I picked up a bag of peanuts at the local QFC. Sure, it was an impulse buy, and I didn't read the label carefully. Then again, I didn't need to. I don't have a peanut allergy, which is why I don't look for warnings about peanut allergies.
So I picked up this.
And on the back, I saw this:
Now, I understand that peanut allergies can be deadly, and those unfortunate enough to suffer them must be very careful in their dietary (and even atmospheric) choices.
But if you are smart enough to be able to read the warning, YOU SHOULD BE SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT PEANUTS CONTAIN PEANUTS!
Was there actually some sort of law suit that inspired this? Did someone actually think these were peanut-free peanuts, and therefore okay? The kind of stupidity that requires such a warning is mind-boggling.
At the same time these warnings seek to encourage caution, they actually do the opposite. The more pointless and stupid warnings I see, the less likely I am to read them. Manuals for electronics today start with several pages of warnings that I completely ignore because when I do read them, they are tell me things like "don't put you TV in the bath tub," or "don't hit someone in the head with your computer" because someone might get hurt.
This endemic stupidity hides actual caution information by burying it under pointless tips that seem to be an attempt to discourage the culling of the human herd.
If I do get injured because I missed the 1 valid warning among the 137 idiotic ones I guess I'll just have to sue the lawyers.