I’m not going to waste your time with a lengthy exposition on overly cautious warning labels. We”re all so used to seeing companies perform the necessary CYA that it insults my intelligence when people expect me to still be surprised to see it.
People are stupid and they act stupidly and then they get hurt. After that, they sue manufacturers, restaurants, etc. for not warning them against what they did. This is nothing new.
Today, I bring you something a little different. Take a look at this:
This is a seasoning for meat, packaged in a typical spice bottle. Beneath where it says “Low Sodium,” you can see that it only rates one flame out of four. This stuff is not spicy at all; it tastes more like lime than anything else. Now look at the writing on the lid: “this is not a candy.” Candy? That’s random. How does anyone get this stuff mixed up with candy?
Oh, I know, it’s the highly visible “low sodium” marking on the label or the word “seasoning” in large lettering right above. Candy is almost always low in sodium, so this must be candy, right?
But then, in case the lettering on the lid wasn’t enough to protect you and your children (from what, exactly?), the warning is repeated on the back label.
So, the warning is important enough to print twice, but it’s sufficiently unimportant that they put it after the ingredient list and a couple of other details. Additionally, we can deduce that this product, because it isn’t spicy, would not cause a lawsuit even if some kid tried to eat it like candy.
From a legal perspective, “this is not eye drops” would seem like a less laughable warning label.
They must think we’re beyond stupid.
Or maybe they’re sadistic. Or maybe they have really bad lawyers. Or both. This other product has no warning on it, not even on the box it came in:
Now please, everyone, don’t go feeding this to your toddler just so you can try to win a multimillion dollar lawsuit. That toddler will choose your nursing home one day.