Please don't eat the bulbs...

[Scrumpy]

A council in Cornwall plans to stop planting daffodils in case the children eat them.!!
'Totally bonkers' said Barry West of the residents committee..


I don't remember eating flower bulbs as a child..
Are our youngsters of today stupid..!! I think not.. However I have doubt about our councils..

[Michael Rolls]

Oh, for pity's sake! Is there no end to this sort of idiotic nonsense?
Mike

[GrannyMac]

My favourite on a packet of nuts 'This product may contain nuts'. 

[Michael Rolls]

and the warning was composed by a nut!

[Alex]

I don't imagine they taste very nice so why would kids want to eat them ?  Crazy, totally crazy.

[klondike]

I'm wondering if I can sue my local council for the trauma this has caused me realising the dangers I put my children through allowing them into the local parks while there were no warning signs  at all about these dangerous bulbs growing freely in them.

[Michael Rolls]

According to Google, all parts of the daff, including the bulb, are toxic and can cause stomach upsets, but are not terribly dangerous, with effects wearing off after a few hours. Next warning 'do not eat the gravel'? followed by removing it?
Mike

[klondike]

and the warning was composed by a nut!

Those stupid nut and other allergy warnings are a legal requirement. They obviously don't want to risk improving the gene pool by eradicating the terminally stupid who also have allergies.

[Michael Rolls]

Not against the warnings - there have been quite a number of tragic instances from nut allergy especially - it's the stupid use of the bleedin' obvious.
Mike

[Scrumpy]

Packaging has to contain obvious warnings..
There are lawyers out there that would wring their hands in glee to take on a case where a customer didn't realize that nut products contain actual nuts..

[Michael Rolls]

how can anyone not realise that a packet of nuts contains nuts? Only if they are illiterate, in which case they would have been unable to read the warning anyway. It is, of course, a different matter where something does not obviously have nut content
Mike

[klondike]

If the law says the packaging of any product that may contain nuts has to carry the allergy warning "May contain nuts" then packets of nuts are clearly required to carry that warning. I don't see any problem.

[Michael Rolls]

but it's stupid. MAY contain nuts on a packet of nuts - what's wrong - if the law demands - with Warning - NUTS
Mike

[crabbyob]

and the warning was composed by a nut!

by a nut for a nut.... one nut demanded all airlines stop giving packets of nuts so he could take his daughter on holiday... i got the same responce as him when i suggest plane tickets to India be free so i9 could take my son...

[klondike]

I'm guessing that the wording is dictated by statute.

Many things that don't deliberately contain nuts may contain nuts if they are made on production lines that make products that do. It only takes a tiny amount of nuts to trigger the reaction so anything that could conceivably contain some,  however tiny an amount or how unlikely, has to have the warning.

I didn't produce the statute so there is no point telling me how daft you think it is. If you are really incensed then waste 95p on a stamp writing about it to your MP.

https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/04/u-k-bags-nuts-recalled-lack-contains-nuts-warning/