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

  • wtfeweguys
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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”.

    • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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:

      How many people are confusing a large iced coffee with a shot of espresso as a caffeine free beverage?

      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:

      1. “More caffeine than two energy drinks combined seems very excessive to me.” <–topic is amount of caffeine
      2. “What coffee are you drinking that has almost 400mg of caffeine in it? Most have around 100mg.” <–topic is amount of caffeine
      3. How many people are confusing a large iced coffee with a shot of espresso as a caffeine free beverage?” <–topic is “caffeine-free beverage”

      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.

      • wtfeweguys
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sure! This is where you conceded the only point I cared about discussing here.

          Given she had a heart condition, any amount seems to have been “excessive”.

          • wtfeweguys
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You don’t seem to actually want to discuss the implications of that point. Take care.