On the television, a pharmaceutical company is suggesting that you see your doctor and ask about their product. The announcer ends the commercial with a disclaimer describing the potential side effects of using their product. You cringe when hear that handling broken tablets can lead to birth defects. Yet, my 12-year old son sees it as a part of life - he and his friends recite the disclaimer along with the announcer. And he can explain to me what it means. He recognizes that even beneficial medicines have risks.

Risk communication has progressed to the stage where businesses can do it in a 30-second soundbite or a 30-minute infomercial. They have made tremendous progress from the late 80's when providing the Toxics Release Inventory information to the public or material safety data sheets to employees were seen as major challenges - ones that would cause the public and employees to overreact and panic.

We underestimated the resiliency and the capability of both the public and the businesses. Businesses responded to the challenge and have learned how to communicate risk effectively. The public did not panic or overreact. People listened and took the action they deemed best – from apathy to activism.

Yet, policy makers continue to be concerned when we talk about helping the public better understand the environmental threats that children are exposed to. Their concern is especially strong when it comes to telling parents about threats that are poorly understood or when there are significant gaps in our knowledge. Silence avoids the risk of panic and overreaction.

Yet, silence withholds from parents critical information – information they need to provide care for their children. Parents need to know about the gaps in our knowledge or that government and businesses do not have all the answers.

Knowing what is not known is a driving force for learning and discovery. It sparks the curiosity that leads to growth.

Ask a scientist. She is likely to acknowledge that the questions her teachers could not answer helped her learn more than the facts and figures in the science books. They challenged her to learn.

So what good is giving families a right-to-know about chemical hazards when we are not candid about our shortcomings in understanding how those hazards affect children? I believe it sells our parents and the public short. After a decade of learning how to explain risks to the public, I think businesses, government, parents and the public are up to the challenge of moving to the next step.

We need to move beyond the situation where we are selling a drug in an infomercial and apply the knowledge learned to situations where children may be involuntarily exposed to an environmental threat. My hope is that the public will continue to develop the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff as businesses explain risks.

Can the public handle knowing about risks and the underlying uncertainties? Yes. And a right-to-know approach is the best way to create the dynamic to move away beyond our chemical-by-chemical command and control approach that will limit long-term environmental progress.