Sarah Katz, 21, had a heart condition and died hours after she drank Panera’s Charged Lemonade, a large cup of which contains more caffeine than Red Bull and Monster energy drinks combined.
All Panera Bread restaurants are now displaying “enhanced” disclosures about the restaurant chain’s highly caffeinated lemonade, a spokesperson said Saturday, following a lawsuit that was filed by the family of a young woman who died after drinking the beverage.
Monday’s lawsuit, which was first obtained by NBC News, alleges that Sarah Katz, an Ivy League student with a heart condition, died after she drank Panera’s Charged Lemonade last year.
A large Charged Lemonade contains 390 milligrams — nearly the 400-milligram daily maximum of caffeine that the Food and Drug Administration says healthy adults can safely consume.
wait wait a lady fucking died and they’re getting away with simply enhanced signs??
For an average healthy adult. That’s what the disclaimers are for, so that those who can’t tolerate it will know about it.
And yes, insufficient warnings should have pretty harsh penalties precisely for this reason
The FDA also says brominated vegetable oil is safe for human consumption
So, the FDA isn’t perfect, but they’re reversing their stance based on evidence.
https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/brominated-vegetable-oil-bvo
BVO is added to a food for a specific purpose and is regulated by the FDA as a direct food additive. BVO is allowed for use in a small amount, not to exceed 15 parts per million, in the U.S. as a stabilizer for fruit flavoring used in beverages.
The FDA is working on a proposed rule to amend our regulations to remove the authorization of the use of BVO as a food ingredient. For more information, see the unified agenda.
Model (USA) Rule of Evidence 407: Subsequent remedial measures are not admissible as evidence to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product or its design, or a need for a warning or instruction.
But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as impeachment or — if disputed — proving ownership, control, or the feasibility of precautionary measures
EDIT: I’m not looking up the contextualing comments that accompany the rule, but I will share what I remember from law school many years ago: this rule exists for public safety. You don’t want to penalize fixing a dangerous situation, regardless of the facts of any specific case.
