Read fine print on the condom

When you think of an educational bed-time read, the tiny print warning label on a condom wrapper probably doesn't come to mind.\nMost people are unable to summarize the warning ("if used properly, Latex condoms will help reduce the risk of transmission of HIV infection and many other sexually transmitted diseases"), and once they've reached the point in which a condom becomes a necessity, are unlikely to turn back based on a tiny warning.\nOf course, that doesn't mean America isn't above a fiery debate when someone proposes to change the label.\nThe Bush administration is considering asking the Food and Drug Administration to require warning labels on condom packages to provide information concerning papillomavirus (HPV), a widespread STD that can cause genital warts or cervical cancer if untreated.\nSome opponents balk at the change. Some fear the warnings could lessen the use of condoms, or that the warnings aren't needed since people don't read them anyway. \nBut the likelihood of a label being read is not a valid reason to deny the information to be placed on a wrapper. \nCondom warning labels are neither a crazy idea, nor a bad idea. Their primary benefit is they encourage public discussion and discourse on sex. Before any practical applications or solutions can ever be applied to the growing epidemic of unsafe sex lives, the taboo factor must be reduced to a point where people are comfortable talking about it.\nWhile the FDA concedes boiling information on HPV into a few words on a condom will be difficult, it will not be done in vain. Allowing the flow of more information into the public is never a bad thing, even if the label serves as more of a reminder than a literal warning.\nThe most difficult step is getting people to use the protection in the first place. In a recent survey conducted by the American Social Health Association, 84 percent of respondents believed they were adequately protected against STDs. Nearly half -- 47 percent -- never used protection for vaginal sex; 82 percent lacked protection for oral sex; and 64 percent didn't have protection during anal sex.\nIronically, while President Bush proposed this beneficial change, he still insists on doubling the amount of money spent on abstinence-only education. While abstinence is the only true way to avoid STDs, it is not a realistic application to the issue; there is no reliable evidence abstinence-only programs work. It's sad the president seems to want something which would be valuable in a health class curriculum to be brushed off and hidden onto a condom.\nWe recognize the modified warning label won't be an end-all to the dilemma. But we'd take a well-informed public over a public oozing with STDs any day.