On Unnecessary Warning Labels

       I recently purchased a bag of salted peanuts.
       While that act, in and of itself, may seem completely innocent, something on the packaging struck my eye and simply would not let go.  On the back of the little tube-shaped bag was a bold statement which loudly proclaimed: "Warning:  May Contain Peanuts."
       I, for one, sincerely hope my $0.69 bag of snacky goodness did, in fact, contain peanuts.  However, that word "may" left me feeling a little less secure in what I thought was quite plain for all to see.  There was, after all, a little window on the front beneath the words Salted Peanuts where a consumer could (at least in theory) verify that the purchase they were about to make did, in fact, contain peanuts.  Which, if you are in the market for peanuts, it should be a safe assumption that the bag marked peanuts - with peanuts visible prior to opening the container - actually contains peanuts.
       The warning label implies otherwise.  This bag only might contain peanuts.  You could, for example, be chomping away unaware of the fact that the contents are really cleverly-designed and chemically treated textured soy protein which only looks and tastes like peanuts.  And knowing the FDA's penchant for letting tiny loopholes like that slide (pure canola oil cooking spray is apparently "fat free" since it contains less than half a gram of fat per serving, in spite of being 100% fat, for example), it's not wholly unbelievable that the bag of what appears to be, and is clearly labeled peanuts, in truth may or may not actually contain peanuts.
       Don't get me wrong, I understand the need for food allergen labelling.  Accidentally biting into the wrong thing and winding up in anaphylactic shock is no laughing matter.  However, it's quite depressing going down, say, the candy aisle at your local grocer and trying to find something you can have.  Pretty much every candy bar has that death stamp of "may contain peanuts and/or tree nuts."  If you are one of the people who has this particular physiological adversity, that has got to be a rather deflating task, picking up each candy bar one at a time, only to say, "Nope, move along" at every step.
       I would think it'd make more sense to have the exact opposite labelling philosophy.  Assume every candy bar is made of peanut-based arsenic death unless you see a bright yellow-and-red label happily proclaiming "I'm Peanut-Free!"  That would make everyone's jobs a lot easier, both the chocolate-deprived peanut-allergic consumer, and the manufacturer who has to ensure the graphic artist didn't forget to make the label obvious enough to avoid a lawsuit.
       That, however, is candy.  Other products can stay the way they are.  Since almost every chocolatier known to man uses nuts at some point, that's a different animal.  But keeping a label on a product you would have no expectations of the presence of nuts - say, a bag of white rice or quick-dry cement - that's still necessary.  
       Though it does speak volumes about the state of our world when a bag of Salted Peanuts must be labeled with "contains peanuts."
       ....well, maybe.