
Gardeners Beware: Experts Warn These 9 Poisonous Flowers Might Be in Your Backyard
How to spot poisonous flowers
Spotting poisonous flowers can be tricky since toxic plants are often visually appealing. However, certain characteristics can help you identify them. For example, bright colors, distinct smells or specific shapes of flowers.
"Find out what poisonous plants are likely to occur in your region through reliable resources such as your state department of environmental conservation or local cooperative extension office. Learn the key features of those plants so you can recognize them," says Emily Detrick, director of horticulture at the Cornell Botanic Gardens.
"When gardening or recreating in an area with unfamiliar plants, we recommend using a plant ID app such as PlantSnap or PictureThis in combination with a field guide for your region. This is a great way to not only verify if a plant may be one to avoid but also to learn about and appreciate the many beneficial plants you are likely to encounter," she says.
10 poisonous backyard flowers to watch out for
Water hemlockWater hemlock is one of the most poisonous plants in North America. The plant has small white flowers that grow in umbrella-like clusters, making it easy to confuse with other wildflowers. The plant contains a toxic substance, cicutoxin, which is a poisonous, unsaturated alcohol with a carrot-like smell. It is mainly concentrated in the tubers (roots) but can also be found in the stems and leaves during early growth. Water hemlock grows primarily in wet meadows, pastures and along the banks of rivers.
Cicutoxin is a serious convulsant, which means it can cause severe seizures and even death. Touching water hemlock can cause irritations, so you have to be careful if you get near the plant. You should immediately contact a poison control center or nearby emergency department if you or someone else has unknowingly come in contact with the plant or your child or pet has eaten it. Symptoms of poisoning, such as rapid breathing, high heart rate or dilation of pupils, often start quickly, and death may occur as early as two to three hours after the onset of symptoms, suggesting prompt action is crucial.
HydrangeaHydrangea is a popular ornamental shrub known for its large, showy flowers. The flowers, typically blue, pink or white in color, are arranged in large clusters at the end of branches, with each flower having four to five petals. Hydrangea is usually found in the eastern and southeastern US and grows in moderately moist forests, along streams or rocky areas.
Hydrangea contains a toxin called amygdalin, a type of cyanogen glycoside. If eaten, cyanogen glycoside can break down into toxic hydrogen cyanide upon metabolization, leading to symptoms such as nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, especially in children and pets such as dogs and cats. In some cases, simply brushing against the plant may cause skin irritation. You must immediately contact your doctor if your child or pet has accidentally ingested any part of hydrangea since all parts of the plant are poisonous.Monkshood, also known as wolfsbane, is an ornamental plant best known for its blue to dark purple flowers. Monkshood typically grows in wet meadows, stream banks and near seep springs, often forming large patches. It is found in isolated regions in the US, including New York, Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin. All parts of the plant, especially roots, seeds and flowers, contain a poisonous toxin called aconitine. Aconitine is primarily known as a heart poison but can also affect the nervous system. Poisoning occurs due to accidental ingestion by children and pets, leading to symptom onset within a few minutes to a few hours.
If you or someone you know has consumed monkshood, do not try to make the person vomit. Instead, contact poison control or visit a nearby emergency department immediately. Quick action is essential since the toxin can be life-threatening.
Lily of the valleyLily of the valley is a shade-loving flowering plant known for its white bell-shaped flowers with a strong, sweet fragrance. While it may charm your garden, you must remember that the plant is highly poisonous. In North America, lily of the valley contains toxic cardiac glycosides, which may be dangerous if ingested. All parts of the plant contain the toxin, and even a small amount can cause serious health problems such as irregular heartbeat, gastrointestinal problems and even seizures.
It is important to wear gloves and protective clothes while interacting with the plant. You must also keep your children and pets away from lily of the valley since ingestion may be fatal to them. If you suspect contact or ingestion, call your poison control center or visit an emergency department immediately.Oleander is an evergreen shrub commonly found in Southern America and other warm parts of the US. Oleander flowers are pink or white and often occur in clusters. All parts of the plant are poisonous and have cardiac glycosides that can cause serious symptoms such as nausea, vomiting and irregular heart rhythm upon ingestion. Even touching the plant can cause skin irritation and dermatitis in some people.
"Poisonous flowers such as oleander are not particularly dangerous to touch but should not be eaten. If a child were to put one into their mouth, I would suggest calling poison control at 800 222 1222," says Michael Levine, emergency medicine physician at UCLA Health. Contact poison control or a nearby doctor if you or someone you know has unintentionally ingested any part of oleander. Children and pets also need to be taken to a doctor if they accidentally ingest any part of oleander.Rhododendron is a well-known evergreen shrub native to eastern and southeastern North America. It bears rose to white colored flowers that are either bell or funnel-shaped. Rhododendron grows best in moist, acidic and well-drained soils, especially in areas with moderate temperatures.
However, it is important to know that all parts of rhododendron contains the poisonous grayanotoxins that can lead to symptoms of confusion, irregular heart rate and low blood pressure. You must call poison control if your child or pet accidentally puts flowers or leaves in their mouth. However, simply touching the plant may not be particularly dangerous, Levine says.
FoxgloveFoxglove is an attractive plant known for its bell-shaped flowers that come in shades of white, pink, cream yellow or rose in color. It is found widely across the US, mostly in cool, temperate climates. Even though it adds beauty to gardens, all parts of foxglove contain a poisonous toxin, cardiac glycosides, mostly digoxin. Ingesting flowers, leaves, stems or seeds of the plant could lead to irregular heartbeat, low blood pressure, confusion and drowsiness. Ingesting even small amounts of foxglove can be deadly for children or pets if ingested. You must call poison control or visit a doctor if you or someone you know has come in contact with foxglove.Jimsonweed, also known as thorn apple, is a poisonous plant that was originally found in Central America but is now found throughout the US. The flowers are large trumpet-shaped, with colors ranging from white to lavender. All parts of the plant are considered poisonous due to the presence of alkaloids atropine, hyoscyamine and scopolamine. Ingestion of leaves, flowers or stems can lead to serious symptoms, including rapid heart rate, hallucinations and dry mouth. Jimsonweed is also poisonous to pets and livestock. Call poison control or visit a nearby emergency department if you or your child ingests jimsonweed unknowingly.
Deadly nightshadeDeadly nightshade, also known as belladonna, is a plant that is native to Europe but can now be found in parts of the US, mostly in New York and three West Coast states, Washington, Oregon and California. The plant grows in shady and wet regions. The flowers are bell-shaped and purple in color. The plant is highly poisonous due to the presence of psychoactive tropane alkaloids in all parts of the plant. Ingestion of any part, even in small amounts, can lead to symptoms such as vomiting, hallucinations, rapid heart rate, dilated pupils and even death. Brushing skin against the plant can also lead to the absorption of toxins through the skin or severe dermatitis. You must visit an emergency department immediately if you, your child or your pet comes in contact with the plant.
How do you treat exposure to poisonous plants?
Treatment for exposure to poisonous flowers depends on the type of flower, the type of exposure (skin or ingestion) and extent of exposure. Skin irritations may be relieved by using cold compresses or treated by using hydrocortisone creams or antihistamine medications. If you think you have ingested or had exposure to a poisonous plant, seek medical attention for any life-threatening symptoms (coma, seizure, breathing difficulties).
"If you are not having life-threatening symptoms, call your regional poison center for immediate advice (1-800-222-1222), and they will determine the next course of action depending on the plant, amount and patient clinical status," says Shireen Banerji, director of the Rocky Mountain Poison Center at Denver Health.
You can keep children away from such poisonous flowers by keeping indoor plants out of their reach and watching them closely while they play in the backyard. You can protect yourself by wearing gloves or protective clothing while handling an unknown plant.
The bottom lineSeveral flowers that may add beauty to your backyard may be poisonous, causing serious health problems for you, your child or even your pet. When interacting with a poisonous plant or its flower, you must call poison control. You should also wear gloves and protective clothing while handling an unknown flower. Keeping children and pets away from such plants is also essential since the ingestion of some of them may even cause their death.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


WebMD
27 minutes ago
- WebMD
Mastectomy or Lumpectomy? Reassuring New Data for Young Women
July 23, 2025 – Young women diagnosed with breast cancer may not need to choose aggressive surgery to reduce recurrence risk. New research suggests the likelihood of cancer recurring (coming back) in the same breast or nearby lymph nodes isn't related to her choice of surgical treatment – removing either the cancerous tissue (lumpectomy) or one or both breasts (mastectomy). And for women 40 and under with invasive but not incurable cancer, recurrence risk across the board was "low" – just 5.6% over 10 years. "Many young women with breast cancer choose to have bilateral mastectomies even if they may be a candidate for a smaller surgery," said study author Laura S. Dominici, MD, a breast surgeon at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Mass General Brigham in Boston. "We know survival isn't impacted by this choice, but historically, young women were felt to have higher risk for local recurrence and tend to have more 'aggressive' breast cancers." The new findings, published Wednesday in JAMA Surgery, suggest that "women cannot make a bad choice," Dominici said. "A woman who wants to keep her breast isn't trading off a cancer outcome to do so." Of the more than 1,100 people in the study, 30% had lumpectomy, 26% had a single mastectomy, and 43% had bilateral mastectomy. When researchers analyzed surgical treatment alongside cancer subtype – such as whether it was related to hormones or certain genes – they found no significant differences in recurrence rates. Researchers attributed the low risk to advances in cancer treatments, which have become more targeted. Breast cancer patients in the study were diagnosed between 2006 and 2015, and they received optimal treatment after surgery – meaning breast cancer in young women may not be as likely to come back as older research suggested. Does This Research Apply to Me? The study included women age 40 or younger with stage I, II, or III breast cancer of any subtype – meaning hormone receptor-positive, triple negative, or any ERBB2 (formerly HER2) genetic status. If that describes you, you may want to talk to your doctor about it. The researchers excluded women with stage IV breast cancer (which has already spread to other parts of the body) and women with stage 0, or ductal carcinoma in situ or DCIS. "The results do require some caution in their generalizability because the patients were not from diverse populations, with nearly 85% non-Hispanic White women," Julie A. Margenthaler, MD, wrote in a commentary published with the study. Margenthaler was not involved in the study and is a breast cancer surgeon at WashU Medicine in St. Louis. What Type of Recurrence Did This Study Look For? It looked for local or regional recurrence (that is, in the same breast or surrounding lymph nodes), but not distant recurrence – when breast cancer returns in a distant part of the body like the brain or bones. That's a stage IV diagnosis, which is usually considered treatable but not curable. What About BRCA? About 1 in 10 women in the study had known BRCA genetic involvement, and most had mastectomies. "Women do not have to have a mastectomy in this setting, but many of them consider it," Dominici said. "Mastectomies will reduce the risk for future cancers (for which patients with BRCA mutations are at higher risk) but will not reduce risk for recurrence of the current cancer. A woman with BRCA mutation having lumpectomy should be doing high-risk screening with mammogram and MRI." Does This Mean I Should Get a Lumpectomy? When deciding what breast cancer surgery to have, you need to consider physical, emotional, and psychological factors, said Dominici, who is also a professor at Harvard Medical School. "There is no 'right' answer," she said, "and it is often hard for women to both appreciate and consider the short- and long-term impacts of the different surgeries." Lumpectomy may not be an option for some women with cancer in a significant portion or multiple areas of the breast, Dominici said. "Surgery is one important part of treatment, but systemic therapy and radiation are also key to lower risk for recurrence," she said.


Fox News
28 minutes ago
- Fox News
Biden's alleged Ambien use, Trump health concerns and MRI death
MEDICAL MIRACLE – A man's deadly brain cancer tumor disappeared after an experimental drug trial. Continue reading… ATOMIC THREAT - Higher cancer rates have been linked to WWII radioactive waste in a Midwestern creek. Continue reading… Fox News LifestyleFox News Health


Washington Post
28 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Investigate Biden's health in office, but investigate Trump's, too
The argument in the July 11 editorial, 'Why Congress should investigate Biden's health,' that Congress should investigate Joe Biden's health while he served as president, would have been far stronger if the board had also argued for looking into President Donald Trump's health. Investigating Biden's situation after the fact might help support arguments for greater transparency and awareness. But politicizing the move by focusing on one party dooms the effort at this point. Furthermore, demonstrating a clear, current focus on fitness for service strengthens the argument for investigating Biden's health now. And need I mention, investigating Trump's health would highlight any risks the nation faces now — not just hypothetically, were Biden to have won the 2024 election. Examining what health-related assessments are the norm in high-level executive positions in both private- and public-sector organizations would also offer insights into how Congress should handle these cases. Tom Martella, Washington The July 11 editorial on the congressional investigation into former president Joe Biden's health during his administration cited a number of concerns. Those included forgetting names of top aides, use of teleprompters and tiredness, which imply that Biden might have been unable to fully exercise the duties of the presidency. The editorial also pushed for Kevin O'Connor, Biden's onetime doctor, to be more forthcoming about his patient's health despite confidentiality laws that apply to health records. To expect an unbiased and nonpolitical investigation into this matter as the editorial would want is ludicrous, given the political environment of Congress. Though such an investigation could be useful, it could only provide meaningful information if conducted by an independent team of experts and if not politically motivated. Congress could authorize such a review. Congress's job is to investigate and react to what is going on in the country by proposing laws. What laws would be proposed after an investigation into Biden's health? Limit the age at which a candidate could run for president? Such an action would probably require a constitutional amendment and take years to enact. Though Biden might have exhibited some of the symptoms of age, whether they affected his ability to function as president is doubtful, as he achieved many positive things for the country during his term. With so much at stake in the country these days, Congress should spend its time on much more pressing issues. Jared Wermiel, Silver Spring Sadly, the 'unflinching investigation into Biden's fitness' that the July 11 editorial advocated would probably never happen in today's Congress. Extreme polarization has made it impossible. Democrats do not have faith in Rep. James Comer (R-Kentucky), chairman of the Oversight Committee, to conduct a proper investigation. Nor should they, given that Comer's impeachment investigation of President Joe Biden was unbecoming of Congress. Even Comer's witness, conservative legal scholar Jonathan Turley, testified there was not enough evidence for impeachment. So, unlike the Editorial Board, I am not the least bit disappointed that former White House physician Kevin O'Connor is refusing to testify. But I do agree fully with the Editorial Board that Americans deserve an unflinching investigation into Biden's health. I am a Democrat of 45 years, and I am extremely disappointed in what has occurred with what seems to me to be a cover-up into the serious matter of a president's health. Democrats' claim that Donald Trump was a threat to democracy was undermined when they appeared to hide from American voters the condition of their 2024 presidential candidate. Attempting to conceal the true condition of their candidate would be a threat to democracy. Bruce Kirby, Rockville Does it really matter whether Congress investigates former president Joe Biden's health in office, as the July 11 editorial charged? He's retired. Leave him alone. Here's a better idea: Investigate the health of our current president. He's the only one who should really matter to Congress. During Donald Trump's first term, dozens of psychiatrists and mental health experts collaborated on a book alerting the American public to the potential danger he posed. Clues to Trump's mental state have been plainly observable for many years. So have at it, lawmakers. But, if they determine that Trump suffers from a health issue that makes him unfit for office, they must act for the nation's good and not for political advantage. Paul Mazich, Yorktown, Virginia The writer is a retired commander in the U.S. Navy. Regarding the July 19 editorial, 'The opioid settlement can help save lives': Naloxone, or Narcan, is a lifesaving tool, and expanding its accessibility should absolutely be a key target of opioid settlement fund spending. But it is not the only strategy worthy of investment. The settlement agreement allows for the funds to be used for opioid use disorder and other substance use disorders, recognizing the high rates of poly-substance use and that substance-specific strategies are often ineffective (particularly for prevention). These funds provide an unprecedented opportunity to address our nation's addiction crisis. Let's encourage states to spend them on the things that we know work not only to reduce opioid overdoses but also to end the recurring cycles of addiction and drug epidemics. Spending all settlement funds on increasing access to naloxone will not prevent the emergence of the next drug epidemic. This can only be done by investing the settlement funds in effective prevention strategies that promote resilience and emotional well-being among youths, targeting the root causes of substance use and an array of other negative health and social outcomes. Though naloxone is a powerful tool for preventing overdose, it will not prevent drug use, nor is it a treatment for addiction. It only reverses opioid overdoses; it does not reduce deaths from other major contributors to preventable deaths in the United States: alcohol and tobacco. Treatment, particularly Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for opioid use disorder, is also a critical tool for reducing overdoses. The suggestion that treatment only works for people willing to seek it out ignores the reality that treatment is widely unavailable and often unaffordable. Expanding access to effective treatment must also be a key focus of the settlement fund spending. States should absolutely use the settlement funds to prevent opioid overdoses and save lives. The danger is in suggesting that there is one solution to this multifaceted crisis. Lindsey Vuolo, New York Linda Richter, Scarsdale, New York Lindsey Vuolo is vice president of health law and policy at the Partnership to End Addiction. Linda Richter is senior vice president of prevention research and analysis. In 2013, we worked on the development of the White House drug strategy, which recommended broader access to naloxone and also recognized the need for an expanded system of care for people with substance use disorder. We are encouraged by The Post's July 19 editorial that called attention to the persistent issue of overdose deaths facing the United States. We also appreciated the Editorial Board's desire to see opioid settlement dollars spent on evidence-based interventions that will reduce overdose deaths. We heartily agree and have dedicated our careers to advancing these interventions. However, though we agree that naloxone and overdose prevention efforts are key elements of a state or local community's response to overdose deaths, naloxone cannot be the primary or sole response simply because this investment alone will not yield the greatest possible impact. Methadone and buprenorphine are the most evidence-based treatment medications for opioid use disorder, and they can have the biggest impact on mortality. That's because these medications provide long-term overdose prevention, decreasing mortality by nearly 50 percent; they support sustained recovery and improved outcomes for individuals, as well as stability for families and communities; and naloxone is estimated to have only a 3.6 percent mortality prevention effect. Treatment medications dramatically lessen illicit opioid use, thereby driving down the risk of overdose (and the demand for illicit opioids such as fentanyl). As the editorial states, long-term efforts are needed, but we must also look to the evidence to drive effective strategies that improve lives and prevent deaths. Regina LaBelle, Takoma Park Caleb Banta-Green, Seattle Regina LaBelle was acting director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy in the Biden administration and also served at ONDCP in the Obama administration. Caleb Banta-Green was a senior science adviser at the White House ONDCP during the Obama administration. Post Opinions wants to know: What would you add to a time capsule to represent America today? Share your response, and it might be published as a letter to the editor.