That's due to allergen labelling regulations. Since a lot of stuff can contain artificial almond extract or other substitutes when labeled as almond-based or flavored, the regulations don't carve out any exceptions, even when the allergen literally is the product.
Allergen labelling is a huge blessing to anyone with serious allergies. Yes, labeling A Package of Allergens with 'Contains Allergen' might feel weird, but it's critical for non-obvious ingredients and contaminants.
So for consistency's sake it's better to just always list allergens, rather than have the regulations say "except when it's bizarre and nonsensical." Otherwise, someone has to decide where that boundary is.
I don’t think it’s really that hard to draw the line. You can still err heavily on the side of safety while not requiring a bag of nuts to warn about the nuts it contains. But our legal system doesn’t go for that sort of nuance.
The US law on allergen labeling does actually have this nuance, but sellers probably chose to err on the side of caution. See section 203 (a) of the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004:
> If it is not a raw agricultural commodity...
> ...except that the name of the food source is not required when ... the common or usual name of the ingredient uses the name of the food source from which the major food allergen is derived
Why not have a warning label? It's, what, perhaps 4 words extra?
How do you draw the line? Is the exception "if the item is exactly X and labeled exactly X then it doesn't need to contain an allergen notice for X"?
Or is it any broader? What specific knowledge should we assume that everyone knows?
If someone sees the name "milk", should they assume the product contains dairy? What about soy milk? What about peanut butter or coconut cream - do they contain dairy? Does Grape-Nuts contain grapes or nuts?
You might say that all of those should be obvious. But why make that assumption at all?
Isn't it easier to say that all products containing one or more of a given set of allergens must list those allergens? Because that's a really easy line to draw. It's clear to the producer, clear to the consumer, and clear to the legal system.
No, I think it's a bit humorous because coffee is and always has been widely known and accepted to be served piping hot, often near boiling. Same with tea and mate. If you order a pot of tea from any decent shop or restaurant, it will be served full of freshly boiled water. The closer to boiling the better. Do you think all teapots should have big warnings enameled on their sides as well? Should all knives have "WARNING: SHARP" engraved on the blades?
That woman burned the skin off her genatalia when McDonald's served a far too hot coffee. After they refused to pay a small amount to cure her injuries (remember, no socialized health care in USA), she sued. She offered to settle, again for a small amount to cover expenses, and McDonald's refused again
McDonald's launched a massive PR campaign to mock her in order to pollute public sentiment in favor of corporations over victims, so thejury awarded $2.7 millions in punitive damages to defend the public against McDonald's brazen attack on himan society. The Judge lowered the award to $640K; and McDonald's appealed, refusing for the third time. They eventually settled for a confidential amount.
To add context, the original awarded amount was calculated to be the revenue of a single day of coffee sales for McDonald's. Stella Liebeck had originally sued for ~$50,000, to cover the cost of her medical bills, which McDonald's refused to do. Additionally, the award was calculated at that amount as a punitive measure, because McDonald's had received hundreds of complaints from customers of the coffee being too hot, which it summarily ignored. The coffee had been a problem; McDonald's just didn't care.
Unfortunately, the lawsuit, and the seemingly 'ridiculous-at-first-glance' nature of the headlines surrounding it, was used by several companies to push for specific tort reforms, which were mostly to the detriment of the average public.
There's more to this than "Dumbass sues company because hot coffee was hot".
McDonalds had received a few hundred complaints out of 10 billion cups of coffee served. The temperature of the coffee was not a problem; it was, and still is, the temperature at which all good coffee shops and restaurants serve coffee, including McDonalds. If you go get coffee at McDonalds (or Starbucks or pretty much anywhere else) it will be served to you at around 80 deg C, and sometimes even higher. This temperature is recommended by professional coffee associations [1], and it's the temperature at which any decent coffee machines holds your coffee.
It sucks that Stella Liebeck was injured. Nobody deserves that. But she was burned because she squeezed a cup of hot coffee between her legs while she messed with the lid. This is, by any reasonable criteria, an abuse of the product, and protecting a few people from such foolish choices would mean depriving everyone else of decent coffee. Fortunately that hasn't happened yet.
No, the coffee was not far too hot. It was served within the temperature range that was, and still is, recommended by professional coffee associations like the NCA [1]. Most good coffee establishments serve coffee in the range of 160 degrees F (71.1 degrees C) and 185 degrees F (85 degrees C). Yes, all temperatures in that range present a burn hazard. I have trouble believing that a reasonable person would assume it's safe to put a newly-served cup of hot coffee between their legs and take the lid off, which is what poor Stella did.
Nobody like to remember that folks went there because the coffee was extra hot.
She didn't get burned because McD's served hot coffee - she'd been drinking that for years? She got burned because just as she took the top off to put in sugar, her grandson gunned the motor and spilled it.
So who's 'fault' is all this? In law you can sue for money from anybody even remotely connected with an injury. So she chose McD's instead of her grandson - no surprise. But was it right?
Uh, it was McDonald's fault, as proven by the several legal battles this woman won. This continuous questioning of settled arguments is absurd. They served the woman boiling hot coffee - it's simply not drinkable or safe to handle at that temperature (and shouldn't even have been brewed over 180...)
You're not a coffee drinker are you? :) The optimum brewing temperature for coffee is 200 deg F (94 deg C), plus or minus a few degrees. This is the range recommended by professional coffee associations such as NCA and SCAA [1], and is the range used by pretty everyone, from Starbucks to your local diner. The NCA recommends that coffee be served at around 80 deg C (which is what burned Stella Liebeck); this is a perfectly reasonable service temperature, widely used by most good coffee shops and restaurants, including McDonalds to this day.
The "settled arguments", as you say, were questionable to begin with, and businesses continue to struggle with how to balance decent coffee service and protection from frivolous lawsuits. But the only thing that's really changed since Stella's lawsuit is the addition of warnings on coffee cups, just in case anyone else decides it's a good idea to squeeze a cup of hot coffee between their legs while they fiddle with the top.
Yet she had handled it before, as had millions of other people. No, this was a case of 'who can I sue to get paid for my injury', which is an epidemic these days. That's also well known, and its disengenous (and massively naieve) to assume that winning a legal battle means you are in the right