Background Failures in communicating risks associated with consumer products, including pharmaceuticals, foods, and medical devices, have repeatedly contributed to preventable morbidity and mortality and have undermined public trust in product safety. Purpose To argue that the prevailing consumer product risk communication paradigm is structurally inadequate and to propose an integrated framework that shifts risk communication from a reactive to a proactive public health function. Research Design Conceptual and policy analysis informed by lessons from major safety crises and established principles of risk communication and risk perception science. Study Sample Not applicable (no human participants or clinical dataset). Data Collection and/or Analysis We synthesize recurring system-level vulnerabilities in consumer product oversight (eg, fragmented regulation, reliance on industry self-reporting, misaligned corporate incentives, and limited incorporation of risk perception science) and integrate these insights with evidence-based communication principles to derive a proposed framework emphasizing transparency, clarity, independent validation, and accountability. Results We identify persistent, predictable failure points that enable delayed recognition and disclosure of risk, inconsistent public messaging, and inadequate accountability, collectively fostering a reactive posture that permits avoidable harm. We propose an integrated framework with four pillars: (1) proactive transparency across the product lifecycle, (2) evidence-based communication clarity tailored to how individuals perceive and act on risk information, (3) independent validation to reduce conflicts of interest and improve credibility, and (4) systemic accountability mechanisms that align corporate behavior with public health goals. Conclusions Incremental refinements to current regulations are unlikely to resolve the recurring, structural drivers of risk communication failure. An integrated, proactive framework is an urgent public health imperative to prevent harm, better equip clinicians and consumers to make informed decisions, and restore confidence in the safety of consumer goods.
Doshi et al. (Fri,) studied this question.