Oh FFS
BenB - 26/4/13 at 01:30 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-22308165
What stupid world do we live in where packets of perfectly edible nuts have to be destroyed because they don't have a sign on them warning people
that the packet of nuts they've just bought contains nuts?
whatever next, obligatory signs on lamp-posts "Do not eat this". How about signs in the zoo saying "Do not try to mate with the
lions". I mean if someone did just think of the damage.
We let millions of people drink faeces contaminated water worldwide which we're "too busy" to do something about yet we've got the
time and money to ensure that people who are allergic to peanuts (and will therefore know what to avoid) don't accidentally eat nuts they know
they're allergic to.
WTF
AndyW - 26/4/13 at 01:45 PM
Margaret Thatcher would have never let this country get to this state............................
Edited to say that I showed this news report to my wife. Our daughter has a severe nut allergy and even this type of story makes us raise our eyes and
say FFS.
[Edited on 26/4/13 by AndyW]
whitestu - 26/4/13 at 02:42 PM
People seem obsessed with the dangers of nuts.
I sent my son to school with some walnuts in his lunchbox and he was made to throw them in the bin!
Stu
contaminated - 26/4/13 at 04:33 PM
Remove warning labels and cull the stupid part of the population I say. Unbelievable. Mind you I bought some chocolate covered Puffin Poo for my
daughter yesterday and that has a "may contain nuts" sticker!
AndyW - 26/4/13 at 04:38 PM
quote:
Originally posted by contaminated
Remove warning labels and cull the stupid part of the population I say. Unbelievable. Mind you I bought some chocolate covered Puffin Poo for my
daughter yesterday and that has a "may contain nuts" sticker!
As my daughter has a serious nut allergy, not many people know that chocolate is the worst thing for containing nuts and nut oil and having no warning
to say so. So as for removing all labels, that's a pretty stupid comment to be honest. No one would think to not give chocolate to a child, but
cheap plain chocolate that could cause a reaction needs the kind of warnings so stupid people don't give it out to people who may not realise.
My daughter is only 6 and knows that she cant have any chocolate other than one make, so she has a sensible head on her. Imagine most 6 year old
reaction to "no chocolate, it could kill you!!"
scudderfish - 26/4/13 at 04:45 PM
My favourite was on a jar of Nytol that I bought. "May cause drowsiness". I hope so, that's why I bought them!
coyoteboy - 26/4/13 at 05:15 PM
quote:
People seem obsessed with the dangers of nuts. I sent my son to school with some walnuts in his lunchbox and he was made to throw them in the bin!
Stu
People seem oblivious to the dangers nuts can present to other people. I have a friend who goes into anaphylactic shock if you touch her after having
eaten a packet of nuts earlier in the day. Schools often have policies like this so that individual school kids don't have to be constantly
watched and cared for. Not much to ask to keep vulnerable kids safe by preventing other kids having one particular type of food. It's precisely
because people like you [no offence, you just clearly don't think it's an issue] think that some people are unreasonably obsessed that
everyone has to be treated with a blanket policy.
I'm allergic to prawns, I can eat most prawn crackers because they don't often contain prawns. In the world of modern food processing
there's a reason why food has to be labelled, it might seem mad at times but it's not done for the hell of it.
[Edited on 26/4/13 by coyoteboy]
whitestu - 26/4/13 at 09:11 PM
quote:
quote:
People seem obsessed with the dangers of nuts. I sent my son to school with some walnuts in his lunchbox and he was made to throw them in the bin!
Stu
People seem oblivious to the dangers nuts can present to other people. I have a friend who goes into anaphylactic shock if you touch her after having
eaten a packet of nuts earlier in the day. Schools often have policies like this so that individual school kids don't have to be constantly
watched and cared for. Not much to ask to keep vulnerable kids safe by preventing other kids having one particular type of food. It's precisely
because people like you [no offence, you just clearly don't think it's an issue] think that some people are unreasonably obsessed that
everyone has to be treated with a blanket policy.
I'm allergic to prawns, I can eat most prawn crackers because they don't often contain prawns. In the world of modern food processing
there's a reason why food has to be labelled, it might seem mad at times but it's not done for the hell of it.
[Edited on 26/4/13 by coyoteboy]
No offence taken!
By that argument wouldn't you ban most foods as nut traces are in lots of things?
Stu
JoelP - 26/4/13 at 09:27 PM
Isnt there something about peanuts not actually being nuts? When i heard on this on the radio today, i noticed that the product was peanuts but it was
sold as 'something nuts'. So techincally if peanuts are significantly different to nuts, it could be an important omission.
Plus one should also point out, these arent new food labelling rules. If a manufacturer has fooked up and not labelled to the letter of the law, then
that is their problem not ours. You'd all be pissed off if someone was making money by ignoring any law that you happened to agree with.
Id rather live in a country where laws are enforced rather than, say, bangladesh or india, where this week hundreds have died due to poor building
standards. Some arsewipe thought he could add two extra floors onto a 5 story block and get away with it.
Ninehigh - 26/4/13 at 09:28 PM
The argument here is not about trace amounts of nut in something, those warnings are fair enough.
The argument IS that we have to protect the complete flaming moron who, while knowingly allergic to peanuts, will buy a pack of peanuts then sue when
s/he has a reaction to the peanuts because "Roasted salted peanuts" in large letters on the front of the packet isn't enough of a
giveaway.
Specific example time:
AndyW, if I handed your daughter a packet of KP nuts would she look for the "warning contains nuts" on the back of the pack or would she be
able to figure it out straight away?
AndyW - 26/4/13 at 09:38 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Ninehigh
The argument here is not about trace amounts of nut in something, those warnings are fair enough.
The argument IS that we have to protect the complete flaming moron who, while knowingly allergic to peanuts, will buy a pack of peanuts then sue when
s/he has a reaction to the peanuts because "Roasted salted peanuts" in large letters on the front of the packet isn't enough of a
giveaway.
Specific example time:
AndyW, if I handed your daughter a packet of KP nuts would she look for the "warning contains nuts" on the back of the pack or would she be
able to figure it out straight away?
She would see the kp nuts name then ask for us to check, she is very aware of what she knows and what she doesn't which is a good thing. If she
has not had something before like kp nuts, then she would keep then until we checked. She has been to kids parties where they hand out party bags, all
the kids come out munching on the various goodies and she will just hand us the bag and ask for us to check the content.
[Edited on 26/4/13 by AndyW]
Ninehigh - 26/4/13 at 10:00 PM
So at SIX years old she's capable of knowing to check, or at least trust nothing but her parent's opinion. Sensible
Also found http://www.tickld.com/t/84605
jollygreengiant - 27/4/13 at 06:22 AM
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
Isnt there something about peanuts not actually being nuts? When i heard on this on the radio today, i noticed that the product was peanuts but it was
sold as 'something nuts'. So techincally if peanuts are significantly different to nuts, it could be an important omission.
Correct.
Peanuts are NOT true nuts that grow on trees, they are more correctly called 'Ground Nuts' because that is where they grow, in and of the
ground. If you want a fascinating little experiment, go and buy a packet of un-cooked raw peanuts or ground nuts still in their 'shells' or
husks. Eat as many as you want (IF you can and are not allergic to them) then take those that are left and carefully plant them in something like a
grow bag or your garden (if you want). Sit back and watch. eventually you will get some small plants that will have little yellow flowers, that when
pollinated then make for the soil and bury them-selves. And that is where the 'nuts' develop, under ground. It is also why the
'Peanut' is actually I believe a member of the legume family along with peas and beans.
[Edited on 27/4/13 by jollygreengiant]
RK - 27/4/13 at 10:17 PM
Sorry Ben, but in our country, it's the MD's who go on and on about allergies, and cause this sort of thing to happen. It's the reason
dogs are not allowed ANYWHERE near a shop or god forbid, a restaurant. Criky, they eat as much as the homo sapien patrons in French restaurants, and
nobody minds. They aren't even allowed in provincial parks in my third world dictatorship of a crap province. The world is NUTS!
JC - 28/4/13 at 06:49 AM
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
Isnt there something about peanuts not actually being nuts? /quote]
After the recent food scandals, I don't want to think what they might be!
Years ago I was in America when the same subject came up! They showed a large screwdriver with the warning "do not insert sharp end in ear"
(some sort of listening to rattle tappers error??) but went on to say that they wanted a warning on hand guns!!! Like what??? Caution, if used
correctly this may maim or kill??????
contaminated - 28/4/13 at 08:56 AM
quote:
Originally posted by AndyW
quote:
Originally posted by contaminated
Remove warning labels and cull the stupid part of the population I say. Unbelievable. Mind you I bought some chocolate covered Puffin Poo for my
daughter yesterday and that has a "may contain nuts" sticker!
As my daughter has a serious nut allergy, not many people know that chocolate is the worst thing for containing nuts and nut oil and having no warning
to say so. So as for removing all labels, that's a pretty stupid comment to be honest. No one would think to not give chocolate to a child, but
cheap plain chocolate that could cause a reaction needs the kind of warnings so stupid people don't give it out to people who may not realise.
My daughter is only 6 and knows that she cant have any chocolate other than one make, so she has a sensible head on her. Imagine most 6 year old
reaction to "no chocolate, it could kill you!!"
FFS! I would agree with you if:
A. My comments were anything other than a joke
B. This thread was about foods (like chocolate) that might contain nuts. It's not, it's about chucking out nuts because there's no
label saying they might contain nuts.
David Jenkins - 28/4/13 at 10:09 AM
quote:
Originally posted by JC
... but went on to say that they wanted a warning on hand guns!!! Like what??? Caution, if used correctly this may maim or kill??????
This has been the case for decades! I used to do target pistol shooting, and one day I noticed some words stamped into the barrel of my friend's
Ruger revolver. It was 5 or 6 lines of small lettering, saying basically "Guns can kill... don't point it at anyone... blah, blah".
Did a quick interwebbie search and found this example - looks like they've simplified it a little since that time!
richardm6994 - 28/4/13 at 11:22 AM
Anyone bought one of the cheap Stanley knifes (not Stanley but you know what I mean) from screwfix that comes with a warning label on the handle
stating
"Caution - knife blade sharp"
The ironic thing is that they are not sharp for long!!!
Oh ffs indeed
Ninehigh - 28/4/13 at 04:15 PM
You know we could get around this by having ONE lesson in schools:
"Things you should know before being allowed out on your own"
And contain such gems as:
Coffee (also tea, hot chocolate and bovril) is hot
Knives are sharp
If you're allergic to something, avoid it
Wet floors are slippery, any floor may be wet (especially when it's raining or has been raining)
Don't lick live cables
And so on. I think it could be covered in a one hour lesson and a couple of pages of notes
DarrenW - 13/6/13 at 05:47 PM
I recall a story while I worked at Black&Decker where all of the artwork for heat guns had to be quickly changed. Apparently someone in America
used one as a hair dryer and sued them!
David Jenkins - 13/6/13 at 07:11 PM
I had a laugh when I read the instructions for a Morphy Richards iron I bought for my wife a while ago... along the lines of "Do not iron clothes
while you are wearing them. Don't laugh, people have tried it!" - I can't remember their exact words, but it wasn't much different
from those!
DarrenW - 13/6/13 at 07:29 PM
i remember seeing a microwave style meal once that had some instructions underneath, one said something along the lines of "do not
invert"!!!!
onenastyviper - 13/6/13 at 07:39 PM
Here is a little question to ponder:
If you have never done something before, how do you know if something is a good idea?
clairetoo - 13/6/13 at 08:48 PM
quote:
Originally posted by onenastyviper
Here is a little question to ponder:
If you have never done something before, how do you know if something is a good idea?
A very rare thing these days - common sense - is that little voice inside that questions weather the thing you are about to do is likely to be a good
idea.........
MikeR - 13/6/13 at 10:10 PM
quote:
Originally posted by clairetoo
quote:
Originally posted by onenastyviper
Here is a little question to ponder:
If you have never done something before, how do you know if something is a good idea?
A very rare thing these days - common sense - is that little voice inside that questions weather the thing you are about to do is likely to be a good
idea.........
Is now a good time to mention about trying to detect the direction of a fan?
(intended to be humorous comment!)
