toxic plant list

If such a list or database is created, maybe plants could be rated (0 to 6 stars, 10 point scale, whatever) in terms of relative toxicity... if the ratings are defined, I think that could be very useful... for example, on a 10 point scale, 1 star means eating a lot of the plant could producing mild symptoms and 10 stars means ingesting a small amount (a leaf, a seed) could be fatal. It might then be possible to sort the list according to increasing or decreasing toxicity.

Is there anyone on DG that is a toxicologist that is qualified to rate the toxicity? Both for humans and animals? To me, that's getting into grounds where one could be sued for giving incorrect information. Also, the toxicity levels for some plant types would be different for humans and animals. (Grapes for instance)

Can't we just call it a "general" guide?

Joan has hit on one of the sticking points that has caused us to limit the PlantFiles information to general toxicity warnings: we routinely get inquiries about the toxicity of a given plant for humans, dogs, cats, fish, birds, cattle and horses. The same plant can have widely varying interactions for all those groups. Grapes is a good example; so is poison ivy--horribly allergic for some people, no reaction from others. (Can be quite awful if it's burned and the smoke is inhaled... But pets and birds are seemingly unaffected by it.

I sure can offer fairly reliable animal information, but I am not an MD (not as good at the human stuff)

Geoff, you're awesome! (and I want you to know it's only been in the last month or two that I can no longer smell skunk when I give my pooch a kiss on her nose ;o)

palmbob must be a DVM? And, I thought he was a PD (Palm Doc) ^_^

I love this garden and am so appreciative of the knowledgeable folks here!

Would it help in a high low range was put in for the plant. That way maybe people would know that there can be a variation on the toxic level on a plant.
I think even with animals there can be a wide range of effect. I had a dog that would pick and eat our southern grapes and never had a problem.

Sandy

That's why a "general" guideline would be good. DH's Mom has a small poodle that has drank a cup of coffee every day for 22 years without any adverse side effects.

Yes maybe adding "could be" or "maybe" to the toxic levels may take care of the legal issue for the border line plants.

Sandy

We must not endeavour to reinvent the wheel. I am certain there are lots of reliable sources available through the internet that have already catalogued toxic plants throughout the world. One source could be chosen as our benchmark: a university or a government agency of some sort. When a plant is reported toxic, the chosen database could be checked and that data could be imported into Dave's Garden Toxic Plant Database. DG is educational so there should be no problem importing and displaying their data with appropriate credit.

There are a lot of immensely knowledgeable people in our ranks. I am certainly not one of them. For some reason, I am immune to poison ivy. I don't know why. But if you ask me about poison ivy, I'll tell you it's no problem for me but I am a rare exception. My data is anecdotal rather than scientific. We must stay away from anecdotal data at all costs or the whole process is doomed before it even starts.

Sylvain.

I have not found such a resource (and I've looked). You can find lists that classify as "toxic" or "nontoxic," and you can often find information about the toxic component of the plant, but the hard thing to determine is the relative level of danger the plant may pose.

It's true that "relative danger" can vary a lot when you take individual reactions into account... some people or animals may have a severe reaction to a plant that causes mild symptoms in most, but I'd love to find a resource that at least gave me an idea of how "most" responded to exposure.

I wouldn't be entirely unconcerned about mildly toxic plants, but I'd prefer to ban the seriously dangerous ones for the safety of my new baby & my cat!

I’m quite new to Dave’s and I was surprised that it is difficult to directly add to or amend entries to the “Danger” field of a PlantFiles page. I would also second those who would like to see far more detail on an individual plant’s toxicity than the usual generic “plant is toxic” warning.

I recently had a fairly severe eye injury from the toxic residues of Euphorbia polychroma. I actually discovered the cause of my eye problem about ten days after the injury and only quite by accident while researching a problem with the plant itself. Dave’s didn’t even mention an ocular toxicity for the plant. However, after considerable research of the plant and medical literature it was pretty clear that most of the Euphorbias have some ocular toxicity ranging from mere irritation to blindness.

Having a solid database of the specific plant toxicities at a species level is of more than of academic interest. In my case, I had to provide my ophthalmologist with the pertinent medical articles about Euphorbia eye toxicity. I’m a physician so it wasn’t a problem but for most laypersons, it would be a real hassle, particularly in an emergency. (The local poison control center had nothing about the problem).

Because any practically useful plant toxicity database needs to provide links to Web articles and/or actual copies of medical articles, there probably should be a separate Plant Toxicity database on Dave’s. Then it would be a simple matter to reference that toxicity entry with a link from the Danger field on a PlantFile page. Having the toxicity database limited to a species level would probably be sufficient and enable it to be far more compact than the main PlantFiles.

Welcome! I'm going to pick on you for a minute, because I think you've raised some questions that others may have as well ;o)

Each plant profile has "sections" of details. Each section contains a list of details that can be checked off to display.

The "Danger" section contains these choices:
- Seed is poisonous if ingested
- Parts of plant are poisonous if ingested
- All parts of plant are poisonous if ingested
- Handling plant may cause skin irritation or allergic reaction
- Plant has spines or sharp edges; use extreme caution when handling
- Pollen may cause allergic reaction

Whoever creates the entry or accesses this section first can choose the items they wish to check off. To keep our editors sane (*grin*) we don't allow anyone else to come along and add/change a section unilaterally after the initial choices are made.

If you think a profile needs to be corrected or added to in some way, there's a red "report an error" button in the upper right corner of that page--click on it and the editors can read your notes and track back to the page you were viewing when you initiated the contact with them.



True. Each entry for E. polychroma (the species and some cultivars) lists two warnings:
- All parts of plant are poisonous if ingested
- Handling plant may cause skin irritation or allergic reaction

http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/adv_search.php?searcher[common]=&searcher[family]=&searcher[genus]=Euphorbia&searcher[species]=polychroma&searcher[cultivar]=&searcher[hybridizer]=&searcher[grex]=&search_prefs[blank_cultivar]=&search_prefs[sort_by]=rating&images_prefs=both&Search=Search

You can see from the checklist above that ocular toxicity isn't an option. But the list of choices is kept general for a reason. We regularly get inquiries about the effect of a plant on adults vs. children, cats vs. dogs vs. horses vs. cattle vs. birds vs. fish. Trying to line out all the possible interactions would create an exhaustive list of choices; too many for the average gardener using our database.

And this section is only one of about 15 sections on a typical plant profile--we're also trying to provide gardeners with plant details (height, width, hardiness, sun and water needs, propagation, foliage and flower color, season, etc.)

So that's why we've kept the danger section fairly short and deliberately generalized. Our idea is only to give people a heads-up that a plant might be problematic in some way, and then they can seek out more specific information and details if they need or want to.

Whether we should have a separate toxicity database or list, I dunno. But that's why PlantFiles is the way it is ;o)

Thanks for the explanation. Not having created any PlantFiles entries, I wasn't aware that the available choices were limited to six particular warnings. Now it makes sense.

Actually, on the entire Web, I found only one mention of eye toxicity for E. polychroma. But that was after I learned about Euphorbia eye toxicity in the succulents and was specifically searching for it in E. polychroma. Initially, I thought my eye problem was due to a fungicide I used for PJM Phytophthora.

Joan I really like the toxicity notes that you are adding to PF. Thanks for doing this!

This message was edited Oct 9, 2009 11:07 AM

I have nothing to offer other than a "yes" vote. In my own garden, I have Castor Bean, Oleander and Sago Palm. Only mildly aware that the Castor Bean was toxic. Am quite sure that there are many more that should not be welcome guests as I have 2 dogs and a 3 year old great granddaughter. Would be devastated if my ignorance contributed to their demise.

Christi

I vote for the additional database. Keep the PF danger categories, but link them to the toxicity database for more information, then we don't have to search through the comments trying to find specific notations. The database can have a comment section and members can add their own links if they have found them. The column-sorting idea is brilliant.

As for liability, the database could be headed with an explanation that these plants are 'reported to have toxic properties' for either humans or animals and 'further investigation is warranted.' Any commentary included is anecdotal and/or refers to a specific study or other reference and the link is included.

I also had a severe eye reaction to Euphorbia (tirucalli) - caused by breaking a stem while potting it. My understanding is direct contact is not necessary, even the fumes from the latex can cause problems.

Great idea, PalmBob!

Back in August of this year, I read yet another random warning about a toxic plant. It prompted me to do a little web searching and to post my findings. A number of other DG members read the post and added sites they were familiar with. At the suggestion of one of those folk, we asked for the thread to be posted as a Sticky in Plant ID forum. In the course of discussion, invasive plants were also added to the list of sites. Rather than make the Thread a Sticky, Melody posted a new thread/Sticky listing all the available sites discussing plant toxicity for humans and animals and USDA sites for invasive plants. The major drawback to this is that unless you happen to view the Plant ID forum, you have no idea the info is there.

I agree with Geoff that it could be better addressed perhaps, but, the info is there; it just perhaps needs to be better advertised. Perhaps a link to the sticky could be placed on the Home page along with the info, new subscriber, birthday, On This Day , items running down the side of the screen.

Thanks for the info moonhowl. I'm going there right now to check it out!