Yet another new warning label on food. Spotted on a bag of Planters
Peanuts: "Do not give any nuts to children under 6 years old: Choking
hazard".

Pretty soon they won't have room for the nutritional information on food
packaging. I suspect the next label will say something like, "Do not eat
more than the recommended serving size due to risk of obesity".

I propose a new, catch-all warning label: "Eating food may be hazardous
to your health.", and just be done with it.

-sw

Sqwertz wrote:

>
> I propose a new, catch-all warning label: "Eating food may be
> hazardous to your health.", and just be done with it.

Seconded...

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy
"Sorry Dear, dinner is late, had to reboot the stove." -mrr

Sqwertz wrote:
> Yet another new warning label on food. Spotted on a bag of Planters
> Peanuts: "Do not give any nuts to children under 6 years old: Choking
> hazard".
>
> Pretty soon they won't have room for the nutritional information on food
> packaging. I suspect the next label will say something like, "Do not
> eat more than the recommended serving size due to risk of obesity".
>
> I propose a new, catch-all warning label: "Eating food may be hazardous
> to your health.", and just be done with it.
>
> -sw

The blame rests squarely on the john edwards wannabes. Unfortunately the
majority of lawyers only got into that profession as a means to move
other people's wealth to themselves however they have to do it.

In article >,
Sqwertz > wrote:

> Yet another new warning label on food. Spotted on a bag of Planters
> Peanuts: "Do not give any nuts to children under 6 years old: Choking
> hazard".
>
> Pretty soon they won't have room for the nutritional information on food
> packaging. I suspect the next label will say something like, "Do not eat
> more than the recommended serving size due to risk of obesity".
>
> I propose a new, catch-all warning label: "Eating food may be hazardous
> to your health.", and just be done with it.
>
> -sw

So can breathing...

and drinking water. ;-)
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.

Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> Sqwertz > :
> in rec.food.cooking
>
>> Yet another new warning label on food. Spotted on a bag of Planters
>> Peanuts: "Do not give any nuts to children under 6 years old: Choking
>> hazard".
>
> I haven't seen this label yet but I'm sure I will. I'll have to look for
> it next time. Isn't the warning label a bit ridiculous? I mean, don't
> people know that small children can choke on small objects etc.?
>
> Michael
>

99.9% of such labeling is the result of litigation. If someone traced
this backwards they would likely find some massive suit brought by
someone who has their picture on city buses and runs ads on late night
TV wanting to "help" people.

On Apr 8, 10:35*am, George > wrote:
> Sqwertz wrote:
> > Yet another new warning label on food. *Spotted on a bag of Planters
> > Peanuts: "Do not give any nuts to children under 6 years old: *Choking
> > hazard".
>
> > Pretty soon they won't have room for the nutritional information on food
> > packaging. *I suspect the next label will say something like, "Do not
> > eat more than the recommended serving size due to risk of obesity".
>
> > I propose a new, catch-all warning label: *"Eating food may be hazardous
> > to your health.", and just be done with it.
>
> > -sw
>
> The blame rests squarely on the john edwards wannabes. Unfortunately the
> majority of lawyers only got into that profession as a means to move
> other people's wealth to themselves however they have to do it.

What great contribution did you make to the world to deserve your
wealth?

--Bryan

Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
> On Apr 8, 10:35 am, George > wrote:
>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>> Yet another new warning label on food. Spotted on a bag of Planters
>>> Peanuts: "Do not give any nuts to children under 6 years old: Choking
>>> hazard".
>>> Pretty soon they won't have room for the nutritional information on food
>>> packaging. I suspect the next label will say something like, "Do not
>>> eat more than the recommended serving size due to risk of obesity".
>>> I propose a new, catch-all warning label: "Eating food may be hazardous
>>> to your health.", and just be done with it.
>>> -sw
>> The blame rests squarely on the john edwards wannabes. Unfortunately the
>> majority of lawyers only got into that profession as a means to move
>> other people's wealth to themselves however they have to do it.
>
> What great contribution did you make to the world to deserve your
> wealth?
>
> --Bryan

Likely you need to reread what I wrote..

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 12:48:39 -0400, George wrote:

> Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 10:35 am, George > wrote:
>>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>>> Yet another new warning label on food. Spotted on a bag of Planters
>>>> Peanuts: "Do not give any nuts to children under 6 years old: Choking
>>>> hazard".
>>>> Pretty soon they won't have room for the nutritional information on food
>>>> packaging. I suspect the next label will say something like, "Do not
>>>> eat more than the recommended serving size due to risk of obesity".
>>>> I propose a new, catch-all warning label: "Eating food may be hazardous
>>>> to your health.", and just be done with it.
>>>> -sw
>>> The blame rests squarely on the john edwards wannabes. Unfortunately the
>>> majority of lawyers only got into that profession as a means to move
>>> other people's wealth to themselves however they have to do it.
>>
>> What great contribution did you make to the world to deserve your
>> wealth?
>>
>> --Bryan
>
> Likely you need to reread what I wrote..

maybe he thinks right-wing rants aren't adding much to the conversation.

blake

On Apr 8, 9:44*am, Sqwertz > wrote:
> Yet another new warning label on food. *Spotted on a bag of Planters
> Peanuts: "Do not give any nuts to children under 6 years old: *Choking
> hazard".
>
> Pretty soon they won't have room for the nutritional information on food
> packaging. *I suspect the next label will say something like, "Do not eat
> more than the recommended serving size due to risk of obesity".
>
> I propose a new, catch-all warning label: *"Eating food may be hazardous
> to your health.", and just be done with it.
>
> -sw

The Thanksgiving my daughter was 2, I had bowls of peanuts set out.
She was never a big nibbler, but with all the people milling around, I
suddenly heard my cousin gasp: Oh no! She's eating the peanuts!

Turned around, and there was said 2 year old polishing off the last of
the bowl. She didn't eat much dinner, and threw her birthday cake on
the rug (auntie insisted that the cake had to be chocolate, and kidlet
didn't like that flavor then). She's just headed off for Japan this
morning, so I guess it didn't do her any harm<g>

maxine in ri

maxine wrote:
> On Apr 8, 9:44 am, Sqwertz > wrote:
>> Yet another new warning label on food. Spotted on a bag of Planters
>> Peanuts: "Do not give any nuts to children under 6 years old: Choking
>> hazard".
>>
>> Pretty soon they won't have room for the nutritional information on food
>> packaging. I suspect the next label will say something like, "Do not eat
>> more than the recommended serving size due to risk of obesity".
>>
>> I propose a new, catch-all warning label: "Eating food may be hazardous
>> to your health.", and just be done with it.
>>
>> -sw
>
> The Thanksgiving my daughter was 2, I had bowls of peanuts set out.
> She was never a big nibbler, but with all the people milling around, I
> suddenly heard my cousin gasp: Oh no! She's eating the peanuts!
>
> Turned around, and there was said 2 year old polishing off the last of
> the bowl. She didn't eat much dinner, and threw her birthday cake on
> the rug (auntie insisted that the cake had to be chocolate, and kidlet
> didn't like that flavor then). She's just headed off for Japan this
> morning, so I guess it didn't do her any harm<g>
>
> maxine in ri

How old is your daughter, Maxine? Why is she going to Japan? For
how long?

My daughter was supposed to go this summer with two friends, but
one decided he'd rather go to Italy, and the other (half-Japanese)
is going to Africa with her family instead.

--
Jean B.

blake murphy wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 12:48:39 -0400, George wrote:
>
>> Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
>>> On Apr 8, 10:35 am, George > wrote:
>>>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>>>> Yet another new warning label on food. Spotted on a bag of Planters
>>>>> Peanuts: "Do not give any nuts to children under 6 years old: Choking
>>>>> hazard".
>>>>> Pretty soon they won't have room for the nutritional information on food
>>>>> packaging. I suspect the next label will say something like, "Do not
>>>>> eat more than the recommended serving size due to risk of obesity".
>>>>> I propose a new, catch-all warning label: "Eating food may be hazardous
>>>>> to your health.", and just be done with it.
>>>>> -sw
>>>> The blame rests squarely on the john edwards wannabes. Unfortunately the
>>>> majority of lawyers only got into that profession as a means to move
>>>> other people's wealth to themselves however they have to do it.
>>> What great contribution did you make to the world to deserve your
>>> wealth?
>>>
>>> --Bryan
>> Likely you need to reread what I wrote..
>
> maybe he thinks right-wing rants aren't adding much to the conversation.
>
> blake

So you are saying that when a lawyer initiates bogus litigation say for
$10-50 maybe 100 million simply to profit from it thats a left wing idea
and anyone who objects is a right winger? I am glad you cleared that up
for me...

On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 12:29:08 -0400, George wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 12:48:39 -0400, George wrote:
>>
>>> Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
>>>> On Apr 8, 10:35 am, George > wrote:
>>>>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>>>>> Yet another new warning label on food. Spotted on a bag of Planters
>>>>>> Peanuts: "Do not give any nuts to children under 6 years old: Choking
>>>>>> hazard".
>>>>>> Pretty soon they won't have room for the nutritional information on food
>>>>>> packaging. I suspect the next label will say something like, "Do not
>>>>>> eat more than the recommended serving size due to risk of obesity".
>>>>>> I propose a new, catch-all warning label: "Eating food may be hazardous
>>>>>> to your health.", and just be done with it.
>>>>>> -sw
>>>>> The blame rests squarely on the john edwards wannabes. Unfortunately the
>>>>> majority of lawyers only got into that profession as a means to move
>>>>> other people's wealth to themselves however they have to do it.
>>>> What great contribution did you make to the world to deserve your
>>>> wealth?
>>>>
>>>> --Bryan
>>> Likely you need to reread what I wrote..
>>
>> maybe he thinks right-wing rants aren't adding much to the conversation.
>>
>> blake
>
> So you are saying that when a lawyer initiates bogus litigation say for
> $10-50 maybe 100 million simply to profit from it thats a left wing idea
> and anyone who objects is a right winger? I am glad you cleared that up
> for me...

what bogus suits has john edwards initiated? (oh, and by the way, edwards
is out of politics. george soros is the bogeyman now. do try to keep up
with the memos.)

blake

On Apr 8, 8:44 am, Sqwertz > wrote:
> Yet another new warning label on food. Spotted on a bag of Planters
> Peanuts: "Do not give any nuts to children under 6 years old: Choking
> hazard".
>
> Pretty soon they won't have room for the nutritional information on food
> packaging. I suspect the next label will say something like, "Do not eat
> more than the recommended serving size due to risk of obesity".
>
> I propose a new, catch-all warning label: "Eating food may be hazardous
> to your health.", and just be done with it.
>
> -sw

Nuts as a choking hazard aren't nearly as dangerous (IMO) as mashed
potatoes, soft bread or peanut butter, to name some gooey things.

N.

blake murphy wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 12:29:08 -0400, George wrote:
>
>> blake murphy wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 12:48:39 -0400, George wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 8, 10:35 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>>>>>> Yet another new warning label on food. Spotted on a bag of Planters
>>>>>>> Peanuts: "Do not give any nuts to children under 6 years old: Choking
>>>>>>> hazard".
>>>>>>> Pretty soon they won't have room for the nutritional information on food
>>>>>>> packaging. I suspect the next label will say something like, "Do not
>>>>>>> eat more than the recommended serving size due to risk of obesity".
>>>>>>> I propose a new, catch-all warning label: "Eating food may be hazardous
>>>>>>> to your health.", and just be done with it.
>>>>>>> -sw
>>>>>> The blame rests squarely on the john edwards wannabes. Unfortunately the
>>>>>> majority of lawyers only got into that profession as a means to move
>>>>>> other people's wealth to themselves however they have to do it.
>>>>> What great contribution did you make to the world to deserve your
>>>>> wealth?
>>>>>
>>>>> --Bryan
>>>> Likely you need to reread what I wrote..
>>> maybe he thinks right-wing rants aren't adding much to the conversation.
>>>
>>> blake
>> So you are saying that when a lawyer initiates bogus litigation say for
>> $10-50 maybe 100 million simply to profit from it thats a left wing idea
>> and anyone who objects is a right winger? I am glad you cleared that up
>> for me...
>
> what bogus suits has john edwards initiated? (oh, and by the way, edwards
> is out of politics. george soros is the bogeyman now. do try to keep up
> with the memos.)
>
> blake

Edwards made his fortune through medical malpractice litigation. His
name immediately popped into my mind since he is a well known shady
scumbag. Likely few would recognize the local firm who has billboards
all over town and on buses proclaiming they have been named "super
lawyers". I asked a friend and the "super lawyer" status refers to how
much wealth they have acquired through litigation.

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 09:19:20 -0400, George wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 12:29:08 -0400, George wrote:
>>
>>> blake murphy wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 12:48:39 -0400, George wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 8, 10:35 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>>>>>>> Yet another new warning label on food. Spotted on a bag of Planters
>>>>>>>> Peanuts: "Do not give any nuts to children under 6 years old: Choking
>>>>>>>> hazard".
>>>>>>>> Pretty soon they won't have room for the nutritional information on food
>>>>>>>> packaging. I suspect the next label will say something like, "Do not
>>>>>>>> eat more than the recommended serving size due to risk of obesity".
>>>>>>>> I propose a new, catch-all warning label: "Eating food may be hazardous
>>>>>>>> to your health.", and just be done with it.
>>>>>>>> -sw
>>>>>>> The blame rests squarely on the john edwards wannabes. Unfortunately the
>>>>>>> majority of lawyers only got into that profession as a means to move
>>>>>>> other people's wealth to themselves however they have to do it.
>>>>>> What great contribution did you make to the world to deserve your
>>>>>> wealth?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Bryan
>>>>> Likely you need to reread what I wrote..
>>>> maybe he thinks right-wing rants aren't adding much to the conversation.
>>>>
>>>> blake
>>> So you are saying that when a lawyer initiates bogus litigation say for
>>> $10-50 maybe 100 million simply to profit from it thats a left wing idea
>>> and anyone who objects is a right winger? I am glad you cleared that up
>>> for me...
>>
>> what bogus suits has john edwards initiated? (oh, and by the way, edwards
>> is out of politics. george soros is the bogeyman now. do try to keep up
>> with the memos.)
>>
>> blake
>
> Edwards made his fortune through medical malpractice litigation. His
> name immediately popped into my mind since he is a well known shady
> scumbag.

he is a well-known shady scumbag to right-wingers such as yourself. other
people, not so much.

blake

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 09:19:20 -0400, George >
fired up random neurons and synapses to opine:

>Edwards made his fortune through medical malpractice litigation. His
>name immediately popped into my mind since he is a well known shady
>scumbag. Likely few would recognize the local firm who has billboards
>all over town and on buses proclaiming they have been named "super
>lawyers". I asked a friend and the "super lawyer" status refers to how
>much wealth they have acquired through litigation.

There is actually a magazine published called "Super Lawyer" that
purports to "names attorneys in each state who received the highest
point totals, as chosen by their peers and through the independent
research of Law & Politics. Rising Stars names the state's top
up-and-coming attorneys.

"Super Lawyers magazine is published in all 50 states and reaches more
than 13 million readers."

Since the DH is generally included in the annual southern California
publication, I can attest that he doesn't fit into your category of
"how much wealth" he's acquired through litigation. He's a litigator,
but a bankruptcy lawyer, with a modest practice. He is well respected
by bench and bar and that's worth a lot more than a nod from such a
dubious source.

And if you have to buy billboard space, you're at the bottom of the
legal food chain.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--

"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "meatloaf" with "cox"

And another one heard on TV as a Drug Advertisement.

"Do Not Take This Medication if You're Allergic To It".

I think the Grandaddy Of All Warning Labels was:

"This Bag Is Not A Toy"

Were there any other warning labels that preceded that hallmark?

-sw

Nancy2 > wrote:

> Nuts as a choking hazard aren't nearly as dangerous (IMO) as mashed
> potatoes, soft bread or peanut butter, to name some gooey things.

And psyllium husks.

Really fresh Wonder Bread with peanut butter is a killer - you're
right!

-sw

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:29:18 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>And another one heard on TV as a Drug Advertisement.
>
>"Do Not Take This Medication if You're Allergic To It".
>
>I think the Grandaddy Of All Warning Labels was:
>
>"This Bag Is Not A Toy"
>
>Were there any other warning labels that preceded that hallmark?
>
I bought a hammer once with a warning label on it. Something about my
thumb, but I didn't read it closely.
--

modom

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:09:10 -0500, modom (palindrome guy) wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:29:18 -0500, Sqwertz >
> wrote:
>
>>And another one heard on TV as a Drug Advertisement.
>>
>>"Do Not Take This Medication if You're Allergic To It".
>>
>>I think the Grandaddy Of All Warning Labels was:
>>
>>"This Bag Is Not A Toy"
>>
>>Were there any other warning labels that preceded that hallmark?
>>
> I bought a hammer once with a warning label on it. Something about my
> thumb, but I didn't read it closely.

'may cause swearing if you hit your thumb.'

your pal,
blake