3 ms·

>cat in microwave How oddly specific....were you referencing this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMH8Tof69SE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMH8Tof69SE I d

by Nadya 10y ago

>cat in microwave How oddly specific....were you referencing this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMH8Tof69SE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMH8Tof69SE I do agree the U.S has a problem with rather frivulious lawsuits over "not following the letter of the law" or "wasn't mentioned in the safety manual to not do this thing that should have been common sense". It seems when people think "American legal system" things like this come to mind: http://i.imgur.com/D7aP2bT.png http://i.imgur.com/D7aP2bT.png If I remember correctly though, the silliness of the above is actually due to a law about packaging must contain allergen information for certain common allergies. This means even peanuts must contain the label in order to comply with the law. Rather than list exceptions and complicate the law, it applies broadly to everything. IANAL, I may not be remembering this fact 100% correctly.

arcticfox 10y ago
The peanuts picture is funny, but it's 100% the simple. logical, and safe way to do it.
- Nadya 10y ago
  I was defending it ;) I find it absolutely hilarious whenever I see it - but simple laws with "silly consequences" are better than complex laws that are difficult to follow, let alone enforce. Not to mention having to come up with and define products that would fit into the exceptions list, and investigating whether or not the product actually - blah blah blah. Bunch of overhead. Better use of tax payer money to say "if it contains one of these allergens, say so on the packaging" and be done with it. No questions asked and it doesn't complicate the law to avoid saying something silly like "peanuts may contain peanuts".
  - arcticfox 10y ago
    > I was defending it ;) For sure, I was just trying to be forceful in my (same) opinion. It's a good example and good common sense.
- PascalsMugger 10y ago
  I think perhaps a more subtle warning would be to have the container sense an rfid tag in peanut allergic peoples' hands and set off a warning alarm and flashing lights.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
allendoerfer 10y ago
To calm you a bit, while not legally required, there are packages in Germany advertising the product being free of gluten and lactose and vegan, when there are obviously neither milk, grains nor animals involved.

by Nadya 10y ago

arcticfox 10y ago

The peanuts picture is funny, but it's 100% the simple. logical, and safe way to do it.

Nadya 10y ago
I was defending it ;) I find it absolutely hilarious whenever I see it - but simple laws with "silly consequences" are better than complex laws that are difficult to follow, let alone enforce. Not to mention having to come up with and define products that would fit into the exceptions list, and investigating whether or not the product actually - blah blah blah. Bunch of overhead. Better use of tax payer money to say "if it contains one of these allergens, say so on the packaging" and be done with it. No questions asked and it doesn't complicate the law to avoid saying something silly like "peanuts may contain peanuts".
- arcticfox 10y ago
  > I was defending it ;) For sure, I was just trying to be forceful in my (same) opinion. It's a good example and good common sense.
PascalsMugger 10y ago
I think perhaps a more subtle warning would be to have the container sense an rfid tag in peanut allergic peoples' hands and set off a warning alarm and flashing lights.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

allendoerfer 10y ago

To calm you a bit, while not legally required, there are packages in Germany advertising the product being free of gluten and lactose and vegan, when there are obviously neither milk, grains nor animals involved.