abraxas @ abraxas @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

780

Joined

2 yr. ago

400mg is where the fda says adverse effects begin for normal people.

That's not exactly right. 400mg is the line the FDA says NO adverse affects happen for normal people. They're not saying >400mg is dangerous, they're saying <400mg is safe and healthy.

Considering the drinking patterns of caffeine (one big boost, not something you drink all day unless you're from New England), that makes sense to me. When I walk into a Dunkies and get a large Iced, it's 400mg of caffeine.

I suspected this at first, but the article put its foot in its mouth clearly pointing out that these are in the self-serve section. The pics going around show standard marketing on the dispenser saying it's high caffeine. If THOSE were missing, now you've got a valid complaint. But the article says nothing about that.

Does it change your mind if there's a large sign on the dispenser saying it's highly caffeinated and including big bold caffeine content numbers?

We don't know if the sign was there in this tragedy, but we know it's standard Panera marketing to have it there.

Why isn't it a good idea to sell something with typical iced coffee caffeine content to people who want that much caffeine?

Most coffee has a lot higher than ~100mg/mL if we're being honest unless it's brewed weak or watered down with a lot of milk/cream.

Panera Charged Lemonade: ~100mg/250mL

Panera Dark Roast Coffee: ~100mg/250mL

Panera Light Roast Coffee: ~162mg/250mL

ref

Truth is, typical coffee at a coffee shop blows this charged lemonade out of the water on caffeine content.

Either Panera successfully marketed it and it was a tragic mistake, or Panera's marketing at that location was messed up and they are at fault for her not being reasonably informed that it was a fully-caffeinated beverage.

So are you saying "f u" to all coffee shops? Because I can (and often do) get a standard on-menu beverage with more caffeine than these larges without a single warning on it at Dunkin Donuts.

These lemonades are at least covered in "this has THIS much caffeine in it" advertising.

I don't think it's "way too much". A large of those every morning is still under the "healthy" FDA recommendations, wherein there are zero known negative side-effects for most people.

It also includes the caffeine "dosage" in grams for those who want/need to know. That inclusion is more prominent than the description he's quoting.

Flip-side, you can't get a 6oz coffee in most of the US. The most popular coffee around me is generally sold between 20oz and 30oz sizes.

There were several factors at once. Serving to a customer at 180+ is a bit high. And that particular machine was slightly overcalibrated. It was 193 degrees if I recall, not 180-190. And then, yeah, the cups are crap.

Do a bit of research into the marketing actually used for this drink. Assuming the store uses the standard Panera marketing, there's a big sign on the dispenser saying how much caffeine is in it. It's a tragic mistake, but unless that location uniquely screwed up, that's all it is.

So are you suggesting we ban coffee, which typically has more caffeine than this drink?

And there's pictures going around of stores where those signs are missing.

I'm defending Panera in a lot of my replies here, but it's because we don't know if it's a bullshit lawsuit. All we know is that the OP article is bullshit and I caught it in a lie.

In this case, there is a large sign on the dispenser that includes caffeine content in mg, as well as comparing it to their dark-roast coffee.

The title literally says “Trump is actually guilty” despite there being no evidence he is guilty

You're misusing the word evidence. There is absolutely evidence that he is guilty. Whether it's enough to prosecute is a question for those closer to the case. But, if you're going to attack someone on the semantics, you should use your own words correctly.

Rich guys try to bribe politicians in roundabout ways all the time

I would say "try to" is an unsubstantiated addition.

How is he supposed to prevent someone from buying up all the rooms in his hotels in an attempt to get on his good side?

Simple. If you see a transaction attempt that reeks of criminality, you reject it. If this rich guy had any intention of bribing a politician in roundabout way, there's no way he went through the effort to hide the transfers so the Trump or the hotel couldn't tell what was going on. Because then it wouldn't work.

Trump is not involved in the day to day of his business and its not out of the question that he had no idea it was happening until after it happened.

So you will agree the hotel was involved in illicit spending, or are you just trying to muddy the water by separating him from his for-profit businesses?

Give me a break. What’s the point of bringing up the fact that it’s a charity if you admit charities are used for this exact purpose all the time

Because I'm an honest person and the only thing I attack is bullshit. You don't donate money to a charity as a bribe without prearranged quid pro quo because the owners of the charity don't just get to pocket the donation. This is not true of a hotel that is 100% owned by Trump.

Why do you think the Saudi’s donated 10 figure amounts to the Clinton foundation?

Good question. It should be investigated (and was, heavily investigated with no proof of illicit behavior discovered). Unlike the $1M hotel thing, we need to see if any of that money reached Hillary/Bill. We KNOW the $1M hotel bill largely reached Trump's pockets.

But take a step back and be honest with me. If I hand you $1M to curry favor, is that the same as if I hand St. Jude's Hospital $1M to curry favor of someone who works there?

on an ounce by ounce basis, as much caffeine as coffee

Much less caffeine than the typical coffee most of us drink.

but people also aren’t drinking coffee 30 ounces at a time

This lemonade has less caffeine than a Dunkin Large Iced Coffee, one of the most popular drinks in my area. Yeah, they are drinking coffee 20 oz at a time, which is all it takes to hit the same caffeine as 30oz of this lemonade.

Point of comparison here, a caffeine pill like NoDoze is 200mg and the suggested dose is 1 every 3-4 hours.

Counterpoint of comparison, the USDA rates 400mg as the healthy limit for daily intake. I could have a large charged lemonade every day and be comfortably under the "low-risk" line. And as I said elsewhere,

The 30 ounces here is about the same as 2 caffeine pills.

And a joint around here has the same active ingredient as about 20 THC pills. Just because something is in pill form doesn't mean it's a high dosage.

...also, I'd like to note that NoDoze suggests a dosage that hits over 800mg of caffeine a day, about three of these drinks. Also, the same dosage as a pot of coffee that MANY Americans drink every. single. morning.

However, it's about preponderance of evidence, not "your favorite team". Even if we have valid reasons not to like Panera, whether THIS lawsuit has merit should only have to do with the facts of the situation.

And the article was a lying sack of turd in response to that question. The article being sleazy doesn't mean Panera is innocent, but it doesn't mean they ain't.

We don't know if it's a completely reasonable case, yet. A few statements in the article would clearly cross the line of honest journalism if they weren't quotations (IMO they still do). Specifically, I think quoting 3 words of their "has lots of caffeine" descriptive sign out-of-context was incredibly dishonest. Might as well comment that a "Do Not Enter" sign reads "Enter". I mean it TECHNICALLY does, but let's give the reader the full story and let us decide, and the "Do not" is important. Just like the second half of "Plant-based and Clean with as much caffeine as our Dark Roast coffee" is more contextually important than merely "Plant-based and clean".

Is it possible the signs were smudged, missing, facing the wrong direction, or too small? Yeah, sure. But that's not what the article is representing as the truth. Some of the quotes comparing the lemonade with the lower-caffeine "dark coffee" even seem nonsensical because the article is hiding the full context of the above quote, that the lemonade is advertised as "as much caffeine as our dark coffee".

There's a lot of things I think are justified bans. Alcoholic energy drinks are a huge example because of the lethal way those two substances interplay on each other (a friend of mine died from a heart condition caused by having too many jaeger bombs). But energy drinks are not killing people left-and-right. And this is very probably the only death that will come from this Panera charged lemonade in its entire run, however long that is.

The complete quotes in the marketing (the article made the odd decision to quote PART OF the caffeine description out-of-context) are:

“Plant-based, clean caffeine powered by guarana & green coffee extract”.

and

“Plant-based and Clean with as much caffeine as our Dark Roast coffee”

I would call that marketing accurate and correct. Except one thing... It's a fact that one ounce of their lemonade has significantly less caffeine (about 2/3) than one ounce of their dark roast coffee, and dramatically less than their light roast coffee. Could you have guessed that from the quotes? Because my first point of note is that they're incorrect about it having "as much caffeine as our Dark Roast".

the large Charged Lemonade has more caffeine than any size of Panera’s dark roast coffee

This is also both misleading and carefully worded. It's comparing a 16oz cup to a 30oz cup, both sold with unlimited refills, and leaving out that the Charged Lemonade is not even the highest-caffeine item on the menu.

I would say the article is factually wrong and misleading. The problem is, we don't know the full details of the complaint, which might actually be valid. The article, however, is not doing it justice.