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
8 months ago Food Theroy did agreat video on this. It's very appropriately titled given the unfortunate circumstances. To say this drink was caffeineted is a major understatement, it was basically four and a half monsters in one cup.
Franky, it was reckless for Panera to make and sell this drink and they absolutely earned this lawsuit. There was pently of forewarning that the abnormally high caffeine content in this was dangerous for certain groups. Hope the family wins big, nothing will bring back their loved one but this could've been avoided with more clear nutrientional warnings.
The other thing is, these drinks are in the same dispensers, the same location, that used to have regular juices. Even assuming the signs were there, it’s set up for no one to pay attention
I don’t understand how it’s reckless to serve something that 99.99% of the population will never have any significant health problem with, even if they drank double or triple the amount this girl did.
Because they feel the need to pivot and try to extract more money and bring in other types of people by offering more options for everything. To bad it’s all garbage, and very overpriced.
Maybe I am wrong, but there is no way this place can sustain itself with the prices they charge and the drop in quality they now offer compared to early 2000’s.
There was one on campus at my university. I almost never ate there, but it was always pretty popular. This drink seems like it’s designed for that. Get a cup of this stuff and drink it over the course of a long day/night and it’d be fine. Mistaking it for just lemonade, or even a regular caffienated drink, is a huge mistake that should never have been able to happen. There should be clear warnings and labels.
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.
But it’s soda… it’s tragic they died but I just can’t fathom not assuming every soda is cafinated. There’s like a handful of lemon lime sodas that are marketed as uncafinated, and I assume everything else is by default.
I'm not sure where you live, but most of the sodas available here don't have caffeine unless they're colas. Fruit flavored sodas and root beers are almost never caffeinated, except for Mellow Yellow which I also learned too late that it had caffeine, as I grabbed one late at night and then couldn't sleep.
It was less tragic than someone dying, but having it be a guessing game whether something has caffeine and how much is dangerous and it needs much clearer labels.
Of course, we really shouldn't be drinking soda in the first place.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you sell a 30oz container, you should have to label the amount of shit that is in that container instead of making up your own, cockamamie “serving size” that does not relate to real-world situations whatsoever.
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 sign says outright that it has as much caffeine as coffee. If drinking an amount of coffee would be too much, drinking that much charged lemonade would be roughly equally too much.
Also, apparently she had a medical condition that meant she shouldn’t be consuming large amounts of caffeine. And she ordered and consumed a large amount of caffeine. That’s what killed her.
This is akin to arguing that a restaurant is responsible if someone with a shellfish allergy orders the shrimp.
More than you get from one lemonade, for a healthy person. Not much less than the FDA recommended maximum per day if we’re talking about the largest size, but the gap between “maximum recommended” and overdose is a reasonable bit. If you’ve ever known someone to drink more than four cups of coffee, or as many energy drinks (or as few as 2 for certain brands), you’ve known someone who exceeded the recommended maximum. You have to go a fair bit past it to have acute issues if you are otherwise healthy.
If you have a medical condition that restricts your diet, it is on you to know what you can and cannot have and on the restaurant to make it clear when something unexpected might contain the thing. I’d argue Panera, by analogizing the amount of caffeine to an equivalent volume of coffee and also giving the explicit numerical amount in each size the drink was offered in did that.
Imagine someone suing a restaurant because they ordered a dish that contains shellfish and they have a shellfish allergy. The menu spelled out that it contained shrimp, but how is anyone supposed to know that shrimp is shellfish?
180mg/L of blood. How much this requires ingesting is not well studied, but based on known cases is at least 5g, possibly 10g or more for a typical adult. FDA recommended maximum is 400mg.
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.
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.
There’s still a large number of us wondering wtf the market for Red Bull is. I want a drink with the flavor and consistency of watered down Stretch Armstrong guts with more caffeine than anything that has ever existed. It seems like such a weird product in general.
I’m apparently one of the few people that actually like the taste of redbull, but talking about market, redbull is all about giving people energy, be it real or not is another thing, people buy it when they want to party all night long, when they need to study for a test and don’t want to fall asleep or whatever else related to energy (or just because they like the taste like me lol) so the market does exist.
And since taste was talked about, I absolutely hate the taste of beer and especially those high hop content ones, but they’re incredibly popular, what’s up with that?
IDK about others but beer tasted horrible to me for years. After a while it just grew on me. Apparently your taste buds change and get weaker as you grow older so strong tastes start tasting better.
Who is like: I really want a lemonade but I want it to have more caffeine than a redbull!
It doesn’t have more caffeine than a red bull per unit volume. But yes, if you compare the largest size to one can of red bull it will win out. So will drinking a similar volume of coffee.
And I’d guess the market for it is people who want coffee levels of caffeine but don’t like the taste of coffee or the citrus battery acid taste of energy drinks.
The 30oz size has 390mg caffeine. The FDA says 400mg a day is not generally associated with harmful effects for adults without heart conditions etc. If the FDA says up to 400mg is fine, I don’t think it’s fair to call that the “danger threshold.” That’s like calling the speed limit the “danger threshold.” It’s set there for a reason, but you don’t go from “no adverse effects” to “danger” as soon as you cross the line.
It’s advertised as having the same amount of caffeine as their coffee. 30oz of coffee is a pretty significant amount. Not typically dangerous, but hardly something you can drink by accident.
Most people normally don’t drink their caffeine over a 24 hour period. Maybe a couple hours. The half-life of caffeine in the body being about 5 hours, the peak concentration of caffeine won’t be that much higher. Note the FDA doesn’t say “400mg is safe but only if you don’t drink it all at once.”
There used to be a product called Redline: White Heat from VPX (same people that make bang with the unhinged CEO). It had to be taken off the market because it had an amphetamine analogue in it called AMP Citrate or DMBA.
One scoop of that stuff made me feel like I was going to die. My friend who took Ritalin at the time told me it was more powerful than any other stimulant he had before.
It’s crazy to think this was openly available at health supplement stores for years before the FDA caught wind.
That product had nothing on the one before it; Clenbutrix. I used to take it all the time you had to squirt it in the back of your throat with the supplied syringe. Daily use would make my throat and tongue sore, and if it hit your tongue well… good luck with those taste buds lol.
It’s crazy they got away with that for as long as they did.
Here is the original FDA letter to VPX regarding White Heat. The chemical they are focusing on is 4-Amino-2-Methylpentane Citrate also known as 1,3-Dimethylbutylamine, DMBA, 2-amino-4-methylpentane, AMP citrate, and 4-methyl-2-pentanamine (according to the FDA letter). Upon further research, it seems like, although the structure of the compound is similar to an amphetamine, the actual mechanism of action of these and similar compounds, such as DMAA, still isn’t fully known. So it was a bit inaccurate of me to call it an “amphetamine analogue” since they might not work in a similar manner.
I don’t know about that drink of theirs and have the same doubts as you but here in nl some companies produce ever-changing molecules that are close to the real stuff but different enough that the specific compound isn’t banned yet. The one I know of only sells to other European countries.
The supplement industry is rife with problems. A former co-worker of mine used to buy this pre-work out powder on the Internet and he said some batches would be so potent he felt like he was going to jump out of his skin and then sometimes it was really weak and he’d have to take several doses.
There are two things I would consider: first, it’s only relatively recently (i.e. last 100 years) that people cared about this sort of thing. Enforcement and cultural change is slow. Second, a lot of these substances can actually be used as part of a workout routine and weren’t developed with abuse in mind. GHB is an example of that–it apparently increased the ability for people to work out, but also will render you unconscious if mixed with alcohol. Until roughly 20 years ago, any GNC just sold it in bottles.
Agreed. Some of us are careful about how much caffeine we ingest because we want it to work when we use it, and/or because we get real twitchy when overcaffeinated.
The 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. panerabread.com/…/57f9b1aa54df4bd2c2eacca55efa1c9…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
It’s a bullshit lawsuit, there are signs in front of the lemonade which clearly say “contains as much caffeine as our dark roast coffee” also it’s in all their in store advertising of the product. These parents just want someone to blame, that’s it.
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.
Ok well even if somehow this particular Panera was devoid of any information about the lemonade, which let’s be honest that is going to be hard enough to prove since the person who was there that day is dead. That doesn’t negate the fact that if you have some kind of health problem associated with certain foods, in this case caffeine, then you should be checking every ingredient of anything you eat especially from a restaurant. If you are buying a product called “charged lemonade” you shouldn’t just expect its going to be standard fare when you had no hand in making the product. Literally anyone with a food allergy deals with this shit on a daily basis, and the only time the restaurant should be to blame is if you specifically asked if said ingredient was in the food and they lie or forget to omit it from the dish.
Ok well even if somehow this particular Panera was devoid of any information about the lemonade, which let’s be honest that is going to be hard enough to prove since the person who was there that day is dead
Sure. I bet there are witnesses who would say one way or the other, but you’re mostly right.
That doesn’t negate the fact that if you have some kind of health problem associated with certain foods, in this case caffeine, then you should be checking every ingredient of anything you eat especially from a restaurant
In fairness, that’s not realistic. If I order a lobster and it has lobster in it, that’s on me. If I order french fries and they secretly infuse it with lobster without advertising it, then it’s on me.
The argument many people are making is that Lemonade “doesn’t have caffeine in it”. And she wasn’t restricted and unable to consume caffeine, she was restricted from large quantities (enough that some folks aren’t sure she even died from the drink, but that’s another discussion). Expecting a random beverage to have coffee-level caffeine with NO notice is definitely unreasonable.
If you are buying a product called “charged lemonade” you shouldn’t just expect its going to be standard fare when you had no hand in making the product
As many have said, “charged” is often used to refer to electrolytes. I mean, look at this.. The word "charged "alone really is not enough, just like the word “house special” added before fries doesn’t mean I should expect there might be lobster in them.
Literally anyone with a food allergy deals with this shit on a daily basis, and the only time the restaurant should be to blame is if you specifically asked if said ingredient was in the food and they lie or forget to omit it from the dish.
Except still happens, and if I did my due diligence, the restaurant is usually responsible. That’s why they have nutritional-content menus and a well-trained restaurant worker takes you VERY seriously if you mention a food allergy. The issue is that sometimes it shouldn’t be on you to mention food allergies. I like lobster allergies as an example. Should I immediately say “I have a lobster allergy” when I walk into an Ice Cream Parlor? Is it my fault if I have an allergic reaction to lobster when I order the Chocolate Chunky Monkey?
It did have a notice, they are advertised as having caffeine. So one of two things is going on here: either she just didn’t think it was going to harm her, or she was completely oblivious to all the marketing for it. There is really no proof that the lemonade is what killed her; this is just her parents wanting someone to blame. Unless they can prove without a doubt there was negligence on Panera’s part and that it led to their daughter’s death, then this lawsuit is frivolous.
Or three, there’s more to the case than was reported to us. If the marketing was missing (some stores it is) she might have a case. The article makes no mention of that.
There is really no proof that the lemonade is what killed her
You don’t need to look for “proof” in civil cases. If the lemonade is more likely than not to have killed her, that’s enough. And I think any good lawyer can push a case like this across that bar for a typical jury.
this is just her parents wanting someone to blame.
Maybe. We don’t know all the details. I’m the one arguing in favor of Panera in most comments, but I’m really arguing in favor of common sense and not inventing a clear win for either side off a small article that was lying to us.
Unless they can prove without a doubt there was negligence on Panera’s part
That’s not how the law works. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a criminal standard. “Preponderance of evidence” is the civil standard, and it’s a low bar. Honestly, if we ignore all other evidence and only point out other reasonable people in this thread who were confused about the caffeinated nature of this beverage, we would have it.
So if it hit court (it won’t), Panera would likely show evidence of its marketing. The girl’s parents would perhaps show evidence the marketing collateral was placed wrong or (from the article) suggest they were misleading with the “Dark Coffee” claim in the way quoted. There’s several tactics they could take, honestly.
then this lawsuit is frivolous.
I would say this lawsuit is a lot of things, but frivolous isn’t one of them. It’s not intended to harass or delay. It’s intended to win.
honestly the statement “contains as much caffeine as our dark roast coffee” is misleading since that would be comparing an 8oz coffee to 8oz of lemonade. if you drink the coffee you’re most likely getting a cup that is 8-16oz. however the standard soft drink size is 20-30oz which would mean one cup is basically your daily serving of caffeine.
if i saw the sign saying “same strength as our coffee” i would assume it’s one cup of coffee is equal to one cup of lemonade. who would only fill their cups half way? it’s insane to sell one cup that is almost 100% the daily value while it’s known bad side effects can happen after 400mg.
That cup is the largest available. I think other large coffee beverages might be in a similar quantity. There are smaller cups and sizes you can order.
The root of everything here is that hidden heart condition. Isn’t there a way we can make screening for it more common or mandatory?
Panera sells their coffee is a 16 and 20 fl oz sizes, not 8-16. For the dark roast coffee in a 20, it has 268 mg of caffeine.
They sell the charged lemonades in 20 and 30 do oz sizes. The 20 size generally has 260 mg of caffeine, slightly less than an identical volume of coffee, with the exception of the drive-through servings which is even lower due to ice.
What reasonable person would not consider a nearly identical caffeine per volume to be a fair interpretation of “contains as much caffeine as our dark roast coffee” when both can be ordered in the same 20 ounce size?
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.
And for most people it’s fine. This unfortunate person had a heart condition. If you have a medical problem you had better know what you are and aren’t allowed to do. People with allergies don’t sue jiffy for selling peanut butter
Per the FDA, caffeine in amounts under 400mg/day is not generally associated with harmful effects for healthy adults. The largest option for this drink (30oz) has 390mg. It’s not remotely high enough to kill unless you have a heart problem or other severe abnormal caffeine sensitivity. It is clearly labeled as having as much caffeine as coffee. Similarly to how products with peanuts are labelled as “contains nuts,” not “contains enough peanuts to kill you.”
The beverage contains 390mg, which is equivalent to 6.5 cups of coffee. I hope this will be used as a case study for other businesses on how to properly label your drinks and further increase transparancy about ingredients used in beverages.
6.5 thimble-sized cups. Compare to an average large coffee (431mg/20oz from Dunkin), or to the average amount consumed by coffee drinkers (~200mg for adults on average, with the 90th percentile being 300-400mg depending on the age group).
This touches on yet another conflating factor. The personal tolerance to caffeine varies wildly from person to person. Some can’t have even one cup a day, while others will down an entire pot and just shrug.
This is an absolute tragedy, but Panera is not legally liable. They should however respect her death by improving their signage and giving much more information. A warning that high consumption can be fatal with rare, unknown conditions seems appropriate.
Yeah, I agree. “As much caffeine as our coffee” should be replaced with an explicit number in milligrams and be presented in a standardized label format. It’s important information.
A typical drip coffee contains roughly 100mg of caffeine per 8 oz cup, which means a 30 oz cup of coffee would contain very similar amounts to one of the charged lemonades in question. Or course, caffeine varies wildly in coffee depending on exactly how it’s brewed as well as bean origin and roast, so you could easily see well over 400mg in a 30oz drink. And let’s not even get started on adding extra shots of espresso.
For what it’s worth, while most of what you said is accurate, espresso contains considerably less caffeine than people tend to think it does. What makes espresso so intense on that front is the concentration per volume, and how fast espresso beverages are consumed in comparison to drip coffee. Drinking a 12oz cup of drip over an hour or two is pretty standard. A double shot cappuccino though, not so much.
I don’t think it’s that uncommon to sit down with a mug of coffee and sip on it over the course of an hour while working or having a chat with someone but maybe my 10 years of specialty coffee experience led me astray.
I’m sorry but you do not sound like a coffee person. I cannot comprehend a world where I live in where I get tired of my beverage of coffee after 15 minutes because it became disgusting.
Good quality coffee should continue to develop in flavor substantially as it cools and is actually quite interesting to taste across the temperature spectrum. I’m sorry that hasn’t been your experience. I do understand coffee is not for everybody, but I do believe if you have the opportunity to experience well prepared craft coffee it has the potential to change that view.
Think of cooling coffee having a similar effect as decanting wine, because high end coffee is actually extremely similar to wine. The fruit is fermented in massive containers in a very similar fashion to wine making, imparting a large volume of complex flavors. The act of roasting coffee is actually one of the most difficult sciences in the culinary world, to the point that Michelin starred chefs want nothing to do with it - it’s actually that difficult to execute well. It is pretty easy for somebody to grab a bag of green coffee and absolutely destroy it. It’s incredibly rare for someone to do a coffee its justice. And even then, if the person preparing it once it is roasted doesn’t know what they are doing, they can take the best coffee in the world and make it taste awful.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I’m guessing that every person is different when it comes to energy drink tolerance, or there might be some underlying conditions. Back when I used to drink energy drinks, I wouldn’t really feel anything except for maybe feeling a bit more “energetic” but I’m not sure how much of that is placebo. Granted, I wouldn’t drink 6-10 cans a day because I don’t think they taste that good, and would only drink a can occasionally.
I had one can because we’re really overworked at work and I felt terrible and ended up being really useless. And this was when I was in my 30s so I wasn’t exactly some small kid
I have no issue with coffee so it’s not caffeine that’s the problem, it’s something else that’s in the drinks. I even have had caffeine pills and not had that reaction.
Yeah, it seems for every person like the above with, I assume, a sensitivity to caffeine, there’s my friend from high school that pounded 3 BFC Monsters (32 oz each) and went to the next class like nothing happened.
It’s not really the caffeine that’s the problem in most energy drinks. It actually has less caffeine than a typical cup of coffee. It’s the addition of things like guarana, taurine, niacin, and ginseng that make them problematic for many. The high amounts of sugar in most can have pretty negative effects too.
Fair enough, caffeine aside, my point is the same. Some people look at an energy drink and begin vibrating and other need to drink it like water to feel an effect at all.
Depends on the energy drink. The little V8 energy drinks have 80mg, and the green dragon extreme has 180mg in the same 8oz can. But yeah coffee has more than people think.
I haven’t verified the numbers (yet), but the fact remains that no one would drink 3000 ml of coffee a day. And that’s what we see happen with energy drinks all the time (source: I’m one of the toxicologists manning emergency line in our national poison control center).
the fact remains that no one would drink 3000 ml of coffee a day
This sounds like a lot, but it’s only two pots. I used to do that all the time. I’m kinda surprised that “no one would”. I know it wasn’t healthy and I stopped because it was affecting my health.
Maybe it’s just my area. A Dunkin Large is 700ml, and I know people who pound 2 in the morning and have one over lunch on a normal day. Then actually (their/our words) drink coffee on the tough hangover days.
They’ve actually done pretty recent studies and concluded you would have to get above 10 cups of coffee for it to stop being healthy.
Note that I said healthy and NOT that it would then be unhealthy. I’m bot sure how much coffee you would have to drink for that to happen, but seeing as how caffeine was misattributed to being hard on the heart and cardiovascular system, I imagine it would take a lot or like this poor young woman, you’d have to have a heart problem already.
Please correct me as you seem to be a bit knowledgeable on this.
Taurine has no real effect on humans and is just a pr gag.
Guarana i will have to read up on.
Vitamin B doesn’t do anything tho?
By that logic, peanuts are also “incredibly dangerous”.
Note: I’m not promoting or condoning the consumption of energy drinks, they are generally unhealthy. But calling them “incredibly dangerous” because they can evoke such a reaction in a small subset of the population is bullshit.
Both Monster and the Charged lemonade have labels that say “contains caffeine” you know if you had a heart problem and your doctor said not to consume large amounts of caffeine maybe you would read that label just like the peanuts.
You clearly didn’t read the article, or actually look at basically any energy drink can. The label of the charged lemonade does in fact list exactly how much caffeine is in each drink, as well as stating it contains as much caffeine as their dark roast coffee.
And Googling the label on a Monster Energy Drink can, there is a label stating that the total caffeine content is 120mg with a warning recommending against consumption by children or those sensitive to caffeine.
And products are often labeled, not if they CONTAIN nuts, but even if they were made somewhere that also produces peanuts and there’s a slight chance of cross contamination.
This is done because of the liability. It should be easy enough to prove the Panera has liability here in the same way.
It clearly states the caffeine content on the placard in front of the drink though, and it’s called charged lemonade. While that wouldn’t necessarily imply it has caffeine, that’s at least enough to tell me it’s almost certainly not plain lemonade though and I should read what’s in it.
While that wouldn’t necessarily imply it has vitamins, that’s at least enough to tell me it’s almost certainly not plain water though and I should read what’s in it.
The trouble is quite a lot of people have the pre-existing condition of being brainless. So they mainline 5 cans in a row, if you do that with Coke nothing happens, if you do that with Monster even a healthy person is going to have heart problems.
Also some prat had a great idea of mixing it with Yeager. Thus mixing two of the most disgusting liquids in the world together. But more importantly mixing a stimulant and a suppressant, which again can have serious health risks even for otherwise healthy individuals.
We don’t sell glue to children even though most of them probably won’t sniff it. So why do we tolerate energy drinks for them? The lasting kids need is to be even more hyper.
Mine is cannabis and booze. Never mix something that makes me want to throw up with something that settles the stomach. If I drink too much I want it out of my body ASAP.
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.
Half a monster is 43mg caffeine. About as much as a Pepsi, or less than 3oz of Dunkin Donuts coffee (a small is 180mg at 10oz). I’m not at all saying you’re lying about your experience, but what you are describing is an extreme caffeine sensitivity (or a reaction to something else).
so personal responsibility is not part of the discussion? if you have a heart condition you should absolutely not be consuming large volumes of highly processed sugar laden drinks - they almost always have high amounts of caffeine.
"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.
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
I keep seeing the "personal responsibility" phrase in this thread and I feel like it's missing the point. I suppose the thinking is "some people ruin it for everyone", but frankly where is the corporate responsibilities? As another poster put it, why is a quadruple monster sold at a place famous for their soup? That amount of stimulus is intense for people without health conditions. Would the general public truly be losing out if Panera had this labeled as several energy drinks flavored lemonade?
The larger issue is that caffeine should be regulated to a higher degree than it is, but Panera received tons of backlash a year ago when this was debuted and ignored it. Chains this size have their meals painstakingly tested and formulated, it was reckless to treat this as just another fountain drink.
why is a quadruple monster sold at a place famous for their soup?
Let me ask the counter-question. Why is a half-strength coffee sold at a place known as a major coffee-and-study spot?
Panera as a business has often needed to ride multiple markets to survive, and the giant coffee setups they’ve had for the last 20 years when you walk in every door doesn’t scream “soup”. Have you ever heard of the Unlimited Sip Club? They sell various drinks, but the primary marketing image is a girl holding a giant iced coffee (which has at least as much caffeine as the charged lemonade). And honestly, they’ve always been fairly open about the fact almost every beverage they sell is caffeinated and there are absolutely (unlimited refill) items on the menu with more caffeine than these charged lemonades.
The only argument that IMO gives Panera any responsibility on this is the people who showed pictures of SOME Paneras where the giant" as caffeinated as our coffee" sign is hidden behind the counter. They literally lie upwards in caffeine content in their warnings (20oz of this drink is only as caffeinated as 8oz of their coffee but they say it’s the same content)
If I were an asshole lawyer, I would file a suit that they were misleading by claiming it’s as caffeinated as their coffee. In fact, I’m guessing that would be their slam-dunk defense except we all know they’ll settle because they don’t want bad press.
The larger issue is that caffeine should be regulated to a higher degree than it is
Does that mean you also want to put coffee and iced-coffee dispensers under lock and key? They have a LOT more caffeine than this drink. I’ve paid for bottomless coffee before and taken generous advantage of it. The issue was this girl had an underlying medical condition and was supposed to avoid caffeine. Period.
And their lawyers argument is that Panera doesn’t sell a dark roast coffee with 390ml total caffeine because they’re 16oz cups (with unlimited refills)
Honestly, it’s a tragedy. But Panera is only to blame if there’s information we don’t have in the article that makes them so.
Thank you, a rational take here, everyone has their pitchforks out and aren’t thinking logically about how to deal with it aside from ridiculous things like “it should be illegal!”
It is definitely a tragedy and I feel for the family and friends, however we shouldn’t be jumping to banning it. That is how we end up with a nanny state, some things need to be regulated of course and in this instance it needs to be extremely clear to customers how much caffeine they’ll be injesting.
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.
Even banning alcoholic energy drinks seems a bit too far, I’m generally more in favor of regulating and making warnings for those who are able to handle such things to be able to still enjoy them, rather then banning them because some have preexisting conditions or aren’t able to moderate themselves.
Definitely fair though, I wouldn’t argue strongly against limiting alcohol access in general as we as a society have normalized basically alcoholism and abusing it. I’m not sure what the right answer is on that one :/ I just generally prefer freedom to a sane extent over banning certain things.
Even banning alcoholic energy drinks seems a bit too far
For me in full understanding of how alcohol+energy drinks cause accute alcohol poisoning, I’m ok with forcing people to go through the work of combining them on their own. Nobody is saying you can’t sell red bull in a bar, only that you can’t buy a 24-pack of the stuff premixed.
My thought on banning has always been this. It’s fine to restrict a highly combined product if you allow its components. Someone mixing redbull with jaeger is thinking. Someone drinking a premade alcoholic energy drink is slightly different.
Definitely fair though, I wouldn’t argue strongly against limiting alcohol access in general as we as a society have normalized basically alcoholism and abusing it
I’m comfortable with our current limitations on alcohol, personally…at least when they’re followed.
That’s how it was signed every time I’ve been into a Panera. They’ve been catering to the study crowd (and remote workers) for a while now. Before the pandemic, it was common to see the Panera bread near the college full til closing with people having coffee and using the wifi.
Saying they didn’t know it was cafinated feels like a failing on their part. The “charged” part of the name made me assume it at first sight , myself.
In some locations it’s behind the counter. And in the picture accompanying the article it’s facing away from the customers so there’s no way to even see the sign.
If I saw that, I wouldn’t really have any idea how much 260mg of caffeine is, compared to your average espresso shot. IMHO there probably should be some kind of upper limit to the amount of caffeine you can put in a drink (or at least be forced to call it something other than ‘lemonade’).
That part is actually what’s misleading. I don’t know anybody who gets 20 or 30 oz cups of dark roast drip coffee. 10 oz is a more reasonable size. A more useful comparison would be that one lemonade is like having two or three dark roast coffees.
I’m guessing you’re not in the US with your thoughts on drink sizes, but remember that this happened in the US.
That part is actually what’s misleading. I don’t know anybody who gets 20 or 30 oz cups of dark roast drip coffee. 10 oz is a more reasonable size
A Dunkin Large is a 20oz hot coffee or 32oz Iced Coffee, and yes you can ask for “no ice” which is common enough they finally had to make it an upcharge. They ALSO sell an XL in my area, which is a 24oz hot. A 10oz here is called a “Small” and they don’t sell many of those. Usually just to people like my 80 year old mother-in-law.
A more useful comparison would be that one lemonade is like having two or three dark roast coffees.
…except that Panera’s standard size for hot coffee is a 16oz, and the large is 20oz. And we the complaint keeps saying “dark roast” because their light roast coffee matches these lemonades for total caffeine content (384 for a large vs 390 for a 30oz lemonade).
Nothing about this drink is anywhere out of proportion of a typical coffee drink in the US.
No, it’s really just insane how much caffeine they put in this Panera bread lemonade.
Like seriously this is like drinking 4 energy drinks, literally more caffeine than a 5 hour energy shot and that’s at the small size. This is a horrifying amount of caffeine that they think people are drinking.
Edit: did the math because why not and drinking the 30 fl oz is like taking a 10 hour energy.
It’s about as caffeinated as an equal-size Dunkin iced coffee. It doesn’t seem insane to me. Panera has a non-coffee option for people who want to study with the cafe experience.
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.
Help me understand how much 260mg of caffeine is by comparing it to standard caffinated drinks
Searching for: caffeine content of common drinks
Generating answers for you…
Sure, I can help you with that. According to the Mayo Clinic1, the caffeine content of common drinks can vary depending on the type, brand, and brewing method. Here are some examples of how much caffeine is in different drinks, based on the average values from various sources2345:
A 12-ounce (355 mL) can of cola has about 34-44 mg of caffeine. A 12-ounce (355 mL) can of energy drink has about 71.9 mg of caffeine. An 8-ounce (237 mL) cup of brewed black coffee has about 80-150 mg of caffeine. An 8-ounce (237 mL) cup of brewed green tea has about 30 mg of caffeine. A 2-ounce (60 mL) shot of energy shot has about 215 mg of caffeine. So, if you consume 260 mg of caffeine, that is equivalent to:
About 6 to 8 cans of cola About 3 to 4 cans of energy drink About 2 to 3 cups of brewed black coffee About 9 to 10 cups of brewed green tea About one shot of energy shot I hope this helps you understand how much caffeine is in different drinks. Remember, the FDA recommends no more than 400 mg of caffeine per day for most adults. Too much caffeine can cause side effects such as insomnia, anxiety, and high blood pressure. So, drink responsibly and enjoy your caffeinated beverages in moderation. 😊
To be fair, the average person is probably not going to really know how much caffeine is a lot of caffeine if you just give them the number, and the fact that people usually drink higher volumes of lemonade than dark coffee might lead to confusion as well. Plus, people don’t generally expect caffeine in lemonade, so it’s easy to imagine someone just going for the big flavor label and just figuring the smaller stuff is just nutrition labels and ignoring it.
I’m not really sure the best way to label this, it doesn’t seem like a great product idea at all tbh, but given the combination of potentially dangerous amounts of caffeine and it being a product one wouldn’t normally expect to contain any, I’d think that the labelling should be set up in a way as to be impossible to make assumptions about or ignore. Like, make it as big as the flavor label, in a box of a different color usually used for warnings like red or bright orange or something, and mention that the quantity of caffeine involved can be dangerous to those sensitive in addition to just the number.
400mg of caffeine is not potentially dangerous unless you’re one of the unlucky few people who have a heart condition. Even then, people with heart conditions aren’t necessarily dropping dead because they drank some caffeine.
I mean, the label already says “has as much caffeine as coffee”. Short of only selling caffeine at a dispensary with giant warnings, I’m not sure there’s any action that could or should be taken.
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.
If you have a heart condition or generally just a high sensitivity to caffeine, it’s pretty important to know how much is a lot. The vast majority of people do not have any serious issues consuming 300mg or so of caffeine, so putting a bunch of big scary labels on this stuff just seems like overkill. For example, if you have a peanut allergy, it’s generally on you to check the allergen list in the fine print, or if you have Celiac disease, you need to either buy stuff specifically labeled gluten-free or confirm with a restaurant, manufacturer, etc.
The fact that all of their signs have not just one, but three separate indicators (“charged”, as much caffeine as coffee, and the specific caffeine amount) for anyone who might have a sensitivity is enough to show Panera’s due diligence in my opinion.
I do get your point that people wouldn’t automatically assume there’s caffeine in Panera’s random juice drinks, but caffeine is absolutely everywhere right now. I’d personally love for caffeine to be required to be listed in the nutrition label of drinks (or food that contains it) so you would know how much is in a Mountain Dew or Coke. But until that happens, I don’t see how Panera could be seen as liable in this situation.
Add comment