The use of cost-benefit analysis in setting workplace health and safety standards commits us to treating worker health and safety as just another commodity, another individual preference, to be traded off against competing commodities. It treats health and safety merely as an instrumental value and denies its intrinsic value. Cost-benefit require that an economic value be placed on one's life and bodily integrity. Typically, this would follow the model used by the insurance industry (where it is used in wrongful death settlements, for example) in which one's life is valued in terms of one's earning potential. Perhaps the most offensive aspect of this approach is the fact that since , in feasibility analysis, health and safety is already treaded off against the economic viability of the industry, a shift to cost-benefit entails that health and safety is traded off against profit margin. Since feasibility analysis is willing to compromise standards to ensure the viability of the industry and since profitability is a necessary condition for viability, cost-benefit aims only to improve the profit margin. In effect, critics of feasibility are arguing that employee health and safety should be sacrificed to increase profit in an already (ad guaranteed by the economically feasible criteria) profitable industry.