Making the rounds, from Reddit: “Please do not enter the dangerous area beyond this gate! You quite possibly will be hurt, then you will sue. … [This sign] will be ‘Exhibit 1’.”
Last fall the editors of the Vermont Law Review were kind enough to invite me to participate in a discussion on food and product labeling, part of a day-long conference “The Disclosure Debates” with panels on environmental, financial, and campaign disclosure. Other panelists included Christine DeLorme of the Federal Trade Commission, Division of Advertising Practices; Brian Dunkiel, Dunkiel Saunders; George Kimbrell, Center for Food Safety; and David Zuckerman, Vermont State Senator and Farmer, Full Moon Farm.
An amusing guarantee/waiver, via @fourgreenis on Twitter.
Hat tip Richard Morrison: a container of monosodium glutamate (MSG) with the advisory (promise? warning?) “No MSG.” Original here.
- As football helmet makers come under litigation pressure, one company’s label simply advises not playing football [New York Times, ABA Journal]
- D.C. Circuit: Obama administration has broken law by stalling action on Nevada nuclear site [AP/ABC News, In re Aiken County (PDF)]
- Unexpected venue? Writer in National Review suggests legalizing prostitution [Charles Cooke]
- Eight reasons New York City rent is so ridiculously high [Josh Barro]
- “How much is a life worth?” [Kenneth Feinberg profile in National Journal]
- Ed Markey vs. amusement parks [Elie Mystal, Above the Law]
- How easy is it to pull real estate deed fraud? You (and the owners of the Empire State Building) might be surprised [Now I Know]
Coming up on TV tonight, including the winner announcement for the year’s Wacky Warning Label contest with Bob Dorigo Jones.
This year’s Wacky Warning Labels contest has reached the finalist stage. Others that made the cut: “Wash hands after using” on a common extension cord, a Prop 65 (California) warning on a box of matches advising that they may produce combustion by-products, and a warning on a pedometer that the maker will not be liable for any injuries to runners using the device. [Bob Dorigo Jones]
More: David Henderson on “warning pollution.”
A supermarket chain has withdrawn bags of nuts – after failing to declare they may contain peanuts.
The Food Standards Agency issued an allergy alert saying the presence of peanuts was not declared on Booths’ own brand packets of monkey nuts.
“Monkey nuts” is the local name for peanuts sold in the shell, which to most of us are even more immediately identifiable as peanuts than those sold without. The Express rounds up a couple of reactions from Britons on the street:
Pensioner Peter Davy, 73, of Preston, fumed: “It says monkey nuts on the packet. What do they think is in it? Cheese?” Jenny Harpin, 56, said: “If I bought a bag of monkey nuts I wouldn’t be too surprised to find they contained nuts.”
The government agency inevitably took a different view: “Without the correct information on the packaging, people with an allergy to peanuts who might not know or make the connection between peanuts and monkey nuts, for example children, might eat the product and experience an adverse reaction.” More: Lowering the Bar.