The authors’ main idea is firmly nested on showing how earlier regulatory history of household poisons worked and its limitations, and also the lessons that could be learned for modern-day practice especially in the context of poison prevention and product packaging (Jones & Benrubi, 2013).
The authors use several essential facts to support the main idea. For instance, they argue that debates over warning labels and packaging design have been largely ignored in contemporary society, leading to misuse of household poisons and consequent mortality and morbidity for the affected members. Additionally, the authors provide a comprehensive history of the regulations and laws governing the packaging, design, manufacture and distribution of dangerous household chemicals.
The authors also draw on the literature of patent medicines to demonstrate how common household poisons found their way into the market with no ingredients list on the label or with vague information. Lastly, the authors use the concepts of mass consumption and advertisement to demonstrate how the problem of misusing dangerous household chemicals became internalized in America (Jones & Benrubi, 2013).
This article supports its view of the issue by drawing upon historical accounts to demonstrate how dangerous household chemicals have been dealt with in America. Specifically, it draws upon historical experiences between drug manufacturers, pharmacists, government, health agencies, innovators, marketers and other interested parties to demonstrate how the issue of consumer protection against dangerous household products has evolved in the U.S.
There are several weaknesses in the argument of this article. For example, the authors introduce multiple issues to the point that it becomes difficult to follow how earlier regulatory history of consumer protection against household poisons worked. Additionally, there is no consistency in dealing with the major thematic areas of the article, leading to confusion.
In contributing to the thesis of the article, it would have been more prudent to frame the section in reference to limitations of regulations aimed at enhancing consumer protection against dangerous household poisons, rather than underlining the article’s historical context.
There exists obvious misrepresentation of facts when the authors attempt to connect historical experiences with what is currently happening on the ground.
In my view, it would have been plausible for the authors to provide a linkage between the history of household poison regulations in America and how this has contributed to the ultimate rejection of the preventive approach to consumer health and safety protection. This information is blurred and the authors could have done better to tie the evidentiary experiences with lessons for modern-day practice.
Lastly, in personally reviewing the article to correlate both theory and practice, it is my considered opinion that the authors have failed to back their assertions with existing theoretical frameworks to solidify their findings.
It would have been plausible, for instance, to use a consumer-related theory or an organizational theory to demonstrate how manufacturers are able to sell poisonous household chemicals to customers without warning labels. Additionally, it is possible that lack of adherence to the many Poison Acts passed by players with vested interests could have been as a result of other business or economic factors beyond what the authors suggest. Hence there is compelling need for the authors to base their arguments on solid theory.
Reference
Jones, M.M., & Benrubi, D. (2013). Poison politics: A contentious history of consumer protection against dangerous household chemicals in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 103(5), 801-812.