I have not been following this thread closely, so apologize if this was already posted.
Wrong.
Try again.
Maybe they’d have to have dram laws for all on-tap-drinks. Where I live restaurants won’t let customers pour their own drinks anymore anyway. They could write legislation like in Berkeley or NYC where they limited how much pop I could buy.
Alcohol and cigarette companies don’t put warnings on their labels out of a sense of corporate responsibility. They’re forced to by law, and lots of people - especially in the case of tobacco - had to die before those changes were forced on them.
Actually, that might be a good parallel. Panera was apparently marketing its lemonade as “safe” and “clean.” Reminds me of how cigarette companies used to advertise their products as healthy lifestyle choices.
If I died because a drug company was negligent, I absolutely hope my family would sue. Not because they’d make money (though I hope they would), but because lawsuits force companies to change their policies and it might save lives down the road.
If it is, it’s not their fault for offering the drink. It will be their fault for not making the nature of the drink clear.
It’s not up to Panera or the US government to make good decisions for me. It is absolutely up to Panera to help me make informed decisions about their products, and it’s absolutely up to the US government to step in if they don’t.
Since we’re getting heated, I’m going to repeat my assertation from upthread.
We tend to see extremes, careful or careless, and forget about the wide range of inbetween.
If the consumer had been careful (asked about the drink) they likely would have been safe despite it being dangerously high in caffeine.
If Panera had been careful (kept the caffeine content to say, under 200mg for a 30 ounce cup as I suggested upthread) then the consumer would have been less at risk even if they were personally careless.
Since I would feel that both parties could and should have exercised more care (avoiding extremes) in the situation, I’m trying to judge everything in absolutes, or judge others in thread for their stance. And that’s why I felt it going to court is a good idea rather than some sort of cash grab.
But as I said earlier, the fact that the single cup (granted a large one) of a sipping club beverage is just a tiny smidge short of the daily “generally safe” dosage is too much of a wink-wink-nudge-nudge on the part of Panera. So I ascribe more blame to them than to the deceased in this specific case.
Also, if we’re invoking the slippery slope argument …
I really do remember people who were apoplectic at the idea of eliminating peanuts from airplanes. It was akin to ceding the Global War On Terror … somehow. It was never adequately explained to me just how.
I also remember the hue and cry about the Americans With Disabilities Act – Nanny State something something, as I recall.
Ditto taking smoking off of airplanes and out of public buildings, including private business that were open to the public.
And masks. COVID.
I was out on a long walk with my dog today. I looked up. The sky, in fact, had not fallen.
For those who think this is too much mollycoddling and abnegation of personal responsibility, I applaud your grit and admire your deep sense of pride in your own self-reliance.
But I’d like life (vs. death) to be just a tiny bit easier for the vulnerable people among us … any time we can all make infinitesimal (or less) sacrifices in order to make it so.
“The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.”
–The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.
A lot of people like to see people “punished”. That sweet dopamine hit of superiority is hard to resist.
I would simply emphasize that when the consumer is careless, the consequence is that they, the consumer, die. When the corporate entity is careless, the consequence is… they make a lot of money. Unless we do something about it.
Which is why I think going to court is a good idea, even if it is a mere cash grab.
I’ll suggest this small improvement to your excellent statement:
I would simply emphasize that when the consumer is careless, the consequence is that they, the consumer, die. When the corporate entity is careless, the consequence is… consumers die and they (the corporations) make a lot of money. Unless we do something about it.
And is it even true? I don’t drink coffee, but I take caffeine pills when I have a migraine, and the bottle tells me that 200mg is about as strong as a cup of coffee. That’d make the large size lemonade just 10mg less than 2 cups of coffee, not a cup.
Maybe they meant a cup of coffee grounds?
I believe the math worked out to 1 ounce of coffee = 1 ounce of lemonade. Not 1 standard serving of coffee = 1 large lemonade.
Which is a fine example of misleading advertising.
I hope you complained to the insulin manufacturer about that. And if you’d died, i hope your family would have sued. Drug manufacturers make a ton of money and have a responsibility to be careful and consistent in manufacturing their wares.
The banana wasn’t defective. Bananas are supposed to be sweet, and the nature of fruit, unlike pharmaceuticals, is to be variable.
Oh, I did. Received a new supply with lots of apologies and explanations as how it happens, occasionally.
I know the banana thing was a “just the nature of thing” deal.
Just sayin’
It’s just 2 of the many things I’ve faced and learned from in my futile quest to stay alive.
An 8 oz cup of coffee is about 80-100 mg caffeine. Of course a lot of people drink sizes much bigger than that. But that’s what I think of as a standard size, maybe even 6 oz. I would definitely consider 200mg to be two servings of coffee.
In the absence of a volume measurement in the description (e.g. saying, “about as much caffeine as a cup of our dark roast coffee”), my default assumption would be that the comparison was by volume. That is, that an ounce of the lemonade drink had about as much caffeine as an ounce of the coffee. It wouldn’t even occur to me to think they were equating a glass of the drink to a cup of coffee.
Now, that interpretation may be shaped by my engineering background, but it doesn’t seem misleading to me. I would say that the formulation of the drink is probably irresponsible, but I don’t feel that the description intentionally disguises it. I would guess that it’s more likely that whoever wrote that bit of copy similarly thinks in terms of unit-by-unit comparison. (I have enough experience with technical writing to be wearily familiar with people’s tendency to misinterpret documentation to suit themselves, so I’d probably have written a more detailed comparison. It would be a clunkier construction, though, and I’d expect to fight with an editor about it, if it were going to be published publicly.)
That warning has been there since about the time the lawsuit was filed at every Panera I have visited. It was not there previous to the lawsuit/death. The main change I have seen is that no Panera now has the drinks available next to the other drinks. For a while, the warning had been added, but some locations still had the drink next to the other ones (still with the original placard indicating the caffeine amount), but now it is something you need to have someone behind the counter dispense.
//i\\
My local Panera (in Los Angeles) has completely withdrawn the drinks.
Bumping this as appropriate to the thread. While there’s no discussion of the wrong doing or responsibility, Panera is dropping charged lemonade from it’s menu.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/07/food/panera-charged-lemonade-discontinued/index.html
ETA - there is a current discussion in the “A fear Panera is Doomed” thread regarding the business decisions about the products and general management of the company to head off any hijacks of this thread, I just wanted to make a note HERE that the beverage itself and the future risks thereof will be gone.