The case of the diet burrito: Customers sue over misleading nutrition info

The restaurant chain’s chorizo burrito packs more calories than some thought.

Read the whole story

 

[shinyliony]

DanNeely[/url]":3ba0jg3b]

kpreiksa[/url]":3ba0jg3b]I just can't stop thinking about how weird the prices are. $7.73... here in Ohio, a Chicken Burrito is $6.50 - $7.25 depending on the location. What is the purpose of the weird pricing? Easy rounding with tax? Is carry-out food taxable in California?

Could be...

7.5% tax according to google.

$7.81 becomes 8.39575 which presumably rounds to $8.40.

OTOH $8.27 is 8.89025 which would round down to $8.89 in any sane world (which may or may not apply to the world of taxation).

On the gripping hand, if that's what they're doing they're only the 2nd place in this country I've ever seen do something like that. The other was the movie theater I patronized as a child that set prices so that with tax everything was an even dollar amount and posted prices "including all applicable tax" so they they didn't need to deal with coins in making change.

Out of curiousity, why are the prices listed without tax? I can't remember having seen prices listed without tax outside of the US. Are there customers who pay the before tax price?

[Edit - type all the words, don't just think them]

 

[shinyliony]

mrsilver[/url]":3qis6zw1]

siliconaddict[/url]":3qis6zw1]If anyone thinks that thing is 300 cals they are out and out idiots. Short of having half the burrito teleport to a parallel dimension as soon as it hits your gut. There is no way in hell that is 300 cals.

So what if there is "no way in hell that it is 300 cals"?

Are you saying that it's okay for companies to lie as long as it's obvious to non-idiots? How about we just ask them to advertise the truth? Wouldn't that be much easier?

Um... have you not been following any of the election coverage? Truth is subjective now. Facts are optional, personal and disposable.

 

[Fritzr]

shinyliony[/url]":9ykfxesp]

DanNeely[/url]":9ykfxesp]

kpreiksa[/url]":9ykfxesp]I just can't stop thinking about how weird the prices are. $7.73... here in Ohio, a Chicken Burrito is $6.50 - $7.25 depending on the location. What is the purpose of the weird pricing? Easy rounding with tax? Is carry-out food taxable in California?

Could be...

7.5% tax according to google.

$7.81 becomes 8.39575 which presumably rounds to $8.40.

OTOH $8.27 is 8.89025 which would round down to $8.89 in any sane world (which may or may not apply to the world of taxation).

On the gripping hand, if that's what they're doing they're only the 2nd place in this country I've ever seen do something like that. The other was the movie theater I patronized as a child that set prices so that with tax everything was an even dollar amount and posted prices "including all applicable tax" so they they didn't need to deal with coins in making change.

Out of curiousity, why are the prices listed without tax? I can't remember having seen prices listed without tax outside of the US. Are there customers who pay the before tax price?

[Edit - type all the words, don't just think them]

There are state and federal laws controlling the display of pricing. It is common for it to be illegal to display the amount of tax due in any form of advertising. It is also common for tax inclusive pricing to be banned by law.

Yes, in most states with a sales tax, out of state customers can avoid the sales tax by making known their out of state residence status and promising to take the merchandise home. This is optional for the business though and out of state customers are rarely able to take advantage of this when making a purchase at a brick and mortar store.

Online purchases are the other way around currently. Many mail order and internet vendors do not charge sales tax to anyone outside the state they are based in.

In the case of internet sales, it is common for businesses to not charge sales tax to customers in the state they are based in. This is slowly changing as the state revenue departments contact businesses not collecting in-state tax to let them know that it is required.

A very few online businesses keep track of the sales tax rates nationwide and charge customers the sales tax due for the customer's billing address. (Usually a state average rate rather than the widely variable local rate)

Customers not paying their state sales tax at the time of purchase are supposed to file a form with their state revenue department and pay a "Use Tax". This is simply sales tax remitted by the customer rather than the merchant

 

[marsilies]

Fritzr[/url]":vluv0h07]

shinyliony[/url]":vluv0h07]Out of curiousity, why are the prices listed without tax? I can't remember having seen prices listed without tax outside of the US. Are there customers who pay the before tax price?

[Edit - type all the words, don't just think them]

There are state and federal laws controlling the display of pricing. It is common for it to be illegal to display the amount of tax due in any form of advertising. It is also common for tax inclusive pricing to be banned by law.

It's important to note that there's no Federal sales tax, and no single, national tax rate that would allow for including the tax in the price to be easy. Instead, each state sets their sales tax rate, and can even allow municipalities to charge their own sales tax. As a result, you not only have sales tax vary by state, but by where in the state you are. 5 states don't even have a state sales tax, although one of them, Alaska, allows municipalities to charge a sales tax.

Also, states determine what gets charged a sales tax. Typically groceries aren't taxed at all. Also, there's some exceptions like for gas (petrol), where the gas taxes are included in the posted per-gallon pricing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxe ... ted_States

Fritzr[/url]":vluv0h07]Customers not paying their state sales tax at the time of purchase are supposed to file a form with their state revenue department and pay a "Use Tax". This is simply sales tax remitted by the customer rather than the merchant

An interesting distinction is that the sales tax is always a tax charged to the customer, not the merchant; the merchant is merely collecting it for the state/city. This is another reason why it's not wrapped up into the advertised price, as the states feel it's important that the tax amount is broken out so the customers know how much tax they're paying.

The use tax is basically uncollected sales tax. In New York at least, there's actually a line on the State Income Tax return form to report any unpaid use tax, which is then deducted from your rebate.

 

[solaro]

The U.S. the only place in the world you can find trouble in giving a customer exponentially more calories than they paid for.

 

[goldencbrf4i]

Fiendish[/url]":2iv7tyqn]On one hand I'm really sad that Chipotle keeps getting punched in the gut like this (doh). I love Chipotle, I had really high hopes for it to completely take over fast food before the unknown cause food poisoning scandal.
On the other hand, I get it. The US has a real problem with deceptive labeling, and companies need to be proactive in not even accidentally lying to customers.
On the other other hand, are you fucking kidding me? Did they at least try sending an email to corporate first about their concerns? 300 calories for a burrito the size of your torso (which is typically what one gets at Chipotle) would require it to be made nearly entirely from nondigestible fibers.

Or they simply for got to include this part of the menu that shows the ingredient makeup -minus the additional caloric content of the meat...
http://livermorerocks.com/wp-content/up ... tle-03.jpg
The featured item here is Sofritas, and it has its own calorie count.

 

[Kasoroth]

gigaplex[/url]":3f7t8aug]

Kasoroth[/url]":3f7t8aug]

RockDaMan[/url]":3f7t8aug]

trs8[/url]":3f7t8aug]

RockDaMan[/url]":3f7t8aug]

Fiendish[/url]":3f7t8aug]On one hand I'm really sad that Chipotle keeps getting punched in the gut like this (doh). I love Chipotle, I had really high hopes for it to completely take over fast food before the unknown cause food poisoning scandal.

What does this even mean?

He wanted his preferred fast food establishment to gain market share at expense of his non-preferred fast food establishments.

Not sure how anyone could be so emotionally committed to a fast food chain. But there you go.

How would a burrito joint erase the market for burgers, dogs, etc?

It makes no sense.

Well, after eating a large burrito, I'm usually full and don't want to go get a burger. There's a finite market for fast food in general, so one food chain's gains are likely to be losses for others (assuming the population remains the same), and this may put some of them under the threshold of profitability. Obviously it's unlikely that any single chain is going to completely "take over" and drive all others completely out of business, but it's quite likely that the most successful chain will eventually end up with the largest number of stores, and thus be more convenient for people who prefer that chain. It seems pretty clear from the context that this is what Fiendish meant, and it doesn't really seem confusing or ambiguous to me.

If I eat a burrito, and feel full, that doesn't mean I'm only ever going to eat burritos for the rest of my life. I might want a burger tomorrow. Who buys two different takeout meals in one go?

That's why one chain would never literally drive everyone else completely out of business. People have different tastes, and people like some variety.

That doesn't change the fact that if I eat burritos more often than burgers, and you eat burritos more often than burgers, and Fiendish eats burritos more often than burgers, and people in general eat burritos more often than burgers, then eventually the economics of the situation will result in a world where there are more burrito stores than burger stores. That is convenient for people who prefer burritos, but might be inconvenient for the sad guy who just wants a burger, but has to drive 30 miles to find one. Obviously this is an exaggeration, but it illustrates that the burritos and burgers are fighting for share of the same market, despite being different products.

 

[kkeane]

Fritzr[/url]":3iydgpy2]

shinyliony[/url]":3iydgpy2]

DanNeely[/url]":3iydgpy2]

kpreiksa[/url]":3iydgpy2]I just can't stop thinking about how weird the prices are. $7.73... here in Ohio, a Chicken Burrito is $6.50 - $7.25 depending on the location. What is the purpose of the weird pricing? Easy rounding with tax? Is carry-out food taxable in California?

Could be...

7.5% tax according to google.

$7.81 becomes 8.39575 which presumably rounds to $8.40.

OTOH $8.27 is 8.89025 which would round down to $8.89 in any sane world (which may or may not apply to the world of taxation).

On the gripping hand, if that's what they're doing they're only the 2nd place in this country I've ever seen do something like that. The other was the movie theater I patronized as a child that set prices so that with tax everything was an even dollar amount and posted prices "including all applicable tax" so they they didn't need to deal with coins in making change.

Out of curiousity, why are the prices listed without tax? I can't remember having seen prices listed without tax outside of the US. Are there customers who pay the before tax price?

[Edit - type all the words, don't just think them]

There are state and federal laws controlling the display of pricing. It is common for it to be illegal to display the amount of tax due in any form of advertising. It is also common for tax inclusive pricing to be banned by law.

At first, I was going to say the same thing, but it's not true. Starbucks, for instance, posts only tax-inclusive prices. Also, gas stations (at least in California) post tax-inclusive prices.

The real reason is much simpler: displaying prices without sales tax makes items appear cheaper. And because it is almost universally done, prices are also more comparable.

Starbucks can afford to display tax-inclusive prices because they market themselves as a attainable-luxury item; it's OK (and may even be beneficial) for them to appear a little more expensive. Plus, there is the implicit convenience-factor, which is another aspect that puts Starbucks just a tiny bit more into the luxury-item category.

 

[kkeane]

marsilies[/url]":237vtupn]An interesting distinction is that the sales tax is always a tax charged to the customer, not the merchant; the merchant is merely collecting it for the state/city. This is another reason why it's not wrapped up into the advertised price, as the states feel it's important that the tax amount is broken out so the customers know how much tax they're paying.

That's not accurate. It's called sales tax, not purchasing tax, because it is a tax on the *sales* of the merchant, not on the *purchases* by the buyer.

The merchant has the *option* of demanding reimbursement for that tax from the buyer, but doesn't have to; they are free to pay the sales tax themselves.

 

[gigaplex]

Kasoroth[/url]":3n65fqfg]

gigaplex[/url]":3n65fqfg]

Kasoroth[/url]":3n65fqfg]

RockDaMan[/url]":3n65fqfg]

trs8[/url]":3n65fqfg]

RockDaMan[/url]":3n65fqfg]
What does this even mean?

He wanted his preferred fast food establishment to gain market share at expense of his non-preferred fast food establishments.

Not sure how anyone could be so emotionally committed to a fast food chain. But there you go.

How would a burrito joint erase the market for burgers, dogs, etc?

It makes no sense.

Well, after eating a large burrito, I'm usually full and don't want to go get a burger. There's a finite market for fast food in general, so one food chain's gains are likely to be losses for others (assuming the population remains the same), and this may put some of them under the threshold of profitability. Obviously it's unlikely that any single chain is going to completely "take over" and drive all others completely out of business, but it's quite likely that the most successful chain will eventually end up with the largest number of stores, and thus be more convenient for people who prefer that chain. It seems pretty clear from the context that this is what Fiendish meant, and it doesn't really seem confusing or ambiguous to me.

If I eat a burrito, and feel full, that doesn't mean I'm only ever going to eat burritos for the rest of my life. I might want a burger tomorrow. Who buys two different takeout meals in one go?

That's why one chain would never literally drive everyone else completely out of business. People have different tastes, and people like some variety.

That doesn't change the fact that if I eat burritos more often than burgers, and you eat burritos more often than burgers, and Fiendish eats burritos more often than burgers, and people in general eat burritos more often than burgers, then eventually the economics of the situation will result in a world where there are more burrito stores than burger stores. That is convenient for people who prefer burritos, but might be inconvenient for the sad guy who just wants a burger, but has to drive 30 miles to find one. Obviously this is an exaggeration, but it illustrates that the burritos and burgers are fighting for share of the same market, despite being different products.

We're all aware of that. However the original poster said they want burritos to completely take over. Sounds a lot like Taco Bell from Demolition Man.

 

[Tonkaman]

Sarty[/url]":v6xojj6o]

DiavoJinx[/url]":v6xojj6o]I think this is like the McDonald's "hot coffee" lawsuit that kicked off the culture of "sue anyone for anything even if it defies common sense" that's been rampant in the decades since.

The woman who initially sought $20,000 from McDonald's to cover her eight-day hospital stay after suffering third degree burns over her legs and torso? That "sue anybody for anything even if it defies common sense" lawsuit?

The real problem is "common sense" is frequently wrong, and most people can't acknowledge that.

 

[rosen380]

Fritzr[/url]":2z4ts1xt]

rosen380[/url]":2z4ts1xt]

lewax00[/url]":2z4ts1xt]For all the "common sense" people...tell me, how exactly did you come by this common sense? How do you know it's obvious it's more than 300 calories? It's because you have seen plenty of accurate labels which add to your own experience of what calorie counts are, which gives you the ability to estimate it for other things.

All of this "common sense" only works because of accurate labelling. If everything was deceptively labelled, your common sense would be worthless. In order for others to develop this common sense, they need good information.

Already mentioned, but if you are going to ask again, might as well answer again.

In states where calories are required to be displayed, there are calories on everything else. Next to 'burrito' I think it gives a range of like 450-950 calories.

Now, using some of my common sense, I figure that the low end would have to be the one with the least stuff in it-- a vegetarian burrito with no meat. So I conclude that adding chorizo to that basic burrito has to be more than 450 calories unless it is magic -150 calorie chorizo.

Now, I'm perfectly aware that the magic -150 calorie chorizo won't be invented until 2020, so it is obviously a more standard 2016 chorizo with positive calories.

Using some further common sense and thinking about that range of calories, I think I'd take a pretty good guess that they meant "+300 Calories" and not "300 Calories" and that I'd be looking at about 750 calories plus whatever I add to it.

In short; You would examine the sign carefully, add up all the various ingredients named and then quietly ask for the manager and inform him/her that the store is violating California's food labeling laws.

Is that right?

Is it reasonable to assume that the manager and every employee who can see that sign can do the same thing and chose to leave it in place?

Much more simply. If I noticed that a loaded chorizo burrito was being indicated at 300 Calories and the bottom range for all burritos was listed at 450 Calories, I'd simply point that out.

No special math or calculators or examination required.

--
As already said or at least implied, if the manager said, "Hey f- you, mind your own business!", I certainly think a next step is warranted.

If my neighbor is having a noisy party at 1am [in my area we have a noise ordinance starting at 10pm with a dB limit], my first step isn't to burn his house down. My first step isn't even to call the police. First, I'd knock on the door and ask.

--
If this is basically a lawyer cash-grab, then I guess it is what it is.

 

[gwold]

Emon[/url]":6v6oxbcu]

mexaly[/url]":6v6oxbcu]

FinallyAnAccount[/url]":6v6oxbcu]...
That being said, lawsuits like this should be required to show harm done.

They are.

Still, if every fast food outlet was mislabeling its calories, no one would know how much 300 calories is.

Most of these these commenters claiming, at sight, that the calorie count is wrong, got their experience from other labels.

Either we demand honesty in labelling, or we lose honest labels.

The objective of a non-frivolous lawsuit would be to make Chipotle check their calorie counts before they publish, and by extension, make other chains make sure to do it, too.

It is exactly this and nothing else. All the smartass "use common sense, dummy!" posters don't realize that what informed their "common sense" was actually these very signs to begin with. That an all other manner of product labeling. No one is born knowing what 100 calories looks like. We all learned it from modern labeling practices.

No.

What informed our "common sense" was the entire range of input we've received on food, calories, eating (healthy or otherwise), etc. These signs are one rather trivial part of that process, which is dominated by our experiences at home, our education in schools, articles in magazines and newspapers, flyers distributed by government agencies and other, interested parties, etc. One simply cannot function in the US, let alone the state of California, with open eyes and ears and NOT have the requisite input to realize that the sign in question had to be wrong. Unless, of course, one is being willfully ignorant. But what we almost certainly have here, as stated by so very many, is a case where someone, probably a lawyer (as repeatedly stated by WickWick), saw dollar signs. For the people pushing this case the motivation is money, not bringing Chipotle into line with CA law.

 

[RAY-ARS]

There are three sides to every story... yours, mine and the cold hard truth. (lyrics stolen by Don Henley without permission).

This is a ridiculous lawsuit which is easily explained as an error made in the signage. I agree with the comments that there is an opportunity for some money to be made for the plaintiffs and lawyers in this case. Anyone can file a lawsuit but at some point the reality of common sense versus the possibility of human error in the signage must be addressed. I don't know that I could pretend to be insane enough to think that this stuffed burrito is only 300 calories and feel misled by it... perhaps that is because I have some calorie counting experience. Perhaps the plaintiffs are new to dieting and calorie counting?

So is this a case of false advertising or human error? I have seen grocery store ads printed with wrong pricing and notices at the front door about the errors and apology for the errors. I have not seen of any lawsuits over this. Why a lawsuit without a notice made to the corporation? The answer, I believe, is the fact that the sign error was overlooked at some point from the design to printing to being hung over the counter. I believe that human error was responsible without any intent to defame the company or mislead the public.

My opinion? Give the plaintiffs a book on calorie counting and ... Case Dismissed!

 

[neeksgeek]

Genocidus[/url]":2m75nwhk]

neeksgeek[/url]":2m75nwhk]I'm all for reducing deceptive or misleading ads.

But. How could anybody with an understanding of nutrition see this menu item and believe the "300 calories" claim? A local restaurant near me makes a "meat lovers" four-egg omelette which includes chorizo. It's delicious. It's disgusting. It's full of meat and cheese. And when you eat one, you can almost feel your cholesterol levels rise. I don't know how many calories it has, but it's way more than 300. The same must be true f this burrito. Now I've got to try one...

Common sense ain't so common!

So you expect Chipolte's customers to have a better sense of the caloric content of Chipolte's food than the employees who put that up? The employees who saw that sign every day?

Wow.

Actually I do think the employees should have known it was incorrect.

 

[cyclingsm]

DanNeely[/url]":2utkkwqw]

kpreiksa[/url]":2utkkwqw]I just can't stop thinking about how weird the prices are. $7.73... here in Ohio, a Chicken Burrito is $6.50 - $7.25 depending on the location. What is the purpose of the weird pricing? Easy rounding with tax? Is carry-out food taxable in California?

Could be...

7.5% tax according to google.

$7.81 becomes 8.39575 which presumably rounds to $8.40.

OTOH $8.27 is 8.89025 which would round down to $8.89 in any sane world (which may or may not apply to the world of taxation).

On the gripping hand, if that's what they're doing they're only the 2nd place in this country I've ever seen do something like that. The other was the movie theater I patronized as a child that set prices so that with tax everything was an even dollar amount and posted prices "including all applicable tax" so they they didn't need to deal with coins in making change.

I have seen places list the price of an item with the tax rounded into it already, but never on a larger scale, just an individual store. And then there are places like Alaska which have no sales tax...

 

[Teej]

Smackypete[/url]":1rp69qby]Chipotle was clearly misleading at best.
On the other hand, anyone concerned about calories, would clearly know this was incorrect.

You know it. I know it. These plantiffs knew it. Why did they get a lawyer in the first place? In fact, a lawyer probably saw the sign and saw the dollar signs.

Still doesn't mean that sign was not wrong.

 

[kkeane]

DiavoJinx[/url]":nnre7qj6]I think this is like the McDonald's "hot coffee" lawsuit that kicked off the culture of "sue anyone for anything even if it defies common sense" that's been rampant in the decades since.

You do know that the facts of the case were widely misrepresented? You can read all about the real facts of the case. That case actually made a lot of common-sense sense.

This wasn't an isolated case; there had already been about 700 burns from that coffee. A McDonalds manager admitted in trial that they knew the coffee can cause third-degree burns (those are the burns where your flesh basically ends up cooked like a well-done steak), that McDonalds actively enforced a policy of keeping it that way, and had no intention of changing that because it would cost more money.

 

[Asvarduil]

Tonkaman[/url]":n82fml1z]

Sarty[/url]":n82fml1z]

DiavoJinx[/url]":n82fml1z]I think this is like the McDonald's "hot coffee" lawsuit that kicked off the culture of "sue anyone for anything even if it defies common sense" that's been rampant in the decades since.

The woman who initially sought $20,000 from McDonald's to cover her eight-day hospital stay after suffering third degree burns over her legs and torso? That "sue anybody for anything even if it defies common sense" lawsuit?

The real problem is "common sense" is frequently wrong, and most people can't acknowledge that.

There's even a saying to that effect: "Common sense, isn't."

 

[Skebaba]

nehinks[/url]":26dp8ds1]Stupidly layed out ad I would agree with. On the other hand, I call complete BS on a "nutritious conscious" person that eats at Chipotle and somehow doesn't know that the tortilla, cheese, sour cream, and various other toppings all add up to over 300 by themselves. If you want "healthy", you skip the tortilla, period. And even if that was a reasonable assumption to make, they want damages plus class action status for eating an extra 650 calories at ONE MEAL (since apparently they got suspicious after actually being full)?

Why does it matter if it's that much? I mean, why does it matter, as long as you only eat the daily 2K calories?

 

[TXSFRED]

LimpBagel[/url]":2gm4kyjk]

Shudder[/url]":2gm4kyjk]I'm not sure about a lawsuit, but to look at that sign and think anything other than the product shown is 300 calories is going to be difficult to make happen.

Now, knowing what I know about food because I eat it, I know those shells are probably on their way to being that much alone, but I would never fault someone for misreading the sign.

And if you feel "excessively full" then don't eat that much, dummy.

The shells are exactly 300 calories:



https://chipotle.com/nutrition-calculator

Yep. I built one like I get when there just to see and it said 735 calories- which I don't believe either. Some Cheeseburgers are about 1200 and I have never eaten a Burrito there that I felt got DOWN into the Cheeseburger neighborhood.

 

[rosen380]

"admitted in trial that they knew the coffee can cause third-degree burns "

For us fair-skinned folks, you can get third-degree burns from too much sun exposure...

 

[rosen380]

TXSFRED[/url]":gmcbw3co]

LimpBagel[/url]":gmcbw3co]

Shudder[/url]":gmcbw3co]I'm not sure about a lawsuit, but to look at that sign and think anything other than the product shown is 300 calories is going to be difficult to make happen.

Now, knowing what I know about food because I eat it, I know those shells are probably on their way to being that much alone, but I would never fault someone for misreading the sign.

And if you feel "excessively full" then don't eat that much, dummy.

The shells are exactly 300 calories:



https://chipotle.com/nutrition-calculator

Yep. I built one like I get when there just to see and it said 735 calories- which I don't believe either. Some Cheeseburgers are about 1200 and I have never eaten a Burrito there that I felt got DOWN into the Cheeseburger neighborhood.

Where do you get your cheeseburgers?

At Wendy's a double stack is listed at 390 *C*alories and the Baconator is "only" 950. At McD the Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese is listed at 780.

By "some cheeseburgers are about 1200" , do you really mean, "barely any and only truly ridiculous things that shouldn't actually be on the menu"?

 

[ten91]

rosen380[/url]":1fmzdlns]"admitted in trial that they knew the coffee can cause third-degree burns "

For us fair-skinned folks, you can get third-degree burns from too much sun exposure...

You do realize 3rd degree burns are burns that not only affect the skin, but burns the deeper tissue like muscle.
It's possible for fairskin, but it requires you to completely neglect any protection and signs. And a sunburn is different to scalding liquid.

And in the case you're referencing, the coffee was stored at 190 degrees Fahrenheit. Any liquid at that temperature can cause 3rd degree burns 3-7 seconds. 122 degrees is where people are usually required to place temperature labels warnings on things because at that point they are considered hazardous.

 

[rosen380]

I think I was missing up 2nd and 3rd degree burns... After looking up each, I have personally had 2nd degree burns from the sun and sure we're talking about being careless for an hour or several hours in pretty particular situations versus being careless for seconds or even a fraction of a second.

That said, per the "Burn Foundation" it only takes 140 degrees to cause 3rd degree burns within a couple of seconds, so whether the coffee was 190 degrees or 175 or 150, it seems as though spilling a bunch of it on yourself without a pretty quick way of getting it off is pretty bad.

IE, the solution isn't better labeling but limiting risky behavior like opening a reasonably enclosed container of hot liquids in the car. Had there been labels on coffee cups back then, I'm unsure that would have made a difference.


If 140 degrees is enough to cause third degree burns, then is that also too hot to be served? At which temperature could they serve coffee where it'd be safe and not get sent back for not being hot enough? If you are adding cream or milk that has been refrigerated, even more-so.

I can't find a company by company source, but apparently, back in the day, the LA Times went around getting coffee from a bunch of places and got a range of 157-182 degrees, so all in the range on, "You are F---ed if you spill this whole cup on your absorbent pants while not being in a position to remove them within a couple of seconds".

http://www.burnfoundation.org/programs/ ... fm?c=1&a=3
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-09-16/ ... hot-coffee

 

[ten91]

rosen380[/url]":1aqzzkvl]I think I was missing up 2nd and 3rd degree burns... After looking up each, I have personally had 2nd degree burns from the sun and sure we're talking about being careless for an hour or several hours in pretty particular situations versus being careless for seconds or even a fraction of a second.

That said, per the "Burn Foundation" it only takes 140 degrees to cause 3rd degree burns within a couple of seconds, so whether the coffee was 190 degrees or 175 or 150, it seems as though spilling a bunch of it on yourself without a pretty quick way of getting it off is pretty bad.

IE, the solution isn't better labeling but limiting risky behavior like opening a reasonably enclosed container of hot liquids in the car. Had there been labels on coffee cups back then, I'm unsure that would have made a difference.


If 140 degrees is enough to cause third degree burns, then is that also too hot to be served? At which temperature could they serve coffee where it'd be safe and not get sent back for not being hot enough? If you are adding cream or milk that has been refrigerated, even more-so.

I can't find a company by company source, but apparently, back in the day, the LA Times went around getting coffee from a bunch of places and got a range of 157-182 degrees, so all in the range on, "You are F---ed if you spill this whole cup on your absorbent pants while not being in a position to remove them within a couple of seconds".

http://www.burnfoundation.org/programs/ ... fm?c=1&a=3
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-09-16/ ... hot-coffee

Yeah. It's possible to get 3rd degree burns from the sun, but it's not something you get from being on the beach for a day unless you're very sensitive to the sun. It's more if you're trekking through a desert shirtless for a few days.

As for the Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants case, there are several things people never mention or bring up. First was there were several hundred cases against McDonalds at the time for various levels of burns, including more 3rd degree burns, more often than not to the hand. Liebeck was just the worse case seen having received 3rd degree burns to 6% of her body and 2nd and 1st degree to another 16%.

McDonalds had in their own records that they had known about the issue for at least 10 years prior, but kept up the practice. The main reason for having their coffee that hot was because a single pot of coffee could last an entire day without going cold rather than having to be emptied and refilled every couple of hours.

And originally Liebeck asked for only $20,000 to cover the medical expenses. McDonalds turned that down saying they'll at most give her $800; after which she sued. The original large win was due to the jury being outraged by McDonalds disregard for safety after it's own employees admitted under oath they knew of the issue long before and after experts said that 180-190 degrees was a major health hazard that could cause burns to anything it touched; especially the tongue if anyone tried to drink it.

At the end the judge of the case ended up cutting Liebeck's winnings down a bit hoping it would discourage McDonalds from trying to appeal and in the end the ended up settling for an undisclosed amount.

 

[rosen380]

FWIW-- just came from the Chipotle near where I work and they still have the pictured sign up. No modifications made.

Unsure why it wouldn't be a pretty instant fix rolled out nationwide [of simply adding a "+"].

As an additional FWIW- the Chipotle nearer to my house doesn't have this sign up, but still has the 'signature item, Sofritas' one. I believe that one says like 150 Calories, but doesn't have a graphic on it- just the text description.

I wonder if that was supposed to be the template and someone had the idea to add the graphic without considering other changes to the sign?

 

[kkeane]

rosen380[/url]":2gj0qycd]I think I was missing up 2nd and 3rd degree burns... After looking up each, I have personally had 2nd degree burns from the sun and sure we're talking about being careless for an hour or several hours in pretty particular situations versus being careless for seconds or even a fraction of a second.

That said, per the "Burn Foundation" it only takes 140 degrees to cause 3rd degree burns within a couple of seconds, so whether the coffee was 190 degrees or 175 or 150, it seems as though spilling a bunch of it on yourself without a pretty quick way of getting it off is pretty bad.

IE, the solution isn't better labeling but limiting risky behavior like opening a reasonably enclosed container of hot liquids in the car. Had there been labels on coffee cups back then, I'm unsure that would have made a difference.

In the case, the woman had actually pulled into a parking spot to do it. Basically, it was no riskier than carrying the hot coffee from the counter to a table in the restaurant. The only way McDonalds could have made it safer is by not selling the coffee to go, and in the restaurant having a waiter pour the coffee from an insulated thermos directly at the table.

If 140 degrees is enough to cause third degree burns, then is that also too hot to be served? At which temperature could they serve coffee where it'd be safe and not get sent back for not being hot enough? If you are adding cream or milk that has been refrigerated, even more-so.

140 degrees is actually the recommended temperature for serving. The difference is that 190 degrees causes burns in three to seven seconds, and clothing actually holds the hot coffee to your skin. 140 degrees takes a much longer time, and clothing provides sufficient protection.

I can't find a company by company source, but apparently, back in the day, the LA Times went around getting coffee from a bunch of places and got a range of 157-182 degrees, so all in the range on, "You are F---ed if you spill this whole cup on your absorbent pants while not being in a position to remove them within a couple of seconds".

http://www.burnfoundation.org/programs/ ... fm?c=1&a=3
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-09-16/ ... hot-coffee

Nobody said McDonalds was the only offender...

 

[ten91]

kkeane[/url]":1opb574c]

rosen380[/url]":1opb574c]
I can't find a company by company source, but apparently, back in the day, the LA Times went around getting coffee from a bunch of places and got a range of 157-182 degrees, so all in the range on, "You are F---ed if you spill this whole cup on your absorbent pants while not being in a position to remove them within a couple of seconds".

http://www.burnfoundation.org/programs/ ... fm?c=1&a=3
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-09-16/ ... hot-coffee

Nobody said McDonalds was the only offender...

In fact during the trial, one of McDonald's claims in their defence was they kept their coffee at that temperature because it was industry standard. But that is a real shitty defense since there is a lot of things that use to be industry standard that are banned now.

 

[rosen380]

" it was no riskier than carrying the hot coffee from the counter to a table in the restaurant. "

Seriously? You think opening the cup, sitting in a car with the cup between your legs has the same risk as if she had been inside?

Inside it would have been sitting on a table, had it spilled, a bunch of it would have spilled onto the table and then on to the floor, rather than nearly all of it on her lap. Futher, inside she could have pretty quickly gotten the pants off versus in the car where you first have to open the door and step out. As you say, a couple of extra seconds are a big deal.


"The difference is that 190 degrees causes burns in three to seven seconds, and clothing actually holds the hot coffee to your skin. 140 degrees takes a much longer time, and clothing provides sufficient protection."

The link I provided says:
"When tap water reaches 140º F, it can cause a third degree (full thickness) burn in just five seconds."

And part of the case said that her cotton pants absorbed the liquid and held it close to her body which helped make the burns worse.

 

[Jim Z]

kkeane[/url]":1734crdj]

marsilies[/url]":1734crdj]An interesting distinction is that the sales tax is always a tax charged to the customer, not the merchant; the merchant is merely collecting it for the state/city. This is another reason why it's not wrapped up into the advertised price, as the states feel it's important that the tax amount is broken out so the customers know how much tax they're paying.

That's not accurate. It's called sales tax, not purchasing tax, because it is a tax on the *sales* of the merchant, not on the *purchases* by the buyer.

The merchant has the *option* of demanding reimbursement for that tax from the buyer, but doesn't have to; they are free to pay the sales tax themselves.

the distinction is between the typical "sales tax" in the US which is collected in its entirety at the time the end product is purchased by the consumer, and a "value-added tax" common in other parts of the world where tax is assessed/tracked through the chain of producing the end product.

 

[kkeane]

rosen380[/url]":3d7gddid]" it was no riskier than carrying the hot coffee from the counter to a table in the restaurant. "

Seriously? You think opening the cup, sitting in a car with the cup between your legs has the same risk as if she had been inside?

Inside it would have been sitting on a table,

And how does the cup get to the table if not by carrying it? That's just as risky as opening the cup in a parked car!

 

[JamesBrickley]

Attention Morons: All fast food is bad for you! Want to eat healthy? Go to the supermarket, buy healthy ingredients and make it yourself for less than 1/3rd the cost of eating out or even fast food! The only reason I buy fast food is because I am on the road and busy and hungry but I keep my fast food intake down to the bare minimum cause I know it will kill me!

I spent $15 on a tiny bacon cheeseburger, small fries, and a vanilla milkshake at Five Guys yesterday. The calorie count was so high, I didn't eat dinner 5 hours later nor breakfast the next morning. I could have bought the ingredients myself and fed 5 people for $15 dollars! It would have only cost me 20 minutes of time as well as tasting much better.

Bonus tip: Stop shopping at Whole Foods, they are ripping you off!

Judge should throw this case out of court. Yes, they lied on the sign but most sales pitches are outright lies. Everyone knows that or should know that. You cannot trust the labels even at the supermarket. Buying processed food is very bad for you. Buy the base ingredients and make it yourself! Everyone is responsible for their own diets and you shouldn't be allowed to sue over a marketing sign because you are stupid. This is why products have warning labels such as "Do Not Use Hair Dryer in the Tub" and "Caution: Contents Extremely Hot" on a cup of coffee. Duh...

 

[tigerhawkvok]

CthulhuDragon[/url]":2xcpfm76]

KT421[/url]":2xcpfm76]:facepalm:

If that sign was posted in isolation, the plaintiff might, might have a case. But it goes alongside a bunch of stuff like this:

In context, it's pretty fucking clear.

Even with the other signage the posted picture is pretty awful. It doesn't say Chorizo and describe the filling with a 300 calorie marker. It say Chorizo Burrito and describes it with all the toppings and then says 300 calories. That's terrible.

But the "burrito" entry starts at 450 kcal... How can added meat possibly reduce that by 30%?

Even a cursory bit of thought should show a problem...

 

[SPCagigas]

JamesBrickley[/url]":3fmnl57u]Attention Morons: All fast food is bad for you! Want to eat healthy? Go to the supermarket, buy healthy ingredients and make it yourself for less than 1/3rd the cost of eating out or even fast food! The only reason I buy fast food is because I am on the road and busy and hungry but I keep my fast food intake down to the bare minimum cause I know it will kill me!

I spent $15 on a tiny bacon cheeseburger, small fries, and a vanilla milkshake at Five Guys yesterday. The calorie count was so high, I didn't eat dinner 5 hours later nor breakfast the next morning. I could have bought the ingredients myself and fed 5 people for $15 dollars! It would have only cost me 20 minutes of time as well as tasting much better.

Bonus tip: Stop shopping at Whole Foods, they are ripping you off!

Judge should throw this case out of court. Yes, they lied on the sign but most sales pitches are outright lies. Everyone knows that or should know that. You cannot trust the labels even at the supermarket. Buying processed food is very bad for you. Buy the base ingredients and make it yourself! Everyone is responsible for their own diets and you shouldn't be allowed to sue over a marketing sign because you are stupid. This is why products have warning labels such as "Do Not Use Hair Dryer in the Tub" and "Caution: Contents Extremely Hot" on a cup of coffee. Duh...

Be careful you don't fall off that high horse of yours...

 

[rosen380]

SPCagigas[/url]":26ze94qg]

JamesBrickley[/url]":26ze94qg]
I spent $15 on a tiny bacon cheeseburger, small fries, and a vanilla milkshake at Five Guys yesterday. The calorie count was so high, I didn't eat dinner 5 hours later nor breakfast the next morning. I could have bought the ingredients myself and fed 5 people for $15 dollars! It would have only cost me 20 minutes of time as well as tasting much better.

Be careful you don't fall off that high horse of yours...

If he was that concerned, he probably would have at least skipped the bacon and shake. I agree they are pricey and high Calorie for a a lunch, so when I do, I'l typically just get the sandwich.

Likewise, knowing that a burrito is a high Calorie item, I ditch the sour cream, guac, and beans and get fajita veggies instead [and I get sofritas rather than meat]. Still not a great low Calorie meal, but also not terrible depending on how you eat the rest of the day.

 

[ten91]

rosen380[/url]":2fi7j8gx]" it was no riskier than carrying the hot coffee from the counter to a table in the restaurant. "

Seriously? You think opening the cup, sitting in a car with the cup between your legs has the same risk as if she had been inside?

Inside it would have been sitting on a table, had it spilled, a bunch of it would have spilled onto the table and then on to the floor, rather than nearly all of it on her lap. Futher, inside she could have pretty quickly gotten the pants off versus in the car where you first have to open the door and step out. As you say, a couple of extra seconds are a big deal.


"The difference is that 190 degrees causes burns in three to seven seconds, and clothing actually holds the hot coffee to your skin. 140 degrees takes a much longer time, and clothing provides sufficient protection."

The link I provided says:
"When tap water reaches 140º F, it can cause a third degree (full thickness) burn in just five seconds."

And part of the case said that her cotton pants absorbed the liquid and held it close to her body which helped make the burns worse.

If 3rd degree burns are going to happen at the point of contact in 3-7 seconds, it doesn't matter if she's in a car or in a booth. It's going to take longer than that either way to get them off and douse with cold water.

 

[rosen380]

ten91[/url]":2dbvk0a8]

rosen380[/url]":2dbvk0a8]" it was no riskier than carrying the hot coffee from the counter to a table in the restaurant. "

Seriously? You think opening the cup, sitting in a car with the cup between your legs has the same risk as if she had been inside?

Inside it would have been sitting on a table, had it spilled, a bunch of it would have spilled onto the table and then on to the floor, rather than nearly all of it on her lap. Futher, inside she could have pretty quickly gotten the pants off versus in the car where you first have to open the door and step out. As you say, a couple of extra seconds are a big deal.


"The difference is that 190 degrees causes burns in three to seven seconds, and clothing actually holds the hot coffee to your skin. 140 degrees takes a much longer time, and clothing provides sufficient protection."

The link I provided says:
"When tap water reaches 140º F, it can cause a third degree (full thickness) burn in just five seconds."

And part of the case said that her cotton pants absorbed the liquid and held it close to her body which helped make the burns worse.

If 3rd degree burns are going to happen at the point of contact in 3-7 seconds, it doesn't matter if she's in a car or in a booth. It's going to take longer than that either way to get them off and douse with cold water.

My point was that in the car with the cup between your legs, you probably just spilled the bulk of the liquid on your lap.

If she was in the restaurant and spilled it walking from the counter to her seat, or at the table, if she managed to get there without spilling it already, I imagine a much larger percentage ends up on the table or floor.

And then tack on in the latter situations she doesn't have to take off her seatbelt, open the car door and climb out on top of that. And that easily shaves off a few more seconds.

 

[ten91]

rosen380[/url]":23e1sywl]

ten91[/url]":23e1sywl]

rosen380[/url]":23e1sywl]" it was no riskier than carrying the hot coffee from the counter to a table in the restaurant. "

Seriously? You think opening the cup, sitting in a car with the cup between your legs has the same risk as if she had been inside?

Inside it would have been sitting on a table, had it spilled, a bunch of it would have spilled onto the table and then on to the floor, rather than nearly all of it on her lap. Futher, inside she could have pretty quickly gotten the pants off versus in the car where you first have to open the door and step out. As you say, a couple of extra seconds are a big deal.


"The difference is that 190 degrees causes burns in three to seven seconds, and clothing actually holds the hot coffee to your skin. 140 degrees takes a much longer time, and clothing provides sufficient protection."

The link I provided says:
"When tap water reaches 140º F, it can cause a third degree (full thickness) burn in just five seconds."

And part of the case said that her cotton pants absorbed the liquid and held it close to her body which helped make the burns worse.

If 3rd degree burns are going to happen at the point of contact in 3-7 seconds, it doesn't matter if she's in a car or in a booth. It's going to take longer than that either way to get them off and douse with cold water.

My point was that in the car with the cup between your legs, you probably just spilled the bulk of the liquid on your lap.

If she was in the restaurant and spilled it walking from the counter to her seat, or at the table, if she managed to get there without spilling it already, I imagine a much larger percentage ends up on the table or floor.

And then tack on in the latter situations she doesn't have to take off her seatbelt, open the car door and climb out on top of that. And that easily shaves off a few more seconds.

A fair enough point. But really it's all about probability and physics. It could potentially have been worse if she had been walking. Imagine if the cup fell towards her while she was carrying it. Rather than just in her lap it could potentially end up covering most of her torso and upper legs. I'd imagine in that case since the material would have had less of a chance to soak in she might not have had such severe burns, but it would be the risk of having it over a larger percentage of her body.

But at the end of the day, the number of drinks they were serving per day at the temperature they were, it's was a statistical probability someone would have gotten severely injured. And McDonald's was put on record as to ignoring that because they were averaging 70 cases a year of various levels of burns to the mouth and hand that they could easily pay off with the money they were earning from just the coffee sales.

 

[rosen380]

FYI- was at Chipotle today and the Chorizo sign is back up with the full burrito Calories listed [rather than presumably the meat only Calorie count].