why does everything "may contain nuts"

no I just work for cillit bang :D

1082911.jpg
 
I'd be worried if I met a girl and it said "may contain nuts", although that may be some kind of helpful direction. :p
 
gord said:
Because its cheaper to put a few words on a package than test food accurately.
Click to expand...

it's nothing to do with testing food. unless you think its viable to test every single mars bar that comes out of the factory for nuts.......then 'may contain nuts' is the only thing they can do about it.

My gf is allergic to nuts. She'll eat anything that 'may contain nuts' and she's never had a problem in the time that i've known her:)
 
iBankAllDay said:
Those damn people with allergies go and spoil it for the rest of us once again! :mad:
Click to expand...

Not the people with genuine allergies that are the problem, they clearly need to be kept informed, it's the people that eat things that clearly contain something they shouldn't then sue! I mean, once upon a time if someone ate something that contained something they shouldn't eat (eg curry if you have a nut allergy) then it was their fault for not knowing or finding out first. Now it's someone elses fault for not telling them that it was made within a mile of a squirrel who once ate a nut! i'm allergic to fish but how often do you see 'may contain fish' on a packet?? (previous prawns label excepted of course :D)
 
Kitten, you being serious?

They can't confirm whether or not there are traces of nuts on the chocolate bar. There could only be a trace of nut on one chocolate bar out of 10,000, but that could well be enough to kill someone.

Seeing as the chocolate bars are in the same factories as nuts, and it's entirely possible they cross paths at some time (y'know, like some sort of huge peanut/chocolate bar gang fight..), there-fore you're risking hman life by not having that label on.

-RaZ
 
kitten_caboodle said:
Not the people with genuine allergies that are the problem, they clearly need to be kept informed, it's the people that eat things that clearly contain something they shouldn't then sue! I mean, once upon a time if someone ate something that contained something they shouldn't eat (eg curry if you have a nut allergy) then it was their fault for not knowing or finding out first. Now it's someone elses fault for not telling them that it was made within a mile of a squirrel who once ate a nut! i'm allergic to fish but how often do you see 'may contain fish' on a packet?? (previous prawns label excepted of course :D)
Click to expand...

My previous post was somewhat tongue in cheek. I originally had a ' :p ' at the bottom of the post, however, I deleted it for dramatic effect! You do raise a few valid points however!

:p
 
Last edited:
I had a tin of chocolate-coated peanuts in the pub last night, the ones from those vending machines. It had on the side "May contain traces of nuts". :confused:

Well I should bloody hope it's more than just a trace. :p
 
what really gets me is when you pick up a bag/jar fo nuts, and it says "may contain nuts" MAY? wtf? is that some kind of joke?..
 
er... semi serious :D

It was kind of tongue in cheek too but reading it back it looks more like a rant :D

I agree it's really important that people know what's in stuff - especially with nuts cos that is one horrible mofo allergy to have and can kill you if you look sideways at a nut, but its the silly stuff that annoys me, like the 'may contain seafood' on prawns and stuff. That's just due to a'holes who sue at the drop of a hat. A hat that I must point out may contain nuts. Or bees. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom