20, or 4/20 is a national holiday intended to celebrate a drug that remains illegal at the Federal level in the U.S. At the State level, it is a totally different story. Almost 90% of Americans (approximately 300 million of us) live in states where marijuana is legal for either recreational or medical use. Eighteen states plus the District of Columbia allow recreational pot use while 36 states allow its medical use. Let me be very clear: I am not here to politicize or moralize about whether or not marijuana should be legal either in selected states or throughout the country. This point may soon be moot because the Biden Administration, along with the Democratic Congressional leadership, have already signaled support for the decriminalization of marijuana. However, as The Warnings Doctor, it is my professional duty to be concerned about and make consumers aware of possible "hidden hazards" they may confront with the products we buy and/or use, and to advocate for warnings on or with those products so that consumers can make informed choices when they are buying or using said products. Such is the case with marijuana.

When we buy a box of cereal, we are now told all of the ingredients in the cereal, along with the amounts of those ingredients. For example, a 1/2 cup serving of Grape Nuts has 5 grams (a little more than a teaspoon) of sugar and 6 grams of protein, along with 7 grams of dietary fiber (about 1/4 of what we need, on average, in a typical day). 

When we buy a bottle of wine, not only are we told its vintage and alcohol volume, but also there is a warning label advising pregnant women, drivers and machine operators not to drink the product while pregnant, driving or working. 

And, of course, we all know that cigarettes have had a Surgeon General's warning since the 1960's. Not only are marijuana products devoid of any such warnings, at the Federal level, at least, the agency most likely to provide guidance about such warnings, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has their hands tied because, under Title 21, Section 811 of the US Code, marijuana is still considered a controlled substance. As long as pot is illegal at the Federal level, the FDA can't provide or enforce regulations that might actually keep us safe if we consume it.


What would those regulations, and subsequent warnings, if needed, look like? Consider that if you are stopped by a police officer for driving under the influence, the officer can administer a breathalyzer to you, and in most states, if your blood alcohol level (BAC) exceeds .08, you can be charged for driving while intoxicated. This determination is based upon science, research, regulations, etc. We know that drivers are more likely to get into accidents if their BAC exceeds .08, and we have a measuring system available (a breathalyzer) to accurately determine your level. Let's substitute weed for alcohol. You are still stopped by a police officer, perhaps because you were weaving while driving. There is no equivalent to a breathalyzer, and even if there were, what would it be measuring and what would be the maximum tolerable limits of whatever the substance(s) being measured turned out to be? The truth is that we don't have answers to these questions, thus leaving the police officer to make a totally subjective decision, a decision that could vary from officer to officer and present a nightmare for prosecutors to make their case in court.


The questions facing a puzzled police officer are the same questions we all must face as marijuana becomes legalized throughout the U.S.: How much pot does it take to get someone stoned? Does this vary by age, height, weight, ingestion of other foods or beverages, amount of sleep deprivation, ingestion and interaction with other chemicals (legal or otherwise), etc. And, if you are stoned, should there be restrictions placed on your behavior, such as driving, going to classes or work, swimming, using any machinery or engaging in other recreational activities? Putting aside the myriad of behavioral norms and rules a nanny pot state may impose (if they could), what about warnings related to the actual ingredients and amounts of those ingredients present in your pot-infused products? Why should you be required to know the amount of sugar present in your gummy bears but not have a clue as to the amount of THC (the principal psychoactive constituent of cannabis) in those same candies? Shouldn't you know the expected effect the amount of THC in your gummy bears might produce (and how long it will typically take both for these effects to be realized and to last)? If you are required to know the number of carbs in your muffins, shouldn't the amount of THC be labeled in those same muffins (or space cakes)? I find it totally ironic that the same consumers who are demanding to know the ingredients and nutritional values of their food products, not to mention if they are GMO or Gluten-free, are not storming the FDA with similar demands for all pot products.


In fairness, many states have instituted their own packaging and labeling requirements, some more restrictive than others. For example, Arizona's only labeling requirement is that the packaging be child resistant, while Alaska requires not only the labeling of the amount of THC in the product but also a series of warnings even more detailed and restrictive than alcohol warnings, highlighting marijuana's intoxicating, habit forming and addictive effects, its impairment of judgment, potential health risks and the need to avoid driving or its use if pregnant. The main concern is that there is no uniform set of rules, guidelines and warnings for all states to follow, thus leaving consumers to make their own decisions without serious scientifically-based warnings to help guide those decisions. If there are, as I believe, hidden hazards present with the consumption of pot products without proper labeling or instructions, we consumers will not be able to make informed choices about whether to buy or how to safely use such products. Happy 4/20 Day!

WARNING: FDA DELAYS IMPLEMENTATION OF RULE THAT WOULD REQUIRE NEW NUTRITION LABELING

By Dr. Gerald Goldhaber • May 27, 2025
The FDA is delaying implementation of a rule that would require food companies to print nutritional information on the front labels of their products. The proposed rule was developed by President Biden’s Administration, with a comment period scheduled to close on May 16. The rule is designed to help consumers make better choices to avoid chronic health problems. Such problems—and consumer choices about nutrition—are things President Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has repeatedly touted. Even though hundreds of comments have been filed about the proposed rule, Kennedy’s Food and Drug Administration is delaying the close of the comment period by 60 days. Most of the comments filed so far have come from food companies and food industry trade organizations. “ A 60-day comment period extension allows adequate time for interested parties to submit comments while also not significantly delaying rulemaking on the important issues in the proposed rule ,” according to the FDA’s announcement about the delay. 

WARNING: THE GENDER BIAS IN CAR SAFETY TESTING PRESENTS AN ONGOING DANGER

By Dr. Gerald Goldhaber • April 30, 2025
Car accidents are a leading cause of injury and death worldwide, yet the safety measures designed to protect occupants in these life-or-death situations have long ignored a critical reality: women are more likely to be severely injured or killed in crashes than men. This disparity isn't rooted in biology alone—it’s also a result of a troubling oversight in the automotive industry’s safety testing protocols. For decades, crash-test dummies, which serve as proxies for human passengers in simulated collisions, have been modeled after the average male physique, leaving women out of the equation entirely. The Alarming Data Gap The implications of this gender gap in safety testing are both staggering and infuriating. Women, on average, have different body compositions than men—they tend to be shorter, lighter, and have different muscle distributions and bone densities. These physiological differences mean that women’s bodies interact with car safety features—such as seat belts, airbags, and headrests—in distinct ways. When vehicles aren’t tested with dummies that accurately represent female anatomy, crucial data about how to better protect women in crashes is simply ignored. Studies have revealed the dire consequences of this exclusion. Research from the University of Virginia found that women are 47% more likely to sustain serious injuries in car accidents compared to men, even when accounting for variables like seatbelt usage and crash severity. Women are also significantly more likely to suffer whiplash injuries due to the positioning of headrests, which are often designed with men’s neck dimensions in mind. These statistics aren’t just numbers—they represent lives cut short, families broken, and untold suffering that could have been mitigated with equitable safety testing.

WARNING: ARE MUSK, KENNEDY, AND TRUMP IGNORING THE GRAVE CONSEQUENCES OF SLASHING PUBLIC HEALTH FUNDING?

By Dr. Gerald Goldhaber • April 14, 2025
Recent budget cuts at the Health and Safety Science Services (HSSS) have sent shockwaves through the scientific and public health communities, threatening the very infrastructure designed to protect us from disease outbreaks, food contamination, and medical crises. These cuts have affected food inspectors, vaccine scientists, Alzheimer’s researchers, and experts studying bird flu, among others—positions that are essential to ensuring public safety and advancing critical medical research. The consequences of these decisions will be dire, potentially reversing years of progress and exposing society to increased health risks.

WARNING: IS ELON MUSK'S DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY JEOPARDIZING AIR SAFETY?

By Dr. Gerald Goldhaber • March 12, 2025
As Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DGE) pushes for sweeping reforms and cost-cutting across federal agencies, concerns are mounting over the impact on critical public safety roles. Among the most alarming areas affected is the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), where staff reductions may threaten the lives of millions of air travelers. The DGE, established with a mandate to streamline government operations and reduce bureaucratic waste, has come under fire for its aggressive downsizing tactics. Critics warn that essential safety personnel, including air traffic controllers, are being cut under the guise of efficiency, leaving the nation's airspace dangerously understaffed.

WARNING: WILL TRUMP'S SURGEON GENERAL SUPPORT IMPROVED ALCOHOL WARNING LABELS?

By Dr. Gerald Goldhaber • February 11, 2025
Biden Administration former Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy, on his way out of office, issued a Surgeon General's Advisory calling for new warnings on alcoholic beverages related to the cancer risk from consuming alcoholic beverages. Given that most individuals are unaware of the connection that consumption of alcoholic beverages can increase the risk for at least seven types of cancer, Murthy said in his advisory: "Given the conclusive evidence on the cancer risk from alcohol consumption and the Office of the Surgeon General's responsibility to inform the American public of the best available scientific evidence, the Surgeon General recommends an update to the Surgeon General's warning label for alcohol-containing beverages to include a cancer risk warning."

WARNING: TRUMP'S RE-ELECTION MEANS A DEREGULATORY NIGHTMARE FOR CONSUMERS

By Dr. Gerald Goldhaber • December 2, 2024
In my best-selling book, Murder, Inc.: How Unregulated Industry Kills or Injures Thousands of Americans Every Year...And What You Can Do About It , I propose a safety triad consisting of three components: manufacturers, regulators and consumers. All three must function properly in order to keep us safe. Manufacturers must produce and market safe (or safe as possible) products and warn us about any potential hazards so that we can make informed choices about whether or not to purchase their product and/or how to use it safely. Regulators , by imposing and implementing necessary rules and regulations, should hold manufacturers accountable for the above stated actions and to endure that they engage in "principled disclosure" by warning us about any potential hazards and dangers associated with their products. And, finally, Consumers , especially in the absence of well-meaning manufacturers or competent, well-intentioned regulators, must be highly diligent by researching products and learning about potential hazards prior to buying and/or using them. All three, manufacturers, regulators and consumers, must perform their jobs or the safety triad may fail to protect us and our loved ones. Think of a three-legged stool that distributes the weight of a person sitting on the stool, equally among the three legs. But what would happen if we leaned heavily to one side of the stool, essentially spreading the weight that was once borne by three legs to the two legs remaining braced to the floor. Unfortunately the third leg is no longer contributing to the stability of the stool, which may actually collapse because the two remaining legs may not be able to handle the amount of weight that was intended to be equally distributed among all three legs. 

WARNING: FDA RECOMMENDS REMOVING POPULAR DECONGESTANT FROM MARKET

By Dr. Gerald Goldhaber • November 15, 2024
If you or anyone in your family has used, uses or plans to use such over the counter (OTC) remedies for the flu or common cold as Theraflu, Robitussin, NyQuil, DayQuil, Mucinex, Sudafed or even some versions of Tylenol or Advil, you may want to read this newsletter very carefully.

WARNING: SOCIAL MEDIA IS ASSOCIATED WITH SIGNIFICANT MENTAL HEALTH HARMS FOR ADOLESCENTS

By Gerald Goldhaber • October 2, 2024
In an unprecedented, but, according to many social scientists and parents, a long overdue action, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, in a June editorial in the New York Times, called for a warning label to be placed on all social media platforms. In the words of the Surgeon General:

WARNING: DOES YOUR REFRIGERATOR CONTAIN LISTERIA?

By Gerald Goldhaber • September 5, 2024
If you are one of the millions of Americans who recently purchased one of several Boar's Head Deli Products, you may have bought a product containing deadly listeria bacteria. At least nine people have died and 57 have been hospitalized from a listeria outbreak linked to deli meat, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In late July, Boar’s Head, a deli meat and cheese company, expanded a previously announced recall to include at least 7 million pounds of deli products the company says may have been contaminated by listeria amid a nationwide outbreak. The recall spans 71 products and includes meat meant to be sliced at retail delis along with prepackaged meat and poultry products sold at retail locations, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

WILL THE CHEVRON DECISION CREATE A DEREGULATORY NIGHTMARE FOR CONSUMERS?

By Gerald Goldhaber • August 6, 2024
In my best-selling book, Murder, Inc.: How Unregulated Industry Kills or Injures Thousands of Americans Every Year...And What You Can Do About It (Hartford, Ct.:PYP Press, 2020), I discuss the need for "principled disclosure" from corporations about potential hazards that could hurt or kill us. I also discuss the role we as consumers play by seeking information about those hazards and finally, the role various regulatory agencies must play to initiate and enforce meaningful regulations on industry so that they do, indeed, engage in "principled disclosure" (i.e., tell the truth). In order to carry out its mandate, any regulatory agency or department charged with the responsibility of protecting the general public or consumers or workers and so on, must be empowered to both set the safety and hazard warnings rules and take aggressive, impactful action when they are not followed. Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a landmark 6-3 vote last month, overturned a 60-year old decision, colloquially known as "Chevron", which has the potential to undermine our government's regulatory agencies' ability to hold corporations accountable. What is the Chevron Decision and how could it impact your safety and well-being? In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court ruled against energy giant, Chevron, who challenged the Clean-Air Act, and instructed lower courts to defer to federal agencies when laws passed by Congress are not crystal clear. The 40-year-old decision has been the basis for upholding thousands of regulations by dozens of federal agencies, but has long been a target of conservatives and business groups who argue that it grants too much power to the executive branch, or what some critics call the administrative state. In the decades following the ruling, Chevron has been a bedrock of modern administrative law, requiring judges to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of congressional statutes. But the current high court, with a 6-3 conservative majority has been increasingly skeptical of the powers of federal agencies. With a closely divided Congress, presidential administrations have increasingly turned to federal regulation to implement policy changes. Federal rules impact virtually every aspect of everyday life, from the food we eat and the cars we drive to the air we breathe and homes we live in. For example, the Biden administration has issued a whole host of new regulations on the environment, including restrictions from emissions at power plants and from vehicle tailpipes. Those actions and others could be opened up to legal challenges if judges are allowed to discount or disregard the expertise of the executive-branch agencies that put them into place. When you consider who was advocating for the overturn of Chevron, it does not bode well for consumers and their safety: groups representing the gun industry and other businesses such as tobacco, agriculture, timber and homebuilding, were among those pressing the justices to overturn the Chevron doctrine and weaken government regulation. Can you imagine the FDA being defanged by Chevron-influenced lawsuits to the point where tobacco could sell their products to teens or resume advertising on television, a practice banned by Congress since 1970. Or imagine OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) regulations being stripped away that protect worker safety? Or a CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) challenged on its stringent toy regulations that are aimed at infant choking hazards? Or a Department of Agriculture no longer able to inspect meat with the rigor that industry now faces? Or a NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) no longer able to regulate the safety of our automobiles, especially now as we address the feasibility and safety of self-driving vehicles?
Show More