Is McDonalds Selectively Killing Americans?

[CFLarsen]

Water temperature is crucial to the proper extraction of flavor from the ground coffee. The recommended brewing temperature of coffee is 93 °C (204 °F). Any cooler and some of the solubles that make up the flavor will not be extracted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee_preparation^WP

So, they have to prepare it at 93C. According to the article:

By its own corporate standards, McDonald’s sells coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit.

In real measurements, that's 82-87C. That's as close to freshly brewed as you can expect in a fastfood restaurant.

But, if you want freshly brewed coffee, you have to accept that the coffee is hot enough to burn you. And if you are so careless that, when sitting in a moving car, you place the cup between your legs, you only have yourself to blame if you get hurt.

Sheesh.

 

[luchog]

Sorry, but it is necessary to point out what Steve is doing.

Why is that? Please provide references and citations to support your claims. For once.

 

[CFLarsen]

Why is that? Please provide references and citations to support your claims.

Read post #66, #74, and #89 in this very thread.

For once.

Quick, nastly quips like these only works if there's truth to them. As evidenced, there is not. It only diminishes your own credibility by spreading lies like that.

Oh, well. I suppose you have your own agenda.

 

[luchog]

Read post #66, #74, and #89 in this very thread.

A few vague references, only one of which is adequately supported.

Quick, nastly quips like these only works if there's truth to them. As evidenced, there is not. It only diminishes your own credibility by spreading lies like that.

Yet you seem to like them so much, unless it's someone else doing it.

Oh, well. I suppose you have your own agenda.

Yup. Holding certain posters to the ridiculous standards that they demand from others. Despite the fact that it's clearly futile troll-feeding.

 

[CFLarsen]

A few vague references, only one of which is adequately supported.

O....K. I can only show you the evidence. I can't make you accept it. Your loss.

Yet you seem to like them so much, unless it's someone else doing it.

Drive-by attacks don't work, unless you have ammunition. Evidently, you haven't. And I think you know it, too.

Yup. Holding certain posters to the ridiculous standards that they demand from others. Despite the fact that it's clearly futile troll-feeding.

If you think I'm a troll, who's the bigger fool? The troll or the one who feeds him?

Ah, well. You seem like a very vitriolic person to me, with nothing to offer than bile. Not productive at all.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...But, if you want freshly brewed coffee, you have to accept that the coffee is hot enough to burn you. And if you are so careless that, when sitting in a moving car, you place the cup between your legs, you only have yourself to blame if you get hurt.

Sheesh.

I certainly hope you read all of the site I linked to; the answers are clear as a bell.

McDonald's had been in the wrong prior to the lawsuit in question. They were finally persuaded to alter their dangerous and unnecessary practice by pretty much the only way a corportation at their level can be: a punitive assessment.

 

[CFLarsen]

I certainly hope you read all of the site I linked to; the answers are clear as a bell.

McDonald's had been in the wrong prior to the lawsuit in question. They were finally persuaded to alter their dangerous and unnecessary practice by pretty much the only way a corportation at their level can be: a punitive assessment.

I read it.

They serve freshly made coffee.

Freshly made coffee is hot.

What am I missing? What did they do "wrong"?

 

[hgc]

I read it.

They serve freshly made coffee.

Freshly made coffee is hot.

What am I missing? What did they do "wrong"?

"Hot" is a non-specific term that covers a wide range of temperatures. But then that's so obvious a ten-year old child could have figured it out. Why are you being willfully obtuse?

 

[CFLarsen]

"Hot" is a non-specific term that covers a wide range of temperatures. But then that's so obvious a ten-year old child could have figured it out. Why are you being willfully obtuse?

I'm not. Because we are not talking about a wide range of temperatures. We are talking about hot coffee. And hot coffee has to be made at a narrow range of temperatures.

A few degrees too hot, and it's bitter. A few degrees too cold, and it's not even coffee.

How can anyone expect their hot coffee not to be...well, hot?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Here's another brief review of the case.

What did they [McDonald's] do wrong?

• Served coffee 20 degrees above the industry standard.
• The Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, according to a McDonald's quality assurance manager who testified in the case. (A rewording of content in the above link.)
• The company knew there was a problem in this matter, due to over 700 similar cases.
• Ignored a request from the plaintiff for compensation for medical bills incurred by the accident, thereby prompting the lawsuit.

A jury of six men and six women found against McDonald's. The punitive award to the plaintiff was $2.7 million which, upon appeal, was lowered to $480,000 by the judge.

 

[roger]

Claus, you are confusing preparation temperature with serving temperature. Coffee indeed needs to be brewed with water right around 200 degrees if you want proper extraction. That does not mean that coffee needs to be served at that temperature, or at 185, McDonald's settings. In a typical espresso pour, the incoming water is around 200, the puck is already 10 degrees below that, and by the time it hits the cup it's around 185. the cup cools it further and by serving time it's more in the 150-160 range. Liquids start getting painfully hot at 140 or so, easily confirmed with a few experiments in your kitchen with some water and a thermometer. McDonalds was serving at at least 20 degrees above industry standard temperatures for serving coffee. Don't introduce the irrelevant issue of preparation temperature.

ETA: woks run over 500 degrees. We don't expect our chinese food to be served to us at 500 degrees.

 

[CFLarsen]

Here's another brief review of the case.

Served coffee 20 degrees above the industry standard.

Gee, they rush to get their customers their coffee at a temperature that will ensure that the customers don't get lukewarm coffee.

Gee. I'm offended.

The Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, according to a McDonald's quality assurance manager who testified in the case. (A rewording of content in the above link.)

Okie doke. Please state the right temperature to serve coffee.

The company knew there was a problem in this matter, due to over 700 similar cases.

Out of how many millions cups of coffee sold? Sheesh, people drinking hot beverages will spill them. Klutzes exist, just ask Nixon. I'm one of them, but I don't go around sueing other people for my clumsiness.

Ignored a request from the plaintiff for compensation for medical bills incurred by the accident, thereby prompting the lawsuit.

Again, you put a beverage you know is very hot between your thighs when riding in a car that can bump anytime is not a valid reason to claim innocence.

A jury of six men and six women found against McDonald's. The punitive award to the plaintiff was $2.7 million which, upon appeal, was lowered to $480,000 by the judge.

Lawsuits determine reality now? Want to talk about O.J.? Gee, he's innocent, isn't he? The Monkey Trial determined that Evolution is bunk?

Claus, you are confusing preparation temperature with serving temperature. Coffee indeed needs to be brewed with water right around 200 degrees if you want proper extraction. That does not mean that coffee needs to be served at that temperature, or at 185, McDonald's settings. In a typical espresso pour, the incoming water is around 200, the puck is already 10 degrees below that, and by the time it hits the cup it's around 185. the cup cools it further and by serving time it's more in the 150-160 range. Liquids start getting painfully hot at 140 or so, easily confirmed with a few experiments in your kitchen with some water and a thermometer. McDonalds was serving at at least 20 degrees above industry standard temperatures for serving coffee. Don't introduce the irrelevant issue of preparation temperature.

ETA: woks run over 500 degrees. We don't expect our chinese food to be served to us at 500 degrees.

I'm not confusing preparation temperature with serving temperature. I acknowledged that there will be a drop in temperature between the time of preparation and the time of serving. But who wants coffee that is lukewarm?

Hands up, anyone?

I need to see the precise acceptable serving temperature, before I will acknowledge the verdict of this case. Otherwise, we are merely shooting bull here.

 

[roger]

I'm not confusing preparation temperature with serving temperature. I acknowledged that there will be a drop in temperature between the time of preparation and the time of serving. But who wants coffee that is lukewarm?

Hands up, anyone?

I need to see the precise acceptable serving temperature, before I will acknowledge the verdict of this case. Otherwise, we are merely shooting bull here.

Strawman. No one is calling for lukewarm coffee. We are calling for 165 degree coffee. However, I'm glad you've acknowledged that your strawman about preparation temperature was entirely irrelevant.

You've been giving numbers. Mcdonald's served at 185. Industry standard is 20 degrees lower. We have evidence, via this case and 700 others, that 185 causes bodily harm.

Also, 185 was found, via lawsuits, to be an unacceptable serving temperature.

 

[hgc]

...
Lawsuits determine reality now? Want to talk about O.J.? Gee, he's innocent, isn't he? The Monkey Trial determined that Evolution is bunk?
...

O.J. was found liable in civil suit. Scopes trial was a criminal case. Furthermore, Scopes jury punished him with $100 fine, acknowleging law was violated but practicing a slight form of jury nullification. You might want to get better examples.

 

[CFLarsen]

Strawman. No one is calling for lukewarm coffee. We are calling for 165 degree coffee. However, I'm glad you've acknowledged that your strawman about preparation temperature was entirely irrelevant.

As I pointed out, preparation temperature is different from serving temperature.

You've been giving numbers. Mcdonald's served at 185. Industry standard is 20 degrees lower.

Who determines what is "industry standard"? The industry itself?

We have evidence, via this case and 700 others, that 185 causes bodily harm.

Eating BigMacs causes bodily harm. Heck, the only food that doesn't cause bodily harm is broccoli (if memory serves me right), but who wants to live on that?

We are not talking about the product itself here. It's how you, as a discriminate consumer, handle it. If you don't agree, then you have to file lawsuits against car companies, if one of your family gets killed in a car crash. You'll have to sue gun companies, if one of your family is shot.

Also, 185 was found, via lawsuits, to be an unacceptable serving temperature.

So, lawsuits determine reality?

Just yes or no. Please.

 

[roger]

Here we have Bunn stating a preferred serving temperature of 155-175, based on flavor:

http://www.bunnomatic.com/pages/coffeebasics/cb6holding.html

Here we have a second source quote from the Shriner's Burn institue in Cincinatti that serving beverages above 130 risks serious scalds (unfortunately no cite is provided):
http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm

For the record I have consumed a lot of coffee in my life, and spilled my fair share of it on myself. I have only been scalded by McDonald's coffee (in my memory). It's dangerously hot. So is, I suppose a cheese pizza fresh out of the oven. The question is, what temperature do we think coffee should be served at? I don't see the point in serving coffee at a temperature that will actually damage your tongue, since it is so easy to serve at a lower temperature.

 

[roger]

So, lawsuits determine reality?

Just yes or no. Please.

So have you stopped beating your wife.

Just yes or no. Please.



-------------------
Lawsuits , specifically torts, sometimes determine what we as a society find acceptable. They do not "determine reality". They determine what is acceptable. Stop with the strawman, please.

 

[CFLarsen]

O.J. was found liable in civil suit.

I'm not talking about civil suits. I am talking about criminal suits. Was he guilty of killing Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, yes or no?

Scopes trial was a criminal case.

Furthermore, Scopes jury punished him with $100 fine, acknowleging law was violated but practicing a slight form of jury nullification. You might want to get better examples.

Which is why you have to state, right here, right now: Did the Scopes Trial determine reality? Yes or no, please.

 

[CFLarsen]

Lawsuits , specifically torts, sometimes determine what we as a society find acceptable. They do not "determine reality". They determine what is acceptable. Stop with the strawman, please.

Ahhhh......

So, the McD case did not determine reality.

I'm a little fuzzy here, so could you please explain to me why McDonald's should pay for something that was clearly the customer's fault?

 

[hgc]

I'm not talking about civil suits. I am talking about criminal suits. Was he guilty of killing Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, yes or no?

Why are you talking about criminal cases? Was the McDonald's case a criminal case.

Which is why you have to state, right here, right now: Did the Scopes Trial determine reality? Yes or no, please.

This is the point where I regret getting into a ridiculous pissing match with the likes of you. If you think that I'm going to state that juries determine absolute reality, of course I won't. But the nature of the criminal and civil procedure is that the finder of fact (either jury or judge) gets to find the facts in the eyes of the law. That is no mere tautology, but my way of saying that the determination of existential reality is not at issue, but just a legal finding. You can agree or disagree with a jury's decision based on your judgement. This is all beside the point.

I believe that Regnad's point about the jury was that they listened to the entirety of the evidence and arguments, and came to their conclusion, while those of us informed by the media have a surface-level understanding of the case. They can still be wrong, according to your judgement, but then you might want to have facts at hand, such as those presented to you here already.