# Explanation of the 'Ground Nuts Order' **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 19, 2016, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explanation-of-the-ground-nuts-order/743568 "2016-01-19T13:21:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/earl_snake-hips_tucker/32/3269_2.png) [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2016, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explanation-of-the-ground-nuts-order/743568/1 "2016-01-19T13:21:37Z")
> [@](#): > > “In the Nuts (unground), (other than ground nuts) Order, the expression nuts shall have reference to such nuts, other than ground nuts, as would but for this amending Order not qualify as nuts (unground) (other than ground nuts) by reason of their being nuts (unground)”. I think at least part of the gist is saying that in the “Nuts Order,” the word “nuts” refers to nuts other than peanuts (ground nuts). What I don’t get is the ‘unground’ part. Does that simply mean ‘nuts other than peanuts?’ ---
**Author:** ![Your\_Great\_Darsh\_Face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ac8455/32.png) [@Your\_Great\_Darsh\_Face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Your_Great_Darsh_Face)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2016, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explanation-of-the-ground-nuts-order/743568/2 "2016-01-19T13:27:38Z")
“Unground” meaning “not having been subject to grinding”. ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2016, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explanation-of-the-ground-nuts-order/743568/3 "2016-01-19T14:02:37Z")
Whoever wrote the sentence quoted in the OP should be shot. ---
**Author:** ![jtur88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e9c0ed/32.png) [@jtur88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jtur88)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2016, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explanation-of-the-ground-nuts-order/743568/4 "2016-01-19T14:12:16Z")
The plant/product synonymous with Peanuts and their allies is spelled as one word, “groundnuts”. Despite the confusing syntax, one needs to assume that the writer knows that, and would have spelled it “groundnuts” if that weas what was implied. If groundnuts were included in the context, those which are not groundnuts would be called “tree-nuts”. ---
**Author:** ![Isilder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@Isilder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isilder)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2016, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explanation-of-the-ground-nuts-order/743568/5 "2016-01-19T18:30:00Z")
So the main point of this thread is to say that peanut flour is ground groundnut ? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2016, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explanation-of-the-ground-nuts-order/743568/6 "2016-01-19T18:51:08Z")
> [@](#): > > At this time, as a public service, we are glad to post the following superseding additional supplementary bulletin from the Office of Fluctuation Control and Ceiling Repairs, Bureau of Edible Condiments, Soluble, Insoluble, and Indigestible Fats and Glutinous Derivatives, Washington, D.C.: > > Correction of the Correction of the Correction of Directive 943456201, issued earlier, February 2, 2009. First correction: that number is now 943456202. The second correction: please note that said Directive reading “chopped hogmeat” formerly reading “ground hogmeat” formerly reading “groundhog meat” should now read “sausage.” —Bob and Ray ---
**Author:** ![Your\_Great\_Darsh\_Face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ac8455/32.png) [@Your\_Great\_Darsh\_Face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Your_Great_Darsh_Face)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2016, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explanation-of-the-ground-nuts-order/743568/7 "2016-01-19T19:21:31Z")
> [@jtur88](#): > > The plant/product synonymous with Peanuts and their allies is spelled as one word, “groundnuts”. Despite the confusing syntax, one needs to assume that the writer knows that, and would have spelled it “groundnuts” if that weas what was implied. If groundnuts were included in the context, those which are not groundnuts would be called “tree-nuts”. So spelled by whom and when? The authors of this horrendous piece of wordsmithing were British in the closing days of the Empire. ---
**Author:** ![UncleFred](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f0a364/32.png) [@UncleFred](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleFred)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2016, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explanation-of-the-ground-nuts-order/743568/8 "2016-01-21T03:19:53Z")
Kinda reminds me…Bob and Ray (remember them?) had a routine about an important Government Announcement concerning “Groundhog Meat” that was later corrected to “Ground Hogmeat” and maybe then something else. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2016, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explanation-of-the-ground-nuts-order/743568/9 "2016-01-21T05:10:01Z")
> [@UncleFred](#): > > Kinda reminds me…Bob and Ray (remember them?) had a routine about an important Government Announcement concerning “Groundhog Meat” that was later corrected to “Ground Hogmeat” and maybe then something else. Like in two posts above yours.😉 ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2016, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explanation-of-the-ground-nuts-order/743568/10 "2016-01-21T10:19:23Z")
It is not at all easy to understand the intended effect even leaving aside the groundnuts issue. Assuming, as appears to be the intention, that groundnuts (ie peanuts) are excluded from the discussion, then it reads (with a bit of simplification): “In the relevant Order, the expression “nuts” shall have reference to such nuts as would but for this amending Order not qualify as nuts (unground) by reason of their being nuts (unground).” This makes no immediate sense because why would something not qualify as being nuts (unground), precisely by reason of _being_ nuts (unground)? I suspect that what it really should say is: “In the relevant Order, the expression “nuts” shall have reference to such nuts as would but for this amending Order not qualify as “nuts (unground)” by reason of their being unground nuts.” I suspect that the original order gave the expression “nuts (unground)” an artificial definition such that it did not in fact encompass all unground nuts. If that’s right, then what the amending order is saying that “nuts” means nuts that are not ground, which do not fall into the definition of “nuts (unground)”. Needless to say this could be completely wrong because it’s appalling drafting. ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2016, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explanation-of-the-ground-nuts-order/743568/11 "2016-01-21T10:39:18Z")
It just had to be the EU. Any organisation that can produce legislation like this: > [@](#): > > Rights recognised by this Charter for which provision is made in other Parts of the Constitution shall be exercised under the conditions and within the limits defined by these relevant Parts. Insofar as this Charter contains rights which correspond to rights guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the meaning and scope of those rights shall be the same as those laid down by the said Convention. Would have no problem at all with the Groundnut Act. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2016, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explanation-of-the-ground-nuts-order/743568/12 "2016-01-21T11:03:52Z")
> [@bob\_2](#): > > It just had to be the EU. Any organisation that can produce legislation like this: > Would have no problem at all with the Groundnut Act. Your quoted sentence is perfectly clear. The sentence in the OP is not. ETA: But I expect that with context, it may be. OP, can you link to the source document? ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2016, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explanation-of-the-ground-nuts-order/743568/13 "2016-01-21T11:27:19Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > Your quoted sentence is perfectly clear. The sentence in the OP is not. > > ETA: But I expect that with context, it may be. OP, can you link to the source document? It may be a spoof - after an extensive 10 minute search, I was unable to find the original document. ---
**Author:** ![Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/earl_snake-hips_tucker/32/3269_2.png) [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2016, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explanation-of-the-ground-nuts-order/743568/14 "2016-01-21T15:11:40Z")
Many, many years ago, IIRC, this appeared in the Guinness Book of World Records (or some similar book) as ‘most complicated statute’ or some such category. Maybe it is factitious–but I first read about it in the late 70s/early 80s, so it’s not of recent vintage. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2016, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explanation-of-the-ground-nuts-order/743568/15 "2016-01-21T23:28:30Z")
Based on web searches it seems to be regularly given as an example of an appalling piece of legal drafting, but the origin and context are never given. I suppose if you really wanted to you could try to track down the order in English records of superseded subordinate legislation, but I think most of us probably have something better to do with our time. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explanation-of-the-ground-nuts-order/743568/16 "2016-01-22T01:11:14Z")
Seeing as this was a piece of colonial english legalese, it was probably deliberately written to be as confusing as possible so that the local administrators could interpret it in what ever way was most profitable to them. ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explanation-of-the-ground-nuts-order/743568/17 "2016-01-22T23:04:14Z")
> [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](#): > > factitious What a great word. Something that is true but seems like it must be fictitious. Or a fib that seems like it has to be true. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explanation-of-the-ground-nuts-order/743568/18 "2016-01-23T01:38:51Z")
> [@Crotalus](#): > > Whoever wrote the sentence quoted in the OP should be shot. . . . in the nuts. ---
**Author:** ![Jeff\_Lichtman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jeff_lichtman/32/1531_2.png) [@Jeff\_Lichtman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jeff_Lichtman)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explanation-of-the-ground-nuts-order/743568/19 "2016-01-23T08:13:22Z")
The Guinness Book of World Records used to list the sentence in question under “Most Inexplicable Statute.” ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explanation-of-the-ground-nuts-order/743568/20 "2016-01-23T10:15:29Z")
This is a real on from 1944: > [@](#): > > In exercise of the powers conferred upon him by regulation 55 of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, and of all other powers him enabling, the Minister of Food hereby makes the following order: > > The Food (Section Scheme) Order, 1943, as amended, shall be further amended by inserting it in the second schedule thereto (which sets out the articles of food and drink to which the provisions of the said Order do not apply) the entry “nuts.” [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explanation-of-the-ground-nuts-order/743568.md?page=2)