Search this site:


April 4, 2005 12:07 AM

Broken: Apple sauce label

Carmel_with_carmel_dipTed submits this apple sauce label to the Department of Redundancy Department here at TIB. He writes, "Imagine my surprise to find that my Apples with Caramel treat may contain Apples and Caramel."

[I know, I know, it's not broken, because the label is legally required, etc. etc. Keep those letters coming :) -mh]


It's still broken; it's just *legally required* to be broken..

Posted by: Mungojelly at April 4, 2005 12:57 AM

i like the fact that it "may" contain apples and caramel.. they're not sure whether it does or not.

Posted by: Dragon at April 4, 2005 02:11 AM

Heh, the headline in my rss reader only showed "this is broken - Apple s..." , so my initial thought was "here we go again, jealous Windows-types slamming Apple..." :-)

Posted by: sibylle at April 4, 2005 02:15 AM

"jealous Windows-types slamming Apple"

My my, aren't we full of ourselves!

Posted by: FLyingASHtrays at April 4, 2005 07:15 AM

What IS broken is the fact that they say MAY contain this and such, when in reality it's SUPPOSED to! Like the package of peanuts that says MAY contain peanuts. Well, duh. Okay, some people are allergic, the warning is needed and good. Cracker packages say MAY conatin peanuts cause they're processed in the same plant, you don't expect crackers to contain peanuts, so it's important to have the warning. But this apples and caramel should say CONTAINS apples and caramel, not MAY contain apples and caramel! Definitely broken..govt bureaucracy at it's finest - by law you must state the obvious! {good grief}

Posted by: Kay at April 4, 2005 07:45 AM

Actually, if you read carefully, you can see why the label is required: The product may contain apples and *Carmel*. I'd certainly want to know if something I was going to eat might contain a small California city. Heck, there might even be a bit of Clint Eastwood in there ...

Posted by: E.T. at April 4, 2005 09:11 AM

Man, I hate when my snacks *may* have cities in them...

Posted by: spoofme at April 4, 2005 10:34 AM

I don't think this is broken.

Remember: one factor of usability is meeting what the user *expects*. No intelligent user expects that the *name* of a product equals the sum-total of its *ingredients*.

Consider: What if that label *weren't* there? If you picked this product up, and wanted to know what it contained, would you be satisfied that, because it was called Apples and Carmel, that this is all it contained?

Consider the number of substances (that we would otherwise expect to find in a processed, packaged product) that it explicitly does NOT contain...

Posted by: DaveC426913 at April 4, 2005 10:40 AM

They dont list the ingredients for the caramel and the uh... apple... so i actually am still in the dark to what is in the package...

Posted by: Dragon at April 4, 2005 11:47 AM

whats wrong with this isnt the fact that the ingredients are the same as the name of the product. whats wrong with this is the word "may".

may contain apples and in maybe it has apples and carmel, maybe it doesnt.

maybe it has apples, but not carmel?

maybe it has carmel, but no apples?

maybe it doesnt contain either?

i would sort of expect my "apples w/ carmel dip" to contain apples for sure, not maybe contain apples.

i guess you could argue that they say it may contain such and such because they always could substitute in artificial ingredients, but artificial apples?

oh and is this just me being a big stupid, or should it be "caramel" and not "carmel"?

or is carmel some kind of new thing goin round the streets?

Posted by: Carl Winslow at April 4, 2005 04:21 PM

Completely broken. I don't care about the fact that a product called apples and caramel list its ingredients as precisely that, apples and caramel. It assures me that no other ingredients are to be found in the product. But saying that it "MAY" contain apples and caramel, it's stupid. Secondly, the misspelling of caramel as CARMEL, is simply beyond any logic.

it also caught my attention the legend that says that the product should be kept at 37°F. That is, obviously, close to the freezing point, but a regular fridge is usually at 40° Farenheit and manufacturers do it that way to prevent slight changes that might end up freezing the contents in the refrigerator. So, I wonder where should I keep my apples and caramel, because if I put them in my Fridge, at $=|F, it will be too warm them, but if I put them in the freezer (usually at 27°F) it will be too cold.

Broken label, broken product.

Posted by: sam at April 4, 2005 05:56 PM

XD Reminds me of something my friend told me:

"I was on my way back from the Phillipenes, and the flight assistants were handing out peanuts. I decided to eat it later, so I started to read the back. The thing that stood out: 'CAUTION: MAY CONTAIN PEANUTS'"

Posted by: Another Alex at April 4, 2005 07:33 PM

9-19-04.... I hope that the picture is old, if not it might tast like wine

Posted by: Gabe at April 4, 2005 07:37 PM

I think the biggest thing that is broken is that someone is eating a dip that expried on 9/14/04!

Posted by: Vic at April 4, 2005 07:49 PM

That is just hte cap not the jar.

Posted by: unknown at April 4, 2005 08:03 PM

"That is just hte cap not the jar."

And that matters because...

Posted by: Lukesed at April 4, 2005 09:46 PM

it matters because people thought that the cap is still on the jar.

Posted by: unknown at April 4, 2005 10:29 PM

"And that matters because..."

It matters because it may have already been eaten.

Posted by: Shadow at April 4, 2005 10:29 PM

Actually it contains neither one. What it contains is a jillion mix flavored with fruit juices and artificial flavorings. However some times there is a minute amount of the actual fruit in the juice flavoring, but this happens very rarely.

Posted by: PJ at April 4, 2005 10:29 PM

Howdy all, this is Ted the submitter. Thought I’d clear some things up. What I had was a container of a few slices of apple, with a small dipping container of caramel.

As for the date, I ate them before the expiration date, the package just knocked around for a while.

Posted by: Ted at April 5, 2005 12:27 AM

See i was right

Posted by: unknown at April 5, 2005 03:57 PM

WARNING: Some of your computer systems may contain SPELL CHECK.

Posted by: suchana at April 5, 2005 08:41 PM

Seen on a pack of pepper:

Ingredients: Black Pepper

Plus, we know that it's carmel, not some weird substitute.

Posted by: xedium at April 6, 2005 03:55 PM

Erm... how are you going to come up with a substitute for a California city?

Posted by: fuzzy at April 6, 2005 08:22 PM

But California isn't the only place that has a Carmel. Can someone name the other(s)?

...Pardon the digression.

Posted by: fenipou at April 6, 2005 08:58 PM

You had 30 seconds to come up with the answer and didn't. So here it is: you could substitute some Carmel from Indiana &/or Israel.

Posted by: fenipou at April 6, 2005 09:02 PM

according to a dictionary on the word carmel, ( heh) carmel is circmized lamb.. or something like that.. i wouldnt want to eat that..

Posted by: Picho at April 7, 2005 12:19 AM

Im thinking that this is the package from a package of caramel apples.. they are usually sold around the timeframe and consist of whole apples dipped in caramel..still broken.. but about as much so cans of almonds that due to government bureaucity must include the words.. Peanut Free. May Contain other Tree Nuts.. I sure as heck hope it contains Almonds at the very least...

Posted by: Infinity at April 10, 2005 05:55 PM

Ther is a Mount Carmel in PA.

Posted by: Chaos at April 22, 2005 02:51 PM

I have these things at school, and I don't believe it has honest-to-goodness caramel, rather it has something like it made of high fructose corn syrup. By the way, the igrediants for the caramel dip is on the packaging of the dip, and it isn't just caramel, although the apples are just apples.

Posted by: Role at November 29, 2005 01:08 AM

Anyone else notice that they spelled it "carmel"? That's wrong. "caramel" is the correct spelling.

Posted by: Jason at January 25, 2006 12:38 AM

I don't know about you but I hte it when apples get in my apples and caramell

Posted by: oddball at February 15, 2006 08:59 PM

MAY contain? it HAD BETTER contain!

Posted by: Wazoo_22 at July 5, 2006 08:00 PM

Comments on this entry are closed

Previous Posts: