Panera Bread killing folks (1 Viewer)

kinda on the fence on this. if the sign in that article is what's advertised on that lemonade, i don't see how they can control someone with weak heart from drinking too much? if the lemonade is having this effect on the average person, then I'd be concerned. ..

Screenshot_20231205-193015.png
 
kinda on the fence on this. if the sign in that article is what's advertised on that lemonade, i don't see how they can control someone with weak heart from drinking too much? if the lemonade is having this effect on the average person, then I'd be concerned. ..

Screenshot_20231205-193015.png

Honestly, I don’t really know what 280 or 369 mg of caffeine really means or if it’s dangerous.

But just because there’s a lawsuit doesn’t mean there will be liability.
 
Side note….those Panera bread bowls are tough. I use to have a friend who would give us the throw out ones at the end of her shift and we’d play football with them. Tough bread that Panera stuff.
 
Side note….those Panera bread bowls are tough. I use to have a friend who would give us the throw out ones at the end of her shift and we’d play football with them. Tough bread that Panera stuff.

To me Panera Bread is like a a horrible version of a 1980s department store cafe - those were terrible and Panera Bread is that but worse.
 
Honestly, I don’t really know what 280 or 369 mg of caffeine really means or if it’s dangerous.

But just because there’s a lawsuit doesn’t mean there will be liability.
A can of coke zero has 34mg of caffeine in it for reference. This is just an instance of the gene pool self leveling.
 
A can of coke zero has 34mg of caffeine in it for reference. This is just an instance of the gene pool self leveling.

Fair enough but my point was that if it isn't well known what the threshold for dangerous levels of caffeine is, and this simply says how much caffeine is in there without mentioning that it could be dangerous, I think that's potentially problematic. Falls under the sub-set of liability relating to duty to warn.

I'm not saying it's a breach here, I'm just saying that I think that's the issue that the case will turn on.
 
Fair enough but my point was that if it isn't well known what the threshold for dangerous levels of caffeine is, and this simply says how much caffeine is in there without mentioning that it could be dangerous, I think that's potentially problematic. Falls under the sub-set of liability relating to duty to warn.

I'm not saying it's a breach here, I'm just saying that I think that's the issue that the case will turn on.
I see what you're saying now. The only reason I know this stuff is because of my 11 year old. He always wants the latest fad drink so we've gotten in the habit to look at caffeine levels because without fail the latest fad drink is that way because they're loaded with caffeine.
 
I see what you're saying now. The only reason I know this stuff is because of my 11 year old. He always wants the latest fad drink so we've gotten in the habit to look at caffeine levels because without fail the latest fad drink is that way because they're loaded with caffeine.

Yeah, it's wild what is going into these drinks lately.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom