512
submitted 8 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Panera Bread’s highly caffeinated Charged Lemonade is now blamed for a second death, according to a lawsuit filed Monday.

Dennis Brown, of Fleming Island, Florida, drank three Charged Lemonades from a local Panera on Oct. 9 and then suffered a fatal cardiac arrest on his way home, the suit says.

Brown, 46, had an unspecified chromosomal deficiency disorder, a developmental delay and a mild intellectual disability. He lived independently, frequently stopping at Panera after his shifts at a supermarket, the legal complaint says. Because he had high blood pressure, he did not consume energy drinks, it adds.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] MataVatnik@lemmy.world 33 points 8 months ago

390mg of caffeine on the lemonade. Who ever expects lemonade to have caffeine let alone 390mg? It's fucking insane. A can of coke has 35mg and thats enough to give me anxiety, sweats and tension. If I drank that thinking it was lemonade I would be fucked at another level.

[-] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago

If I drank that thinking it was lemonade I would be fucked at another level.

To be fair that is frankly a ludicrous reaction for a healthy adult to have to 35mg of caffeine.

[-] MjolnirThyme@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 8 months ago

Thats not the point though, 390 mg is a lot even for a healthy adult.

[-] Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website 13 points 8 months ago

On top of that, it wasn't labeled well at all. It sounds like they did not stat the caffeine content on the dispenser, but even if it did, not everybody has a good reference of how fucking much 390mg is.

[-] Stephen304@lemmy.ml 15 points 8 months ago

It pretty much just looks like any other mundane nutrition facts. it doesn't call your attention to the amount at all or give any indication that 390mg might be high. I assumed it would be on the level of tea until I couldn't sleep at all the night after I had one (and I had it at like 2pm too, not even in the evening), and I still didn't make the connection until I later saw it in the news. I don't recall any other brand marketing using the term "charged" to indicate caffeine so I don't get people saying that everyone should understand that "charged" means caffeinated. "Spiked" and alcohol content sure, that's obvious, but "charged" is so vague.

[-] CaptPretentious@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Break it down on how much caffeine per ounce.

Because you're being intentionally dishonest with people acting like the lemonade and a can of coke are the same.

the 35mg of coke, comes in the 12oz can. The ~390, is from a 30oz drink.

Of the 3 flavors listed, none of them get to 390mg of caffeine, they all top out at 240 mg. But lets say it's unlisted now and the regular lemonade was 390 @ 30 oz.

You get about 100mg of caffeine from an 8oz of coffee.

Now before someone goes citing some different numbers, all levels of caffeine are subject to change will all sorts of variables, generally it's going to be lower, not higher.

So a can of coke is ~3mg of caffeine per ounce. A cup of coffee is 12.5 per ounce. And the lemonade is 13 per ounce @ the reported (but not listed on their website). If we go with the 3 flavors available, we get 8 mg per ounce.

So it's more than a coke, but around coffee. People need to stop acting like this is a small drink that is just packed with caffeine. Because the 30oz drink is effectively ~4 cups of coffee.

Just for kickers. Starbucks (because everyone knows that brand), sells a 30 ounce drink, the cold press, and it's listed at 360mg. https://www.starbucks.com/menu/product/2121255/iced/nutrition

So idk, maybe people could stop being disingenuous.

[-] MataVatnik@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Comparing it to caffeine per ounce, and saying "it's just a little bit higher than coffee" is not the defense people think it is. I've quantified caffeine in drinks using NMR. Caffeine in coffee is a lot to begin with, out of all the drinks that we tested coffee was easily in the lead (with the exception of 5 hour energy drink that had 300mg per shot). And my biggest takeaway from the study was the incredible amount of caffeine that was in a simple cup of Starbucks tall coffee (upwards of 300mg). If we had tested the charged lemonade at the time, I would not have said "oh, it only has a little bit more caffeine than coffee", instead I would have said "holy shit it has more caffeine than coffee"

I don't drink caffeine, and I always work hard to avoid it. I keep track of which flavors and brands of sodas generally carry caffeine. If I were to drink an 8oz cup of coffee right now with "only" 100mg of caffeine it could very easily send me into a panic attack. Now imagine if I drank charged unknowingly, Probably would be drinking a lot more than 8oz if I thought it was just lemonade. The whole charged lemonade is just bonkers and Panera should have known better. They weren't selling a drink. They were selling a supplement.

[-] CaptPretentious@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Except it is. People are trying to compare a 30oz drink to that if 8 to 12oz drinks. So it's fair to being it down to a proper compatible value.

And there a decent amount of signage that the drink has caffeine. There's certainly no way you'd order online from Panera and not see that it has caffeine. If you were there in person you would have to have completely ignored the sign that's on the drink itself. And then chugged 30 oz of drink fast enough as to not notice the caffeine.

I have a fairly high tolerance to caffeine and even I can tell even after a single cup of coffee it's effects, before I finish the first cup. So if someone has no tolerance for it I would have to assume you'd notice sooner. Well before downing 30oz worth.

[-] MataVatnik@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

We'll see how it plays out. I personally think it was a bad idea to begin with but I probably have a bias do to my sensitivity to caffeine. I can see other people who are are used to it and who drink a lot of coffee not being able to see potential issues.

[-] Dra@lemmy.zip -2 points 8 months ago

35mg caffiene shouldnt cause that

[-] MataVatnik@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

There is a reason I don't take caffeine

[-] matter@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

You mean 35 mg of caffeine doesn't do that to you. Food safety laws aren't written for the average person they are written for the more vulnerable.

[-] Dra@lemmy.zip 0 points 8 months ago

35mg caffiene alone should not cause any notable symptoms to an adult that doesn't habitually consume caffiene who does not have any prexisting weight concerns or conditions. This was recently confirmed to me by an endocrinologist. It's about half of a latte. Being vulnerable would be the cause of the issue in your example, not the caffiene.

[-] matter@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

That's the point, actually some people are extremely sensitive to caffeine, so it needs clear labelling. That labelling is not for you.

[-] Zengen@lemmy.world -5 points 8 months ago

A can of monster has around 300mg per can. People walk around drinking those like waters everyday. The first death made national news. Then they put a warning label onto the product. AND they put a warning label on the drink dispensers. At that point if u manage to hurt yourself with the product despite all those warnings that's your fault. Its like saying we should beable to sue somebody who's selling coffee if they have a customer that drinks 10 cups in a morning and has a heart attack.

McDonalds was sued for their hot coffee burning a customer. They put lids with caution hot warnings on them and put it on the cups. After that all burns incurred are not their problem. Same case should apply here and likely will in court.

[-] discount_door_garlic@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago

As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, the issue is that the specific amount of caffeine was not originally disclosed - people with heart conditions would naturally exclude themselves from drinking energy drinks (which, although abused, should also NOT be drunk like water), but nobody would expect a panera bread lemonade to have that much caffeine.

The Mcdonalds lawsuit is an interesting parallel, because there is a lot of myth and legend around the specifics of the case. Mcdonalds are pretty unanimously regarded to have been in the wrong on this one AFAIK. Check out Legal Eagle's video on the topic here: https://youtu.be/s_jaU5V9FUg

this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
512 points (97.8% liked)

News

22488 readers
4181 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS