Didn’t see this until now, but your screenshot actually doesn’t disprove anything. Both sugar and caffeine were reduced by about 40%, which sounds like around the amount of ice added in a typical fountain drink. As others have mentioned, the rest of the nutrition facts are dubious considering that there are fewer total carbs than sugar in the original label. Also, according to Google, there are 4 calories in one gram of sugar, which would mean the original drink should have at least 496 calories, not 320.

Maybe before you call someone a liar, double check your own sources first?

A few corrections:

400mg of caffeine is not considered a daily recommended maximum, but “an amount not generally associated with dangerous, negative effects” (FDA). Most people can consume more than that and have no significant side effects.

The Charged Lemonade has more caffeine than most any other drinks… When you fill up a 30 oz container with it and don’t add any ice. If you filled up the same container with an energy drink or coffee, it would have similar amounts of caffeine.

Aside from the possibility to associate “charged” with electrolytes, none of the marketing or branding of the drink implies that it’s an electrolyte drink. Personally I would much sooner think that charged means energy, i.e. caffeine and the like, but that’s just me.

A healthy adult consuming multiple of these beverages wouldn’t likely experience any heart issues, but likely would have things like jitteriness and have a hard time falling asleep. And while people with heart conditions should definitely stay away from these drinks, “would go into cardiac arrest after one” is incredibly overblown. If that were the case, the deaths would be in the hundreds or thousands, not one or two.

Panera has only “reduced” the caffeine amounts in the drink by adding ice into the cup because they are now behind the counter, not by changing the formula of the drink.

I find it strange that you’ve said this to one of the only comments that actually provided quotes of multiple articles that weren’t just opinion pieces. It’s also a bit odd that you’re “done with this platform” due to a relatively centrist position that mostly amounts to “it doesn’t seem like Bill Gates is James Bond Supervillain level evil.”

In fact, generally both the blue and red “teams” (of the US) kinda hate Gates, just for different reasons. Someone coming out, reading the article linked by the comment that they’re responding to, and then providing reasonable counter-evidence is actually a bit of a breath of fresh air compared to typical Reddit or Lemmy, or the internet in general for that matter.

And to be clear, I really don’t have a stake in the game here. I’m mildly interested to see whether Gates is as bad as others in this thread are saying, but coming into it I didn’t really have much of an opinion one way or the about the guy. Now, I’m just curious what has made you feel that the commenter you responded to couldn’t deliver what Reddit somehow did or does.

Yes, but I and the person you originally replied to weren’t talking about an idealized society that tolerates everything and everyone. The paradox only exists when you take the idea to its extreme. It’s very easy to define a system where people are tolerant, and replying with “b-b-but that’s not truly tolerant” doesn’t help anyone here and only serves to muddy the waters.

It’s not a paradox to say “I will be tolerant of anyone who is also tolerant.” Whether that’s a good foundation for society to be built upon is subjective I suppose, but it’s not a paradox.

No… No, that’s not tax evasion.

You clearly didn’t read the article, or actually look at basically any energy drink can. The label of the charged lemonade does in fact list exactly how much caffeine is in each drink, as well as stating it contains as much caffeine as their dark roast coffee.

And Googling the label on a Monster Energy Drink can, there is a label stating that the total caffeine content is 120mg with a warning recommending against consumption by children or those sensitive to caffeine.

A typical drip coffee contains roughly 100mg of caffeine per 8 oz cup, which means a 30 oz cup of coffee would contain very similar amounts to one of the charged lemonades in question. Or course, caffeine varies wildly in coffee depending on exactly how it’s brewed as well as bean origin and roast, so you could easily see well over 400mg in a 30oz drink. And let’s not even get started on adding extra shots of espresso.

If you have a heart condition or generally just a high sensitivity to caffeine, it’s pretty important to know how much is a lot. The vast majority of people do not have any serious issues consuming 300mg or so of caffeine, so putting a bunch of big scary labels on this stuff just seems like overkill. For example, if you have a peanut allergy, it’s generally on you to check the allergen list in the fine print, or if you have Celiac disease, you need to either buy stuff specifically labeled gluten-free or confirm with a restaurant, manufacturer, etc.

The fact that all of their signs have not just one, but three separate indicators (“charged”, as much caffeine as coffee, and the specific caffeine amount) for anyone who might have a sensitivity is enough to show Panera’s due diligence in my opinion.

I do get your point that people wouldn’t automatically assume there’s caffeine in Panera’s random juice drinks, but caffeine is absolutely everywhere right now. I’d personally love for caffeine to be required to be listed in the nutrition label of drinks (or food that contains it) so you would know how much is in a Mountain Dew or Coke. But until that happens, I don’t see how Panera could be seen as liable in this situation.

Unless the website has changed it at some point, the password creation rules will be easily accessible just by going to the account creation page. Having it copied to the login page is not going to help people guess your password in any meaningful way.