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
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
Wondering the context of this question, considering the topic of this particular chain. Someone said 400mg is excessive, and then someone else doubled-down that they thought coffee didn’t have 400mg of caffeine.
And if it helps you feel better, this actually is coffee. It’s the same green coffee extract that Starbucks Refreshers use, more of it (ironically, Starbucks no longer advertises that their refreshers are caffeinated like they used to despite the fact they are).
Interesting. I tried to find an informative link about green coffee extract, and I stumbled into this. People are acting like that lemonade is this stuff. LOL
You used the size of the lemonade to argue its caffeine content was not excessive given the lemonade was larger in volume than a comparable coffee beverage.
But the topic of this chain started with the girl not realizing the drink was caffeinated to begin with.
The context of my question was calling into doubt the relevance of caffeine to volume ratio in defining “excessive” when the underlying issue was accidental consumption due to (alleged) poor product labeling.
Given she had a heart condition, any amount seems to have been “excessive”.
I think you just made the mistake of conceding my whole point. Yes, if she shouldn’t have had ANY caffeine, we have a problem. And the problem is that she walked to a self-service area where over 90% of the beverages are caffeinated (they have maybe 2 or 3 things that aren’t, tops?), and she filled her cup with the ONLY one that explicitly advertised being caffeinated.
Back to your question:
Yet again, I don’t think this question is relevant ESPECIALLY now that you conceded that the amount of caffeine is irrelevant and not problematic. But here’s the key quotes of the thread, and why I felt your question was out-of-touch:
Note, you just accepted my side of the underlying discussion as fact because it didn’t matter to your new point. That’s how I know your reply was a context-switch.
Can you show me where I conceded your point? That was not my intention, as I do not concede your point. To the contrary, I assume the “typical” coffee contains far less than 400mg of caffeine.
I further do not concede that the drink was adequately labeled as caffeinated. Not because I know it wasnt, I don’t, but since the girl knew she couldn’t have caffeine it seems unlikely she would intentionally ignore information about caffeine content that was adequately marked.
It’s possible she was being generally unobservant, maybe even fair to assume it, but that just brings us back around to the only point I’ve tried to make. It’s reasonable to assume lemonade is not caffeinated since AFAIK it’s pretty much always uncaffeinated. So it doesn’t necessarily matter how many beverages at the self serve were caffeinated because who has ever heard of caffeinated lemonade?
There’s no calculation she should have been expected to assume re: caffeine to volume ratio of lemonade so it’s not a stretch that she wouldn’t think to check.
The fact that any amount would have been too much was just a compounding factor in a tragedy.
The average cup of coffee has about 95mg of caffeine (found it: https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/caffeine/art-20049372). So each of these lemonades she drank was over 4 cups of coffee.
If she was able to miss the labeling, which is reasonable to assume - bc she would she ignore it on purpose? - then it would have been very easy for her to ingest an extreme amount of caffeine in a short period of time, which is what I assume happened.
Sure! This is where you conceded the only point I cared about discussing here.
You don’t seem to actually want to discuss the implications of that point. Take care.