We put up signs literally everywhere after the first incident (front door, coffee bar, drive-thru, drive-thru menu, and counter) in like 30 point font that says how much caffeine and that it isn’t recommended for (very long scary list of all possible) sensitive groups… The first incident was avoidable, but this time is on them…
‘Charged Lemonade’ could mean anything, and people at fucking Panera Bread shouldn’t need to be checking to see if something that is normally just a sweet lemon flavored drink contains more caffeine than energy drinks.
They have signs up listing how much caffeine is in them, which by the way, isn’t legally mandated. The only requirement the FDA has on caffeine labeling is that it’s listed as an ingredient. That’s it. The amount of caffeine doesn’t have to be disclosed.
So if the amount of caffeine is known, what more do they need to do before it becomes the consumer’s responsibility? Your argument is that it’s dangerous, but alcohol is much more dangerous than what is known from the surgeon General warning, and its dangerous to those not consuming it as well.
You can’t treat it different because of the novelty of the item, in which case maybe the FDA needs to mandate all drugs to have warning labels, not just OTC and alcohol.
No, hard lemonade means it has alcohol in it, like hard cider. When packaged beverages are sold with alcohol in America, it’s required to list how much alcohol is in it. Wine does this, beer does this. If someone told me they were giving me “hard pineapple juice” the first thing I would ask is if it had alcohol in it, because that’s what that combination of words means in the context of fruit beverages.
I can expect “sweet plorbus” to have sugar in it and to avoid it if I’m diabetic and watching my intake. Words mean stuff. “Charged” doesn’t mean anything in the context of drinks. Charged with what, electrolytes? Do plants crave it?
Putting an unknown energy drink on a fountain is stupid if you don’t warn people. This is the same case. I also don’t expect fountain drinks to contain peanuts. I don’t think there’s any specific signage required to sell drinks on a fountain that could cause peanut allergies, but companies would avoid doing that due to obvious reasons (plus I can’t imagine it would taste good?). Lemons don’t have caffeine in them naturally.
The fact that the FDA isn’t regulating this signage is IMHO a failure of the FDA. IMHO Starbucks should be liable for serving drinks with unexpected amounts of caffeine in it. We need to stop forgiving companies when they hurt people just because the government didn’t hold their hands hard enough.
So if you see a food or drink that’s unfamiliar on the menu instead of asking about it or doing the most basic research on it you should just order and slam it down then?
It’s basic comprehension, you see the word “charged” and “lemonade” together it’s quite obvious it’s not a normal lemonade.
It was pretty clear to me even before, it literally says “charged” lemonade. The word charged immediately implies it’s not a normal lemonade and something is being added to it. There has to be a line for personal responsibility at some point.
I mean, marketing is bullshit, so I don’t blame people for not caring about product names.
I’ve had “fire hot” and “thermonuclear” hot sauces that were barely hot.
I’ve had “unlimited” data plans that were limited.
I’ve had cereal that’s “part of a balanced breakfast”, but only if you eat half a dry cup in skim milk with no other sugar in your meal.
People are used to marketing lying to them about everything. Not saying they shouldn’t pay attention, but not gonna blame them for assuming the name of a drink is just bullshit.
I’ve seen this take a lot, but I would also like to bring up that a lot of people have heart conditions that they may not even be aware of. To be clear, I have no idea how you’d legislate this, but in a perfect world, I think it makes sense to limit certain ingredients based on a risk factor including the availability of the drink, the risk threshold of someone with an underlying condition consuming it, and the likelihood of someone with said health condition knowing that. And I’m not sure what the numbers look like in the end, but I do know this is a fuck ton of caffeine, sold in a drive thru, that can adversely affect people with one of the most common health conditions that is frequently invisible until a real incident. I don’t even necessarily think Panera is acting in a negligent way, but this is a potentially disastrous combo.
Why legislate? If there is legislation, it should merely be around labeling, like something to the effect of:
“Contains 300mg caffeine, which is equivalent to 3 cups of brewed black coffee, 6 cups of black tea, or 15 cups of cola.”
Now the customer has a point of reference and can decide for themselves, and all Panera needs to do is correctly label their products. We already have legislation around nutritional labeling, and we can make them more strict for items on menus with certain classes of ingredients.
Perhaps, though “safe” can vary quite a bit from person to person and trying to be descriptive could make the sign so complex that people won’t read it. So something like:
Health warning:
Contains XXXmg caffeine,
equivalent to ☕☕☕
The same applies to daily intake recommendations and BMI too, but they’re still helpful measures to exist. I like your suggestion, I would just add one more line (and only in cases over a certain threshold) to your example with something like “Exceeds daily recommended intake by x%, which can be a risk for those with underlying heart conditions”.
The cashier should know how much it has, ideally by having it written on the menu. It could even compare to coffee or soda so the customer has a point of reference.
Another commenter said that Panera had signs to that effect after the first incident, so it’s likely that was a franchise-wide change. This seems to be entirely on the customer.
We put up signs literally everywhere after the first incident (front door, coffee bar, drive-thru, drive-thru menu, and counter) in like 30 point font that says how much caffeine and that it isn’t recommended for (very long scary list of all possible) sensitive groups… The first incident was avoidable, but this time is on them…
Why is it even on the menu?
Alcohol has warning labels on it, why are bars allowed to exist?
People know what they are ordering at a bar.
‘Charged Lemonade’ could mean anything, and people at fucking Panera Bread shouldn’t need to be checking to see if something that is normally just a sweet lemon flavored drink contains more caffeine than energy drinks.
“Hard lemonade could mean anything.”
They have signs up listing how much caffeine is in them, which by the way, isn’t legally mandated. The only requirement the FDA has on caffeine labeling is that it’s listed as an ingredient. That’s it. The amount of caffeine doesn’t have to be disclosed.
So if the amount of caffeine is known, what more do they need to do before it becomes the consumer’s responsibility? Your argument is that it’s dangerous, but alcohol is much more dangerous than what is known from the surgeon General warning, and its dangerous to those not consuming it as well.
You can’t treat it different because of the novelty of the item, in which case maybe the FDA needs to mandate all drugs to have warning labels, not just OTC and alcohol.
No, hard lemonade means it has alcohol in it, like hard cider. When packaged beverages are sold with alcohol in America, it’s required to list how much alcohol is in it. Wine does this, beer does this. If someone told me they were giving me “hard pineapple juice” the first thing I would ask is if it had alcohol in it, because that’s what that combination of words means in the context of fruit beverages.
I can expect “sweet plorbus” to have sugar in it and to avoid it if I’m diabetic and watching my intake. Words mean stuff. “Charged” doesn’t mean anything in the context of drinks. Charged with what, electrolytes? Do plants crave it?
Putting an unknown energy drink on a fountain is stupid if you don’t warn people. This is the same case. I also don’t expect fountain drinks to contain peanuts. I don’t think there’s any specific signage required to sell drinks on a fountain that could cause peanut allergies, but companies would avoid doing that due to obvious reasons (plus I can’t imagine it would taste good?). Lemons don’t have caffeine in them naturally.
The fact that the FDA isn’t regulating this signage is IMHO a failure of the FDA. IMHO Starbucks should be liable for serving drinks with unexpected amounts of caffeine in it. We need to stop forgiving companies when they hurt people just because the government didn’t hold their hands hard enough.
So if you see a food or drink that’s unfamiliar on the menu instead of asking about it or doing the most basic research on it you should just order and slam it down then?
It’s basic comprehension, you see the word “charged” and “lemonade” together it’s quite obvious it’s not a normal lemonade.
‘Lemonade’ is unfamiliar?
Clearly it contains some form of electricity.
It was pretty clear to me even before, it literally says “charged” lemonade. The word charged immediately implies it’s not a normal lemonade and something is being added to it. There has to be a line for personal responsibility at some point.
I mean, marketing is bullshit, so I don’t blame people for not caring about product names.
I’ve had “fire hot” and “thermonuclear” hot sauces that were barely hot.
I’ve had “unlimited” data plans that were limited.
I’ve had cereal that’s “part of a balanced breakfast”, but only if you eat half a dry cup in skim milk with no other sugar in your meal.
People are used to marketing lying to them about everything. Not saying they shouldn’t pay attention, but not gonna blame them for assuming the name of a drink is just bullshit.
No one is supposed to assume the thing added to their food will kill them… Your logic is insanely laughable.
If you have a heart condition a lot of stuff that is completely benign to everyone else can be fatal to you, so who bears responsibility there?
I’ve seen this take a lot, but I would also like to bring up that a lot of people have heart conditions that they may not even be aware of. To be clear, I have no idea how you’d legislate this, but in a perfect world, I think it makes sense to limit certain ingredients based on a risk factor including the availability of the drink, the risk threshold of someone with an underlying condition consuming it, and the likelihood of someone with said health condition knowing that. And I’m not sure what the numbers look like in the end, but I do know this is a fuck ton of caffeine, sold in a drive thru, that can adversely affect people with one of the most common health conditions that is frequently invisible until a real incident. I don’t even necessarily think Panera is acting in a negligent way, but this is a potentially disastrous combo.
Why legislate? If there is legislation, it should merely be around labeling, like something to the effect of:
Now the customer has a point of reference and can decide for themselves, and all Panera needs to do is correctly label their products. We already have legislation around nutritional labeling, and we can make them more strict for items on menus with certain classes of ingredients.
I would agree with that. And maybe something more explicit about exceeding the safe intake levels by huge percentages.
Perhaps, though “safe” can vary quite a bit from person to person and trying to be descriptive could make the sign so complex that people won’t read it. So something like:
It’s easy to understand at a glance.
The same applies to daily intake recommendations and BMI too, but they’re still helpful measures to exist. I like your suggestion, I would just add one more line (and only in cases over a certain threshold) to your example with something like “Exceeds daily recommended intake by x%, which can be a risk for those with underlying heart conditions”.
“charged lemonade? What’s that?”
Cashier: “That’s our caffeinated version of lemonade”
“Oh, how much caffeine is in it”
Cashier: “About an energy drinks worth maybe more” or alternatively “Not sure, I think more than coffee”
“Oh nvm then, best if I avoid caffeine, especially if you’re not sure of how much caffeine is in it”
Such a simple interaction, takes like 20 seconds.
The cashier should know how much it has, ideally by having it written on the menu. It could even compare to coffee or soda so the customer has a point of reference.
Another commenter said that Panera had signs to that effect after the first incident, so it’s likely that was a franchise-wide change. This seems to be entirely on the customer.
I agree that something should click in the brain saying, “hey what’s this?”
I disagree because the general population is fucking removed.