Paul, been there done that with both Lowe's and HD and they don't care because a warning sign would decrease sales; that they run the risk of litigation doesn't trump sales! That's why the have straw flowers because they feel it sells more product.

Sorry, I have to agree with the Garden Dept. manager. There are many plants that can be harmful when handled improperly, from Cacti to Dieffenbachia to Euphorbia...Where do we draw the line if we start putting warning signs up for anything that is potentially harmful?

Christopher

While I don't disagree with Christopher's point, but where and how do we provide the understanding and knowledge for the less educated and unknowing individuals? Shouldn't we have a minimal expectation of someone selling a product who has knowledge of a possible adverse situation to advise of such or should our expectation assume, 'Caveat Emptor'. I don't advocate placing a "skull and crossbones " at every item that may have a potentially serious side effect. But, shouldn't there be that social and moral responsibility for the greater well-being of people. Keep in mind, many of us on this forum know from first-hand experience or word of mouth that the latex sap from Euphorbia can cause a rash and/or blisters on sensitive sink or that "Dumb Cane" is called such because the oxalic acid contained in the leaves causes temporary paralysis of the vocal cords and I'm sure this kind of thing extends in different ways to many other things in our world; things many of us are unaware. So then the question becomes, who should be held accountable? How do we educate or inform of the potential hazards lurking around the next corner? Just some rambling thoughts without a good solution...

And that's the way it is... sleepless in Michigan on, yet, another gray rainy day!

Can't help wondering if there have been lawsuits and if so whether anything came of it. There are disclaimers on everything these days,yet not so much that I've seen concerning houseplants and potential toxicity.

Is that even an ambulance an attorney can chase?

There is 'potential toxicity' in everything around us. Where is the warning label on soda, saying it can lead to obesity and tooth decay? Or on the package of steak, saying if not chewed properly can lodge in the throat and kill you?

If you are enthusiastic enough to want to grow unusual plants, you should be enthusiastic enough to read something about them. Most of the "less educated and unknowing individuals" wouldn't be growing these plants in the first place, and if they did, do you actually think they would bother to read the warning, and if they did, follow the advice? We are all adults here, the responsibility lies with us as individuals.

Christopher

Yes, Christopher, I definitely agree with your point; we are all in charge of ourselves and as such should learn about what we are doing whether it be with plants, diet, using equipment, etc. Sometimes we don't know what we don't know and this doesn't relieve us of our responsibility to ourselves to become educated. I'm only saying it would be easy enough for the the grower, in this instance about plants, to place an additional notice on the label. If the purchaser reads it and determines they are willing to accept the risk and consequences, so be it and I would agree with the principles of Caveat Emptor.

I do understand what you are saying, Christopher, but I don't quite agree with you. Like Howard, I would not expect (or want) to see a huge "CAUTION: HAZARDOUS PLANT!!!" sign on the plants, I do feel it would have been wise to put a note on the plant along the lines of "Avoid sap contact with skin or eyes."

Would an individual necessarily read the warning label if there was such? Perhaps not, but at least a reasonable attempt was made to make the buyer aware. And as Howard mentioned, adding one more line to the tag label provided should pose little difficulty to the grower.

Again, Christopher, (because if memory serves you voiced a similar opinions on another thread) you are making a number of assumptions -- assumptions which I agree are reasonable, but they are also, IME, out of touch with reality.

If you are enthusiastic enough to want to grow unusual plants, you should be enthusiastic enough to read something about them.
You absolutely should! But if you honestly think that happens on a regular basis, you have an unrealistically optimistic view of your fellow man. I know from experience that this is often NOT the case. Such a lack of what you and I would consider common sense is prevalent and can easily be seen in the pet industry and elsewhere.

Most of the "less educated and unknowing individuals" wouldn't be growing these plants in the first place
Perhaps not "most" but still all too many do, Christopher. And again, one can also look at the pet trade which easily bears the sad truth of this out.

We are all adults here ...

No, Christopher, we are NOT. While most of us on this forum, I would guess, are adults we do have members who are not. There are "young'uns" out there who also have an interest in plants. And there are parents who, because it never occurs to them to check, will not go to the effort to research the plant (or animal just to re-reference the pet trade connection) their kid has or intends to get. A simple cautionary statement might alert said parent(s) or even the kid in question.

Will such measures always work? Of course not, to expect such would be preposterous. To quote Douglas Adams:
âÂÂA common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.âÂÂ
The most to be hoped for is to alert the ones that aren't complete fools.

OK, I see the points you are making, but you are both assuming the warnings will be read, and heeded, which I think is a bit unrealistic. But it would do no harm to add them, I now agree.

Christopher

The one label people do read is on plants - and it usually nonexistent, the label I mean. I'm in the camp that would like to see a brief warning, like Paul said, "Avoid sap contact with skin or eyes." If they don't even know what the plants are, how could they do this labeling? "Assorted foliage" and "purple foliage" and "assorted succulents" are the labels for the past few plants I've gotten at L's. More importantly, I'd just like to see each plant bearing its' correct botanical epithet, which would be necessary to begin to enter the realm of warnings.

Other problems I see, from the store's POV, would be the false sense of security it might give for plants that don't have it. And who would be responsible for it, the store or the grower? So many plants give me a rash, even Juniper. Recently reading a discussion about the ubiquitous Ficus benjamina giving someone contact dermatitis. The warning would need to be different for that type of thing. I wash my hands constantly after touching plants since I never know which might make me itch (although the plant being discussed seems, from reading anecdotes, a lot more serious than a little itching.)

I think that people should bee given the latin Names along with their common trade name. We have become a nation of googlers and knowledge is much more available than ever.

I think a small warning is a cool idea, but so many would need it. It almost seems never ending. I think we have become such a Nanny State, expecting every one to do our thinking for us and expecting the dangers in life to be ironed out of our existence by someone else.

I look down for snakes while walking outdoors, but I still walk in the wild.

â¢Posted by wantonamara
I think we have become such a Nanny State, expecting every one to do our thinking for us and expecting the dangers in life to be ironed out of our existence by someone else.

I agree, Mara. Personally, I place much of the blame for this on the multitude of leeches (lawyers) who push the idea that one should sue when something ill befalls one because it certainly "has to be" someone else's fault. (Heaven forbid that it was because you were a flaming idiot -- like that moronic bimbo who sued McDonalds because she stupidly put a hot cup of coffee between her legs while driving and got burned.)

I think we are becoming divorced from our what once was common sense and common knowledge. I tell people leave your needles on your cactus and agaves , your children will learn instinctive caution at an early age. There is knowledge in incremental damage.

I grew up as a toddler in Thailand (siam at the time) and the snakes in the vines that grew on our house could kill you in 15 minutes. The centipedes were really nasty and I am alive to tell the story. I check my shoes and my sheets for scorpions and shake my clothes out( learned behavior). Those buggers like dark corners. Instinctive caution interacts side by side with my constant risk taking behavior of living normally. My gardening choices of how I treat plants is all about the understanding of my own weaknesses and the toxicity around me. We teach our kids about this and they teach themselves if allowed to make mistakes. I lived in another place where they had poisonous apple trees that sweated poison. We walked around it in the same way that kids learn about poison Ivy. Mangoes give some people dermatitis. Do you see signs on them in the grocery store? Do you see signs on peanut Butter or Shrimp that kill a few?.

I also believe in the thinning out of the Gene pool for a stronger more intelligent species. ( Black humor)

Natural selection,eh?

I can relate.

Here is a link that might be useful: Prime example

Paul,

I basically stated the sentiment Wontonamara did, when I wrote earlier, "There is 'potential toxicity' in everything around us. Where is the warning label on soda, saying it can lead to obesity and tooth decay? Or on the package of steak, saying if not chewed properly can lodge in the throat and kill you?" but seems you are agreeing now, that we are responsible for our own actions...

Christopher