Oh, yeah, there's definitely room for debate there about where responsibility lies. The warnings and such are definitely a good step, though, because it's kind of unreasonable to expect every customer to research in detail every product they buy. Yeah, there's weirdness like needing to put a peanut warning on a bag of peanuts - I get that it's silly, but it's better than not having the warning on products where it isn't obvious, and I prefer laws to be simpler where possible (so while you could probably write in exceptions for a list of products where it's self-evident, that would really be an unnecessary complication). If nothing else, consider it reassurance that the product contains actual peanuts.
You do need to draw the line somewhere, since you obviously can't put every warning imaginable on a package, but covering common allergies seems like a reasonable choice. Keep in mind, too, that some of these are deliberate marketing decisions on a manufacturer's part (I could be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure you don't actually have to label your food as gluten-free, but tons of manufacturers do because marketing gimmick).
When it comes to cigarette warnings, I do think we're in a fairly decent place here with packaging rules. You got an addictive, poisonous product? Okay, but you're going to have to make damn sure your customers know that. I mean, c'mon, it's not like the manufacturers give a shit about "anything you actually want to know about a product". They're just going to fill the space with endorsements, illustrations, and lies, like every industry.
I don't know whether this particular case is reasonable, though - it basically comes down to whether or not the company was living up to their obligation to make that information clear in their advertisements and packaging. If they weren't, the punishment isn't because they pulled off some dastardly deception on somebody who couldn't possibly have known the truth (because yeah "Cigarettes are bad for your health" is common knowledge these days), it's because they were failing to live up to a legal obligation to avoid taking advantage of psychology to induce people to give in to dangerous temptations in spite of their knowledge of the potential consequences. I don't know anything about their actual advertising practices, though, so I can't say shit.
One way or the other, though, if you believe punitive damages are warranted at all, then I think it's safe to say that they should be so large the company objects.