Warning labels have gone too far...

[MmmSkyscraper]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
If a cashew touches another cashew, it's technically touching another nut.

Aw nuts! /Lenny

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper

Originally posted by: Jeff7
If a cashew touches another cashew, it's technically touching another nut.

Aw nuts! /Lenny

And mix these mixed nuts! I see two almonds touching!

Originally posted by: cdmccool
If all you want to do is argue semantics, then carry on. If you want to argue against the need for such a warning, then you're ignorant at best.

Serious thread is serious! This are serious thread!

 

[BurnItDwn]

Originally posted by: cdmccool
Some people are highly sensitive when it comes to food allergies. That information could be very important to someone allergic to peanuts for example.

I am highly allergic to wheat, and cross contamination can be a problem. The little warning that you see that says "Produced in a facility that also produces wheat products" is very helpful.

I agree. There is nothing dumb about this warning label. Especially since cashews are not nuts. (They are seeds, look it up, morans)

Also, people who have allergies to nuts are probably not allergic to cashews, so something like this would be VERY informative to let somebody with allergies to know.

That said, there are a LOT of dumb warning labels out there, this just doesn't happen to be one.

 

[Xavier434]

Don't blame the warning labels. Blame the lawyers and judges that allow the lawsuits to happen which end up resulting in the labels.

 

[iamwiz82]

In my new car's owners manual, under the Refueling section:

Do not drive until the tank is empty. Otherwise, the engine may not operate properly

 

[Fritzo]

We ran out of toilet paper the other day and my wife got an emergency pack from a local Dollar General. It had directions on "how to use" on the back.

If I would have thought of it, I should have taken a picture

 

[RKS]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Don't blame the warning labels. Blame the lawyers and judges that allow the lawsuits to happen which end up resulting in the labels.

Lets see who is to blame:

Idiot files the lawsuit because they do not take resposibiliy for their own asinine actions.

An attorney AND the judge see merit in the case. If an attorney brings a suit that has no merit they face major sanctions.

So the lawyer actully comes up with a argument wether valid or not is bought by the idiots on the jury.

Sure the attorney gets a portion of the settlement/award but its the idiots who actually decide to sue and the even bigger morons that award large damages that are to blame.

This forces all manufacturers to try to create idiot-proof labels.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: RKS

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Don't blame the warning labels. Blame the lawyers and judges that allow the lawsuits to happen which end up resulting in the labels.

Lets see who is to blame:

Idiot files the lawsuit because they do not take resposibiliy for their own asinine actions.

An attorney AND the judge see merit in the case. If an attorney brings a suit that has no merit they face major sanctions.

So the lawyer actully comes up with a argument wether valid or not is bought by the idiots on the jury.

Sure the attorney gets a portion of the settlement/award but its the idiots who actually decide to sue and the even bigger morons that award large damages that are to blame.

This forces all manufacturers to try to create idiot-proof labels.

I blame both. However, the idiots wouldn't consider the lawsuit in the first place if they were convinced that they didn't stand a chance at winning. Lawyers are running a business. The cut throat marketing of that business over the years has convinced the public that they can sue for anything and stand a chance. Unfortunately, they are right. The lawyers taught the public to be idiots using greed as the textbook and they take advantage of the loopholes in the law to make that possible. I wish they would draw the line somewhere but the lawyers are just too greedy to take a stand and preserve what the laws were written for in the first place.

 

[potato28]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: spidey07
My favorite one - and this is on a bag of peanuts.

"allergy information - may have come in contact with peanuts or other nuts"

Food allergies are natures way of weeding people out. Eliminate the allergy information.

The irony is that they could very well be caused by over-protective parents sheltering their kids.

I firmly believe in this as well. They don't fully develop a proper immune system.

Hell, we ate dirt. Mudpies.

It hasn't been proven yet, but I also strongly believe this too, although some allergies such as ragweed are genetic.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82
In my new car's owners manual, under the Refueling section:

Do not drive until the tank is empty. Otherwise, the engine may not operate properly

So, you can't drive the car unless it has an empty tank? How the hell are you supposed to get anywhere?

 

[AmpedSilence]

On a bag of Southwest honey roasted peanuts, there was the warning "May have been processed in a factory that processes nuts or other similar items".

I was incredibly surprised. A bag of honey roasted peanuts was produced in a nut producing factory. Thank god for the warning, I would have never guessed!