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”.
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”.