Sarah Katz, 21, had a heart condition and was not aware of the drink’s caffeine content, which exceeded that of cans of Red Bull and Monster energy drinks combined, according to a legal filing
I hope this lawsuit forces them to remove this. I’m sorry this young girl died. This isn’t the first issue they had with this drink. My husband and I were discussing it months ago. He thought it was just lemonade - sugar, water, lemons. We didn’t figure out why he was up all night. Later someone old him how much caffeine it has. We had no idea. It’s dangerous to those with high bp.
I’m not going to lie when I first read the headline I thought this was probably a frivolous lawsuit but after reading the article I thought that stuff should get pulled.
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.
Another commentor said their husband ordered it thinking it was a regular lemonade. The issue could be more wide spread than a single store.
I noted that. Yet another commentor linked to a vlog where the signs weren’t present because the dispensers were behind the counter and had to be ordered. I think there are absolutely locations NOT showing the marketing.
But please check out the other comments here and see the one showing what the dispensers with signs look like. Those are BIG signs with BIG mention of caffeine.
deleted by creator
I don’t think they’re legally liable after what I’ve read through and personally experienced – but I absolutely don’t think this is a frivolous lawsuit. It’s still worth merit when it comes to signage and frankly medical testing.
The biggest problem is that she drank it without knowing the heart condition. We need to have better detection and screening to make sure people know this.
From the article:
Katz had a heart condition called long QT syndrome type 1 and avoided energy drinks at the recommendation of her doctors, according to the filing.
her roommate and close friend, Victoria Rose Conroy [said,] “She was very, very vigilant about what she needed to do to keep herself safe,” Conroy said. “I guarantee if Sarah had known how much caffeine this was, she never would have touched it with a 10-foot pole.”
Yeah, I also wasn’t aware. I imagine there were signs, but who looks for the caffeine content of lemonade? In my case I just had a dash t flavor soda, so I didn’t notice until my kid pointed it out
Similarly, when my kids were little, I kept them away from stimulants, but who expects to have to prohibit lemonade for the caffeine hit?
Why didn’t you read the very clear, explicit label?
Sorry but no. If we just arbitrarily remove products because someone managed to die because of it… We literally won’t have anything.
Let’s not use the term arbitrary arbitrarily. It just makes people stupid.
Feel free to elaborate.
Girl dies from drinking caffeine presumably millions of people drink every year.
/u/Orionza I hope this lawsuit forces them to remove this.
Per Google definition
adjective based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
Seems arbitrary to me. If we just start removing items because someone unalive themselves with it… where does that line get drawn? The regular 20-ounce serving has 260 milligrams. The can of energy drink in front of me is 200mg @ 12 oz. So per fluid ounce, it’s not that high.
If I get in a car accident and die… are we going to call for the removal of cars? Just the model that killed me? How is this the companies/products fault?https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/lemonade-chargers.html
Panera Charged Lemonades are the ultimate energy drink guaranteed to charge up your day.
Plant-based and Clean with as much caffeine as our Dark Roast coffee.
All caffinated beverages should be required to disclose their caffeine content on the packaging.
You mean like how Panera Bread does?
https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-560w,f_auto,q_auto:eco,dpr_2.0/rockcms/2023-10/231017-panera-bread-charged-lemonade-al-1019-f1a04a.jpgThe Charged Lemonade was “offered side-by-side with all of Panera’s non-caffeinated and/or less caffeinated drinks” and was advertised as a “plant-based and clean” beverage that contained as much caffeine as the restaurant’s dark roast coffee, according to photos of both the menu and beverage dispensers in the store, which were included in the wrongful death lawsuit. https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/app/product/57f9b1aa54df4bd2c2eacca55efa1c96.html
Not to disagree with you, you’re right, but I think they should also indicate how much is normal consumption. It’s quite surprising this isn’t something that’s required on the nutritional label.
they should also indicate how much is normal consumption
For real, this is the actual problem. How much does 390 mg of caffeine even mean to the average person? For reference, one of those 20 oz drinks are almost equivalent to 3 cups of regular black coffee.
I’m pretty familiar with the mg amounts based on reading soda labels. That would be 11 glasses of Diet Pepsi, which does sound like a lot.
100mg of caffeine for an 8oz cup of coffee is pretty widely known. I would argue it’s up to the individual with the medical conditions to know exactly how much caffeine they are consuming vs how much is safe for them to consume.
After reading the article it makes it seem like she went to a physical location to get the drink, which has a placard on the dispenser stating exactly how much caffeine is in the drink. Shit, it even states she also got the drink a few days before she died so she had to have known it had a lot of caffeine in it. The only thing that makes sense here is I’m wondering if she ordered it for pickup and the online menu doesn’t have all of this written out clearly. If that’s the case then Panera needs to update that ASAP.
100mg of caffeine for an 8oz cup of coffee is pretty widely known
I wouldn’t count on it
I did not know this, and have never met anyone who does
deleted by creator
I’m kind of confused by the “it should be labeled!” comments as to me, that is decently labeled. The descriptions say “coffee” and “guarana” for each one, and listing the amounts of caffeine is more information than you get for other drinks. It’s not too much to think that the customer (especially someone with a life threatening condition) would read the descriptions.
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.
Welp, this post might have just saved my life. I had no idea, and a heart condition.
Yeah, this is really serious. I hope people don’t construe this to be an absurd example of over litigation, while it is a completely reasonable case. Kind of like the McDonald’s coffee lady getting clowned on when she is a genuine victim.
That’s because clickbait was a thing even before you clicked to get news.
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”.
Just want to pop in and remind people that the supposed scourge of “frivolous lawsuits” was just a horribly effective PR stunt to drive down corporate accountability. If you feel wronged, sue if you can. Let a judge or jury decide.
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.
To that, I largely agree. But, given the state of income inequality and the general treatment of humans as mere consumers, to be manipulated and harvested… I think it’d be a disservice to us to view any corporate behavior with anything less than extreme skepticism.
Maybe even go as far as to work off the notion that corporations are guilty until proven innocent. Not individuals, but just the corporate entity.
Absolutely. But sometimes “the bad guy” is innocent. Not every murder victim falls at Charlie Manson’s feet. Not person now dead that Charlie Manson once met was murdered by him. The problem is that we are so emotionally wired for revenge. Just look at a prosecutor whenever someone is DNA exonerated, screaming “we’re letting a monster free today!”
We need to fix the relationship between people and businesses, as the latter most certainly does exploit us. Socializing and forced ownership-sharing would be a great start. But I would never go so far as “guilty until proven innocent”. I think the preponderance standard should be enough. But that’s just me.
Also the part where she had the same thing to drink before.
Conroy said Katz had bought at least one other Charged Lemonade in the days before her cardiac arrest.
I missed that line, and it blows the thing wide open. There’s no way someone with a heart condition who is avoiding caffeine couldn’t tell a LARGE Charged Lemonade was caffeinated after buying it on multiple occasions. Even if you’re “resistant” to caffeine, you’d feel something.
That’s insane.
Just looking at the photo in the article, it looks clear to me how much caffeine is in it:
Unclear if that’s a “before” or “after” photo though.
Do they have that information on the drive through or the app though?
That’s a super good question, it’s not clear, but it’s also not clear if that’s how she bought the drink.
America is a place of personal feeedom but not personal accountability it seems.
Needs to be bigger and brighter imo. It looks like standard nutrition info which I omits never look at.
Reporting in after having just come from Panera due to this article. Didn’t read article, and it might be click bait or might not. I do know that the drink in question is slapped right beside all the typical juices and sodas, and the label says “contains as much as our dark roast coffee” then below that, even less obvious it gives serving sizes & caffeine amounts. Call me crazy, but I doubt your average consumer is going to consider just how much caffeine might be in LEMONADE.
Panera is definitely losing this one. It could even be argued that they chose a product with that much caffeine and to not really advertise it based on the amounts of caffeine of the 30oz literally being a hair’s width away from the potential danger threshold.
My biggest question is what is the market for this? Who is like: I really want a lemonade but I want it to have more caffeine than a redbull! It seems like such a weird product in general.
If you want caffeine and you are at a bakery, you are going to get a coffee or tea. If you are at a bakery and want lemonade, you probably aren’t trying to get ‘charged’ or else youd just get a coffee or tea.
You can’t believe that people would want heroic doses of sugar and caffeine, two of the most available addictive substances on the market?
Also a lot of people don’t like the taste of coffee or tea
I’m basically the target audience for this and I’d never heard of it
Agreed that it is a very weird product to just kinda… have
It’s sad that someone loss their life to - of all things - lemonade.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I get really shaky and it’s super uncomfortable.
I had to go off caffeine for a while because of a medication, and that break completely destroyed my tolerance. I’ve gotten myself back to 1.5-2 drinks a day without feeling destroyed, but it’s an incredibly unpleasant feeling, totally agree.
I don’t think they will lose. It clearly states charged lemonade which most people will understand means caffinated. Even if you don’t know that means caffinated it has lettering that is more than large enough that states it has caffeine as well as the amount. It is so apparent that this is caffinated and just as apparent how much it is. It sucks this lady died but either she is also blind as a bat or she decided to gamble and drink it.
The warning has to be reasonable for its purpose. Intended and likely to reach the consumer, and to be understood. It’s meant to fairly apprise consumers of the material risks.
There is nothing resembling a warning. That’s fine if it’s just regular lemonade. It seems to me to be positioned as basically regular lemonade and otherwise indistinguishable except for “charged,” “# mg caffiene,” and “natural ingredients.”
This information seems inadequate based on the seriousness and likelihood of the material risk. The girl’s condition is apparently pretty common, the seriousness of the danger is deathly, and the likelihood that consumers in the girl’s position are as likely as not to understand the danger. More is required.
The average consumer does not know about dosages of caffeine in milligrams, and possible side effects. The labeling seems hardly likely to inform a consumer that one glass of lemonade they are about to drink is the equivalent of drinking three cups of coffee. Who the fuck puts caffiene into lemonade? Is it even lemonade?
Edit: speech to text has gotten worse lately. Also, I have to wonder whether anyone asked for this product? I wonder what the focus groups said. Did they even do them? The more I think of this the worse the idea seems.
deleted by creator
I drank a monster energy once (well, to be precise, about half of one.),back when energy drinks were still relatively new and there wasnt as much common knowledge about them as there is today.
Just that half of a can was enough to make me feel like I was going to die.
My resting heart rate was over 150bpm, was shaking with tremors, and cold sweating. I genuinely thought I was gonna die.
And I have never so much as touched another one, and will never touch another one, for the rest of my life.
They are incredibly dangerous and shouldnt be something any kid or idiot can walk into a store and buy with couple bucks.
and I have absolutely no idea how there are people that exist out there that can drink 6-10 of them a day without spontaneously combusting from tremor induced cellular friction.
They are not incredibly dangerous, not be a long shot.
They can be dangerous to a very small subset of people with preexisting conditions and that’s about it.
“They are not incredibly dangerous, except for when they are incredibly dangerous”
Is it not credible that a small slice of people might be extra sensitive to something that the rest of the population can handle without issue?
I have never been sensitive to caffeine, or had any underlying issues.
Just based on that experience with half of a Monster, I’d consult a doctor to verify that.
You dont read so good
250ml: caffeine
Energy drinks: 80mg
Coffee: 100mg (80-120)
Cola: 25mg
Black tea: 12-20mg
Those numbers are off.
Energy drink: 80-300mg
Coffee: 80-120mg this was accurate
Cola/other soda: 25-55mg
Black tea: 40-60mg
What energy drink has 300mg caffeine in 250ml?
Highest I can think of is Viso at ~160mg per 250ml
Rockstart Xdurance has 300mg in a 20oz can
deleted by creator
I don’t drink energy drinks anymore but to answer your question you build up tolerance.
I used to chug multiple of those on the way home from school and didn’t feel a thing. I think we lose much resilience with age.
I am not, and was not, sensitive to caffeine in any way.
Hell, that can be proven just by the embarrassingly large amount of Mountain Dew I drank a day during that era of my life, which had absolutely zero effect on me.
My boss drinks like 8 energy drinks a day. Idk how he isn’t dead.
I have absolutely no idea how there are people that exist out there that can drink 6-10 of them a day without spontaneously combusting from tremor induced cellular friction.
A few years ago my doctor put me on beta blockers to try and manage my migraines. My blood pressure was always within healthy limits, usually around 110/70, on the beta blockers it dropped a little bit, but nothing drastic. My heart rate on the other hand?
Resting, it was 41-45 bmp, sitting and fidgeting it was 54-58bpm, and walking around it was 65-73. I’d have to really push hard at the gym to get it to 100 and it would drop back down so suddenly when I stopped I’d often get blue lips when doing cool down stretches.
My fingers and toes were always blue, I had chilblains in the middle of the summer.
When I asked my doctor if I should try Alpha Blockers because they don’t effect your heart he said “just drink a can of redbull 3-4 times a day”
So that’s what I did.
It wasn’t until I changed doctors and she asked me about my tea and coffee habits that it fully dawned on me just how much caffeine I was having.
I completely forgot tea has caffeine, I’d have 5-8 cups a day, plus 3 no-doze pills, 2 red bulls and a ristretto on most work days. On weekends I’d have 3-4 teas, 2-3 red bulls, 2 coffees and a caffeine based pre-workout.
My resting heart rate during all this was about 58bpm…and I slept like a log.
Anyway, my new doctor was horrified and I’m on alpha blockers now. Still no migraines, I’ve had to cut out everything caffeinated except 3 cups of tea a day, my resting heart rate is 67bpm…but now I have orthostatic hypotension which kinda sucks. Not as bad as taking trucker crack just so my he would remember to beat. I also struggle with intermittent bouts of insomnia now, which is weird.
I, too am horrified that an actual doctor with a doctorate in medicine would suggest that a patient pound multiple energy drinks instead of I dunno, using medicine that you even suggested.
That’s insane. I hope not only that they win the lawsuit, but that companies understand stimulants can be harder (even dangerous) on some people.
The way caffeine affects me does not risk my life, but it can get ugly as I have a mental health condition that gets triggered by stimulants. It is so common to rely on caffeine nowadays, and it’s present in many beverages and snacks. People forget it is still a drug.
There should be labels and there should be less of a presence of caffeine (and other legal drugs) in unrelated products. I mean, it’s normal if coffee has caffeine, it shouldn’t be normal that a lemonade has caffeine.
There should be labels and there should be less of a presence of caffeine (and other legal drugs) in unrelated products. I mean, it’s normal if coffee has caffeine, it shouldn’t be normal that a lemonade has caffeine.
I disagree. Don’t get me wrong - fuck Panera in general, but I’m all for more products being offered so long as they’re properly labeled which this was. Also with a name like charged lemonade it heavily omplies it’s not normal lemonade. There’s an argument to be made here about personal responsibilities and reading labels.
Charged lemonadw to me would indicate extra sweet not cat piss gaurana.
Well you should probably read what’s in it then if you’re not sure lol.
Yeah it’s a tragic story, but I don’t think Panera is at fault here. What I would like for them to do is update their signage to be even more specific as a result of this. There’s no legal requirement to, and I don’t think a court will find them liable, but no matter how you spin it, this was an absolute tragedy for the girl and her family. Caffeine overdose is an incredibly unpleasant feeling when you drink one more coffee than you should. The poor girl. It would be kind of Panera to make changes because of it.
Agreed. I mentioned this in another comment but I’m wondering if she was picking up an online order? The article was not clear about that, but it would certainly be a different story if the lemonade wasn’t properly labeled on the online menu
Very true
No, the responsibility is solely on the consumer. It’s clearly labeled as having caffeine. No one is forcing anybody to ingest anything against their will. It’s not the company nor governments responsibility to protect oneself against their own stupidity.
Anything can kill you, but quantity matters. Any reasonable person would assume a product marketed towards them would not have an amount remotely high enough to kill without an explicit warning at the very least.
There’s not remotely enough caffeine in this beverage “to kill”. A dose of caffeine considered fatal is something like 10,000 mg. You’d have to drink more than five gallons of this lemonade to get a fatal dose of caffeine.
deleted by creator
I’m not trying to blame the woman and agree that it should have been labeled (mostly because of the quantity of caffeine in the drink and less that it was there at all) but if a product is called “Charged Food Item” and you knew you were under doctors orders to avoid certain things wouldn’t you ask what was in the item to make it charged?
Charged could represent electrolytes. Naming schemes can be nonsensical sometimes. What is the “extreme” in extreme burrito? Would that also be caffeine? Or more cheese, a different type of cheese? Some other ingredient? What about chocolate delight? Is delight an ingredient? Is there an ingredient that specifically makes the “delight” part? Sometimes naming schemes are about the process used to create it rather than what is in the food itself; see Triscuit
Someone with food restrictions absolutely has some due diligence on their plate, but calling out a name to divulge or suggest a specific ingredient (when the ingredients name iself is not used) is a hindsight “obviously that’s what it means” take.
Bugles is another great example where I do not expect instruments in my food. But there is the sweet sweet music of the crunch
Charged could represent electrolytes.
Tbh, that’s what I assumed from the headline. Expected something like that “water” that accidentally included Hydrazine due to the woo-woo they did to make it special
The 30 oz has 390mg of caffeine! That’s four regular cups of coffee. I’m a big guy, and that would mess me up.
30 fl oz is A LOT of beverage, a normal sized energy drink is more like 8-16 fl oz, and usually has only 100-200 mg caffeine tops. I’ve noticed a lot of 300 mg drinks start to get phased out in favor of drinks that only have 120 mg, which is actually a pretty reasonable amount for an adult.
For instance, I’m about 190 lbs and I need close to 250 mg to adequately feel its effects for exercise, and there are studies that show this is an appropriate amount (mg/lb) for exercise benefits.
However, even though 30 fl oz with 390 mg is about in line with the smaller drinks for caffeine/volume, I think ideally they should just not offer such a large size drink.
And nearly 3/4 cup of sugar. The sugar alone can trigger heart arrythmias. (I have a heart arrythmia and can’t tolerate much sugar.)
Wait until you get on energy drinks, then it’s like a kick wake up
Dude energy drinks usually have 150-200mg. Bang, for an extreme example, only has 300mg lol. Obviously it’s more concentrated as they’re not 30oz, but the point remains.
Idk man, I feel like most have 300 now days. Seems to be the new norm.
I 'd like to, but I had to give up the caffeine. I love the pep it delivers, but if I drink it in any quantity I eventually start getting absolutely debilitating headaches.
deleted by creator
Try to cut salt out as much as possible too.
If reducing caffeine does the trick, you don’t want to also cut out salt pre-emptively. There are dangers to cutting salt and it should be a last resort if nothing else works to reduce blood pressure.
What are the dangers? Last I saw yes you need sodium, but it’s an extremely small amount per day to stay healthy. So little that if you weren’t trying to diet you would probably surpass the amount after your first meal.
You need sodium to stay hydrated and not trace amounts but significant amounts. You lose salt in sweat. If you’re not replenishing it then your body will retain less and less water leasing to chronic dehydration.
Is there actually solid science behind that? I had a friend who swore that it really has no effect, and when I personally looked into it, it seemed that a large portion of the population sees higher blood pressure from it, but for most it’s a short term increase.
I think at the end of the day, moderation is what’s most important.
This is so saddening, I can’t imagine what her loved ones must be going through. ☹️
Heartbreaking? Did you use a pun?
No that was coincidental :/
Nice
Any free market absolutists want to try to explain to me how situations like this should be handled?
Is this poor girl just the first “collateral damage” that allows the market to (eventually) fix itself? Is it her own fault for not being an expert on caffeinated beverages before buying the drink?
I would be curious to know if the caffeine content is listed by Panera just for the sake of being curious. They could actually make an argument in court stating she should have seen the caffeine content at the time ordering.
I think the next argument to be made is that the caffeine content is for consumers without those conditions. They could simply state, “how could the company have known, because our beverages and the contents of caffeine are risky as is.”
I would like to know how much God damned caffeine has to be in something to cause someone like this to die. That is wild to me. I mean I wouldn’t drink more than one Red Bull in a day and things like 5-Hour Energy legit made me paranoid and gave me the shakes. I know where my body tolerance is.
I think I would be curious to know if the risks were posted or rather the caffeine content was posted. Most people with peanut allergies are not peanut experts but they stay aware of not being able to eat things deep fried in peanuts.
What has happened to her is really sad it’s not a question of whether she is collateral damage. It is a question of whether legally companies like Panera are posting warnings and caffeine content listings. I would also like to know if this is an employee mistake. Did someone accidentally over caffeinate the beverage.
Lots of questions here. I feel sorry for the family and it is unfortunate small things like this can kill a person. It makes you realize how small life can be and how vulnerable we are. I do feel like there is a responsibility on both parties sides but her responsibility is asking whether she knew the amount of caffeine content. Their responsibility would be determining whether that caffeine content was visible and there for her to see or even hear at the time of purchase or whether warnings should be posted by caffeine the same as they are posted by a boiling drink or food or whether something contains, nuts or eggs, etc. Additionally, should they legally be allowed to sell something with that amount of caffeine.
It’s absolutely about her being collateral damage.
If we weren’t living in a 24/7 internet/news world (say, even ~20 years ago), we wouldn’t have access to news articles about this kind of thing. The articles likely wouldn’t exist at all. The vast majority of consumers would have no idea that this girl died from this drink, and people who enjoy to consume it (heart condition or no), will continue putting themselves at risk. Panera would still sell this product, and the profit margin is massive. Why would they stop when literally nobody knows the drink killed a girl?
And this would keep happening until “the invisible hand” of the market corrects things, if it ever does. Because it only really could if enough people heard about the dangers of this beverage to literally put them out of business. And we’ve already established that these stories weren’t a common thing until recently.
How many people do you think would need to die for that happen?
This honestly isn’t even a great example, but it still works. Just look at any dangerous product that ruined or ended countless lives in the not so distant past, before the government was forced to step in to regulate (asbestos, thalidomide, lead, CFCs, etc etc). Note that all of those things would never have been outlawed/regulated if the government hadn’t stepped in. If we would have just sat back and allowed the free market to handle it, millions more would be dead, and there would still be an ever growing hole in the ozone layer.
All just collateral damage in the bullshit concept of free markets
I feel like Panera has lost its way after JAB bought it. This wouldn’t fly before and some of their menu items now are just pure excess.
Ever since “casual dining” became the buzzword for restaurant investors.
Energy drinks should be sold by prescription only.
had a heart condition
Does personal responsibility not exist anymore? The menu and advertising for the drink clearly show that it has a high caffeine content.
and was not aware of the drink’s caffeine content, which exceeded that of cans of Red Bull and Monster energy drinks combined
The drink has about 260mg of caffeine which, while high, isn’t outrageous or unsafe to most healthy adults by any means.
Maybe someone can show me how I’m being a heartless arsehole but I can’t find any negligent action on Panera’s part that would make them to blame.
Ah yes “personal responsibility” the rallying cry of empathy free assholes everywhere. And yes you are an asshole for that victim blaming shit opinion of yours.
There’s a gulf between “personal responsibility” and “wrongful death” called “tragedy”.
I don’t think anyone should be blaming the dead girl. But the limited evidence I’ve seen so far doesn’t make Panera look guilty either.
260mg is in the 20oz version, but I’m pretty sure you can get whatever giant sized drink you want. The article said she had a 30oz drink which has 390mg of caffeine. Also, even just 260mg of caffeine is WAY more caffeine than anyone needs in one drink, even if its considered “safe”. There’s literally no reason for it. Something that’s self serve and has that much caffeine should have a giant warning on the front and require a waiver to be signed first. I looked up the picture of the machine where the drink is served, and it says at the very bottom how much caffeine is in it, but if someone is on their way to work or class then they probably aren’t stopping to read the literature on what they thought was just plain lemonade
Also, even just 260mg of caffeine is WAY more caffeine than anyone needs in one drink, even if its considered “safe”.
That’s the caffeine content in a large hot coffee from Dunkin Donuts, one of the most popular orders in the my region of the world. Putting it proportion, this lemonade is about 2/3 of the caffeine, oz for oz, of black coffee. Have you seen a 30oz drink? They’re fairly massive.
I looked up the picture of the machine where the drink is served, and it says at the very bottom how much caffeine is in it, but if someone is on their way to work or class then they probably aren’t stopping to read the literature on what they thought was just plain lemonade
I’ve accidentally ordered food I was allergic to, so I get it. There’s absolutely nothing a company can do to be 100% sure nobody will ever order food that will harm them.
It does. But we still have safety stickers and ingredient lists, etc for a really damn good reason.
Absolutely. Legally speaking, the warnings/labeling are crucial. And they depend heavily on context. Using a common name like lemonade in a unique way puts the threshold even higher.
Also legally speaking, people blaming the heart condition fail to understand US tort law. The responsibility falls to the provider, not the victim, even if they are unusually fragile (have a heart condition). This is the eggshell skull aka eggshell plaintiff doctrine, very well established in US law.
And if you dive deep into the train of thought of what happens without it (companies blame everything on too fragile/frail of people), most people find it to be reasonable.
The provider must make it safe for everyone OR place adequate protections/warnings that make it very clear who it’s not safe for. Seems like Panera failed on both accounts.
If there’s a big sign that says “Plant-based, clean caffeine powered by guarana & green coffee extract” with “30 fl oz | 530 cal | 389 mg caffeine” on the sign she was staring at when she poured her drink, that might make things a bit complicated.
The Panera signage seems obvious enough about caffeine that (assuming the signage was in place) I can’t imagine any more correct action Panera could have taken short of having a person stand there asking people if they have heart conditions.
I mean, imitation crab meat often has trace lobster in it and nobody advertises that. It falls under “let our associates know if you have any dietary restrictions or food allergies”. Did she say “I can’t have caffeine” and then they let her fill her cup with charged lemonade? This is a beverage that is marketed on being caffeinated, and every piece of advertising, signage, etc features the caffeinated nature prominently because it’s a major selling point of it.
Nobody should be blaming her. But unless this Panera did stuff very different from the Panera standard, it was sufficient.
And you’re right about the legal implications of her medical condition. But I don’t see many people suggesting it’s her fault because she had a heart condition.
I also made the mistake. Personally I don’t care, especially since I was looking for a flavor shot with soda, but these are in the same dispensers that used to hold juice, in the same spot, and there probably still are some regular juices there. I suppose we should read every sign, but it’s not in human nature. Who would think to check the caffeine content of what appears to be juice?
I imagine that signs are posted, but it’s set up to be misleading. Panera missed the opportunity for splashy marketing (at least where I was) which could have both sold more and communicated better
Panera missed the opportunity for splashy marketing (at least where I was)
Interesting. All I knew about this stuff before this article was that it was highly caffeinated. I haven’t tried it (and don’t plan to. I like coffee) but it’s really obvious in some areas.
I’d say it depends. I’ve never seen an ad for panera lemonade, and I don’t need to look at a menu to know what lemonade is. Many drinks sometimes have caffeine, like root beer or orange soda. You have to be careful about which brand you’re getting. There are zero caffeinated lemonades on the market besides lemonade flavored energy drinks and Panera.
260mg is the small. The large has 390mg. 400mg is where the fda says adverse effects begin for normal people. That is a lot of caffeine under any circumstance.
Did she order a lemonade and get a max dose energy drink, or did she specifically order a max dose energy drink?
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.
The article claims it has 390 mg and was sold alongside noncaffeinated drinks, though I’m not clear exactly how misleading they were about the amount of caffeine in there. I agree with you – it seems wild to me that an adult with a heart condition like that wouldn’t check any caffeinated drink to see the caffeine quantity before drinking it…
it seems wild to me that an adult with a heart condition like that wouldn’t check any caffeinated drink to see the caffeine quantity before drinking it…
The issue is that she didn’t know it had caffeine, presumably because it wasn’t obvious when ordering it. She may have just thought “charged lemonade” was the name they gave their regular lemonade drink and didn’t think anything of it. I wouldn’t think to ask for the caffeine content of a lemonade, either.
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.
If there’s a sign clearly indicating high caffeine content, sadly I think that’s on her. If there isn’t, then I can see Panera being somewhat liable. It seems similar to food allergies, where people who are allergic to, say, peanuts have to check food labels and food companies have to clearly label the presence of peanuts.
When I hear “charged” lemonade I assume it’s caffeinated but maybe not everyone has that understanding.
If I were on a Jury (never happen), “charged” wouldn’t be enough for me, but clearly visible signage would.
I don’t know how much responsibility I’d put on her, honestly. There’s a lot worse things that have gone un-remarked for decades. Like, did you know that “imitation crab meat” often has lobster in it? And is often sold in things with “crab” in the name? I’m highly allergic to lobster and not allergic to crab. I still only get things with “crab” in them at places I know I can trust not to use said imitation meat.
So I look at that, and it’s hard for me to fault Panera for it especially because I can see how much they’re marketing it as highly caffeinated online and in my local Panera. Not impossible to fault them (I’d have to see/hear the whole story), but difficult.
Correct. Same goes with allergies etc.
deleted by creator
Wtf lemonade are you drinking that’s high in caffeine?
