May contain nuts

« previous post | next post »

A comment by Frank on my "Correcting misinformation" posting:

Whether or not peanuts are nuts or not, the statement "May contain nuts" on the package cannot be rendered untrue. It could just as easily read "May contain chicken feathers" and still be true. They didn't say it did, just that it "may".

The background… Lloyd & Mitchinson had claimed in The Book of General Ignorance:

Peanuts… are not nuts. So the legendary health warning on a packet of peanuts ("may contain nuts") is, strictly speaking, untrue.

and I noted:

Obviously, peanuts must count as nuts for legal purposes (hence the health warning), so botany is not the only source of technical definitions.

Now Frank has taken us away from the question of what nut means to the question of what may means (or, rather, conveys).

We're discussing "possibility may" here (and not the "permission may" of "May I have another helping, please?"). Frank's (implicit) position is that the semantics of possibility may is nothing more than the possibility operator of modal logic, glossable in English roughly as 'it is possible that'. That is, "This package may contain nuts" is semantically equivalent to "It is possible that this package contains nuts".

This is not an unreasonable analysis, and in fact something like it is widely adopted by semanticists. But that can't be the end of the matter: if possibility may is nothing but the possibility operator, then there would not be much point in using it; almost anything is possible — it is possible that the package contains chicken feathers, or a miniature copy of the King James Bible, or helium, or whatever — so what would be the point in asserting one possibility out of zillions?

The thing is, sentences (and larger discourses) convey more than they say, and ordinary people (who aren't logicians or formal semanticists) quite sensibly think of "meaning" mostly in terms of what expressions convey, rather than in terms of truth and falsity alone. Semanticists, too, analyze conveyed meaning, but they separate it from truth conditions. The point is that to insist on truth conditions as the entire account of meaning, as Frank seems to do, is to miss a great deal of what there is to say about meaning.

Back to the specific case of possibility may. What, I asked above, would be the point in asserting one possibility (call it X) out of zillions? Because the possibility of X is relevant to your audience, and because there is some likelihood of X. As a result, it is informative to assert (in this context) the possibility of X. "May contain nuts" is informative on a packet of food; it serves as a warning to those who want to avoid nuts in their diet.

"Contains nuts" would, of course, be even more informative, if true, and this warning is indeed found on packages and containers (and on restaurant menus and so on) — most famously, on cans of nuts, where the warning seems absurd (though, of course, the warning merely satisfies legal requirements).

"May contain nuts" is used for packaging copy that might be used on a number of different products, in a product line that includes some nut-containing items. Yes, it would be more helpful to the users to design packages separately, with more precise information, but it's probably more expensive to do so.

But now we're into matters of commerce and law rather than meaning. 

 



23 Comments

  1. John Rynne said,

    July 27, 2008 @ 1:21 pm

    Apart from the issue you note of using the same packaging copy on different products, there is also the possibility that a non-nutty product may be made in a plant that also makes nut products. It is difficult to avoid cross-contamination in such cases. Since even tiny amounts can trigger allergic reactions, the "May contain nuts" line really means "We can't guarantee that this product is totally nut-free".

  2. Rob Gunningham said,

    July 27, 2008 @ 2:59 pm

    When they write May contain nuts, what happens when the man with the chicken feather allergy bites down on a feather and drops down dead? He had been warned about possible nuts but not about possible chicken feathers, and so it sounds as if the manufacturer would be in even bigger trouble than if there were no warnings at all.

    Of course, the best legal cover would be to write May not contain nuts.

  3. Ellen K. said,

    July 27, 2008 @ 3:31 pm

    I could be wrong, but I understand that as being related to allergies, with peanuts and other nuts being distinctly different, as far as food allergies goes, and the warning does not refer to the peanuts, but to other nuts. As in, there may be bits of walnuts, or whatever. So it's not meant to state the obvious, but it's about possible trace amounts of other nuts.

  4. dr pepper said,

    July 27, 2008 @ 6:16 pm

    My imppression is that allergies seem to follow the culinary category. That is people who are allergic to peanuts are often also allergic to pecans or walnuts, but hardly ever to peas or garbanzos.

    Perhaps what we need is a definitive set of categories of allergies or other chemical sensitivities, each with a distinctive ideogram, which could be printed discreetly on labels. Perhaps an ideogram could be made solid when it is an actual ingredients, and hollow if it is merely a potential cross contaminant.

  5. Ellen K. said,

    July 27, 2008 @ 7:22 pm

    Dr Pepper, that's not what I've heard from a co-worker who's allegic to peanuts. Other "nuts" aren't a problem (other than possible peanut contamination). Other legumes sometimes are. Peanuts are legumes, as are beans and peas. It's not food categories that matter, but genetic relatedness. Often the two are related, but not always. I think it's chickpeas (garbanzos) that my co-worker also has problems with.

  6. Alexis said,

    July 27, 2008 @ 8:17 pm

    The strangest warning, though, is one I saw on a packet of definitely almond-containing shortbread cookies: may contain nuts, rather than "contains". Very strange.

  7. Arnold Zwicky said,

    July 27, 2008 @ 8:43 pm

    Ellen K.: "It's not food categories that matter, but genetic relatedness."

    Well, actually, it's sharing certain chemical compounds that's relevant, and that tends to go along with genetic relatedness, though very imperfectly. I'm definitely allergic to poison ivy/oak/sumac, but not at all to mangoes, even mango skins (though many people are). Few people who are allergic to peanuts (sometimes alarmingly so) are sensitive to peas or beans, though some are sensitive to garbanzos; and some people who have none of these legume sensitivities are mortally threatened by fava beans (favism). And so on.

    Most people are ok with tomatoes, peppers, eggplants, etc. (though particular people are threatened by some of these), but nightshade and jimson weed and some other members of the family are poisonous to everyone. Green potatoes (potatoes are also in this family) are mildly poisonous, cooked ripe potatoes are fine for almost everyone. Again: and so on.

    Genetic relatedness is a clue. But the problem is the chemical compounds involved.

  8. Radek said,

    July 27, 2008 @ 9:33 pm

    What you're saying about truth-conditional semantics is definitely correct. Its relevance for what we intuitively understand to be the "meaning" of sentences is quite limited. You don't even have to use examples with modals and/or product information – most situations can be characterized by an infinite number of true propositions, most of which, however, you would never use for the reason you mention: they are not informative or relevant.
    Still, this does not mean that truth conditions are unimportant or even somehow less important: we generally infer pragmatic meanings of sentences crucially based on our understanding of their truth conditions. Adding an operator like negation to a proposition doesn't necessarily tamper with the relevance/informativeness of the proposition in a certain situation but it dramatically changes its truth conditions and consequently also the pragmatic inferences that we make.

  9. Chris said,

    July 27, 2008 @ 11:33 pm

    There's a joke in a discworld book about this. The wizards suggest the alternative "probably does not contain nuts" which "was dismissed as unhelpful"

  10. Garrett Wollman said,

    July 28, 2008 @ 1:01 am

    Most if not all of the people I know with peanut allergies are cross-sensitive to "true" nuts. This is not particularly surprising, since all nuts contain proteins that do not break down completely in the gut, and that's often how food allergies arise. One peanut-allergic friend is also sensitive to pretty much all other legumes, so he has to avoid products containing soy protein as well — which is much more difficult than avoiding peanuts. (Thankfully, his symptoms were relatively mild, so the rest of us could still enjoy our nut-based foods so long as we didn't feed him any.) I know someone else who is allergic to nightshades, but solanine, atropine, and the other nightshade alkaloids have a completely different method of action.

    It's possible to develop an allergy to nearly any food product (with, I suppose, the exception of distilled water). In recent years, I've seen food labels grow longer and longer "Produced in a plant that handles…" and "May contain…" warnings, which seems to correlate well with the rising public awareness of life-threatening food allergies. (There's probably some interesting social-science research to be done here about whether these allergies are really more common or just better recognized.) But the "Contains…" warnings seem to be in another class altogether. Food products already have an ingredient list, for the most part; it seems unnecessarily repetitious to add an additional "Contains…" warning just to identify that subset of ingredients with "popular" allergies.

  11. James Wimberley said,

    July 28, 2008 @ 4:31 am

    I don't see the problem. May here doesn't mean logical possibility, but practical possibility, that is a non-zero or non-trivial risk. The context tells you which, filled out by the implied but clause:
    – We may all be nothing more than constructs in a computer simulation run by superior alien intelligences, but …. (logical possibility).
    – You may be killed by a meteorite one day, but …. (nonzero risk).
    – You may get lucky with that girl if you go about it the right way, but … (non-trivial risk).

  12. mgh said,

    July 28, 2008 @ 6:57 am

    if possibility may is nothing but the possibility operator, then there would not be much point in using it… [but this is not the case]

    How would that work again? Is the logic that (1) the warning could be truthfully put on every product, (2) therefore it is everywhere, and so (3) it becomes meaningless, failing to differentiate one product from another?

    Obviously (2) is false — many food products DON'T bear this warning and are assumed more safe. In that sense, it's the absence of the warning that is the real "language event," because the warning itself says "maybe yes maybe no" but the absence of the warning (assuming the packagers comply with federal law) says "definitely not".

    The context used here is a little snarky, and easily diverted to pop botany and allergy topics, but in scientific writing the meaning of "may" becomes important and debated. If I conclude a paper with, "Taken together, our results indicate that this drug may reduce the likelihood of heart attack", then I better not be hiding behind truth-condition "may." Yet political figures trying to debunk global warming, for example, sometimes force this interpretation of "may" when reading the literature, to help them assert these questions are not settled.

  13. Timothy M said,

    July 28, 2008 @ 8:22 am

    To mgh: The logic is 1) If the "may" in phrases such as "may contain nuts" were nothing but the possibility operator, then 2) the statement would convey no useful information (because, as has already been said, any package whatsoever could contain nuts) 3) thus, no one would use such a statement on their packages.

    But complicated explanations aside, I think everyone intuitively understands (whether they consciously realize it or not) that "may contain nuts" is useful information, and conveys that there is a greater chance that this product contain nuts than other products which don't have the warning.

  14. Frank said,

    July 28, 2008 @ 10:00 am

    Wow! All this hubbub over one little comment! (from a guy who has admittedly spent a little too much time lately reading a logic textbook.)

    I will have to watch what I say more carefully in these comment areas: Turns out people are actually reading these things!

    If I might add further to the conversation…

    I only just discovered LL a few days ago, via a wikipedia reference to "eggcorns", so I am new to the game. I was being a little overly snarky, as, of course there has to be some reasoning behind the labeling of those products *reasonably* believed to carry a risk of nuts and those which can safely assume to be nut-free.

    I had noticed that allergy labels tend to distinguish "peanuts" from "tree nuts" as in "This product contains wheat, eggs, and tree nuts, and is processed in a facility that also handles peanuts." This type of standardized label has become much more common in the last two years, it seems. The labels point out both allergens that the product itself is known to have, and also those allergens that could potentially have cross-contaminated into the product unintentionally, due to being processed in the same facility, often with the same equipment. Given the trace amounts of peanut oil necessary to trigger a life-threatening reaction, this is no undue caution.

    So when it was pointed out that peanuts being rendered non-nuts would invalidate the "May Contain Nuts" label, I felt I needed to point out the possibility that a jar of non-nuts (peanuts) could still very well contain a nut or two, so the label still applies. But I had been reading a textbook on logic recently, so I *may* have overdone it with the "chicken feathers" bit.

  15. Frank said,

    July 28, 2008 @ 10:21 am

    Going back and looking at the quote, it seems that my original comment was mostly a reaction to the phrase "Strictly speaking". I had the feeling, as did Mr. Zwicky, that the authors of this statement were cheating with trick questions, and I suppose I wanted to take them down a peg. "Well, Mr. Smarty-Pants, *Strictly* speaking, it *is* true!"

    I am reminded, actually, of the scene in the movie "Barbershop" when the character who is impressed with his own intelligence throughout the movie is called out on his own ignorance near the end of the movie over whether or not a scallop is a shellfish. It's a great scene, and I recommend the movie if you haven't seen it.

  16. Joe said,

    July 28, 2008 @ 2:08 pm

    They could just say "May trigger peanut allergies." which would seem to be a lot more informative, without forcing them to explain exactly how and why it might have been manufactured in an environment where peanuts were present.

  17. Michael Straight said,

    July 28, 2008 @ 4:19 pm

    Perhaps it would be better to read this as "permission may"?

    In other words, "Our factory standards are such that we allow nuts to get in this package without rejecting it as defective."

    So the package may (is allowed to) contain nuts, but it may not (is not allowed to) contain a severed finger.

  18. Anon. said,

    July 28, 2008 @ 11:33 pm

    Epistemic modals are not alethic modals. :)

  19. Jonathan Lundell said,

    July 30, 2008 @ 10:44 am

    "May contain nuts" seems to me to be a kind of legalistic incantation for the purpose of transferring risk from the vendor to the consumer. On your head be it.

    I have a package of "Trader Ming's Kung Pao Noodles & Sauce" in front of me (Ready in 2 Minutes!) that is labelled "Vegan" on the front, but on the back warns me that it's "made in a facility that processes egg, fish and shellfish."

    Is this a "may contain nuts" dodge, or is it helpfully suggesting tha,t if I'm an ethical vegan, I might not want to associate with this fish-eating Trader Ming, even though he does stand ready to sell me a vegan noodle?

  20. Anonymous Cowherd said,

    July 30, 2008 @ 6:53 pm

    Off-topic @Jonathan: You know, I've never understood why Trader Joe's chose to call their Chinese-themed product line "Trader Ming's" rather than the straightforward "Trader Zhou's".

  21. Stephen Shea said,

    July 31, 2008 @ 4:36 pm

    I'm more concerned about the nots than the nuts.

    The first block quotation begins, "Whether or not peanuts are nuts or not," which recalls "What it is is" statements.

    I think I may enshrine this example next to my photograph of the sign outside a video rental store, which read simply "VIDEO'S."

  22. Arnold Zwicky said,

    July 31, 2008 @ 5:00 pm

    To Stephen Shea, about the block quotation from "Frank" : "Whether or not peanuts are nuts or not" .

    An incredibly common inadvertent error (combining two different constructions conveying very similar meaning). I meant to remove one of the occurrences of "or not", but somehow neglected to. My apologies to "Frank".

  23. Carl said,

    July 1, 2009 @ 7:58 pm

    I wonder if the conversation around whichever table that started all this unhelpful/helpful discussion on labeling, was as interesting as this? I would like to be on the next committee to discuss such things and be paid for it. Maybe "Could contain anything!" would be a better mandatory warning on everything.

RSS feed for comments on this post