I didn't read the whole article but I do remember from my time at coffee shops that many locales have legal limits as to how hot coffee can be. The board of health inspector would measure it when inspecting the restaurant. If there was such a limit, and ours was way below "third degree burn" land, that would make McDonald's liable no matter what.
180 degree coffee like that McDonald’s served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds (as a reference, the boiling point of water is 212 degrees Fahrenheit). Lowering the temperature to 160 degrees Fahrenheit would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds.
"Way below" has to mean even below 160, meaning you guys sold what would most likely be called "warm" coffee, or to a coffee lover, "cold" coffee. Or else you have no idea what he was actually measuring for and the parameters that temperature reading had to be within.
Coffee should be served, hot, yet cool enough to SIP. Hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns, require SKIN GRAFTING is not "cool enough to sip". So I support any "frivolity" that forces corporations to act responsibly.
The National Coffee Association instructs that coffee be brewed "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and consumed "immediately". If not consumed immediately, the coffee is to be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit."
Using the timeframes above in the response to Chad, and the recommendation of temperatures by the National Coffee Association, your assertion that it needs to be hot, but "cool enough" to sip have been met.
You're confusing "having a liquid sit against your skin for longer than the amount stated would cause third-degree burns requiring skin grafts" with "she spilled it on herself and instantly got third-degree burns".
There's no POSSIBLE method - none, zip, zero, nada - that exists on this earth for coffee to be BOTH "hot" and "cool enough to sip" that will not produce third-degree burns when left to sit on your skin. Note the temperature given above - 160 will STILL cause third degree burns, and at a rate of time that is less than the lady stated the coffee was held against her skin by her clothes.
By definition, your expectation of a hot product being BOTH "hot" and "cool enough" are unreasonable, considering the method by which she got burned. Her burns had everything to do with the fact that a hot liquid came into contact with her skin, and was held against her skin for a period of time well in excess of that required to be scalded.
If your expectation of a corporation's "responsible actions" were to be met, McDonald's warning on their coffee cups would have to read as follows: Warning: hot liquid inside. Do not insert areas of bare skin into liquid or burning may occur. If spilling occurs on absorbent clothing, remove all clothing immediately or burning may occur. Do not drink until temperature of liquid is lowered to "hot, but not TOO hot".
Unreasonable.
I'm all for personal responsibility, but 180F is a bit hot to be serving coffee.
Not according to those who have a vested interest in making sure the product for which they are spokespersons for (the national coffee council or whoever the heck they are) would state. In fact, they specifically DISagree with your assessment, and that temperature is the MINIMUM at which the coffee should be HELD! Your own home coffee brewer more than likely brews your coffee at around that temperature as well, in spite of what Jimbo has to say about it. It's the recommended procedure, making it a matter of personal responsibility if you drink the stuff. We diddle with anodes on our monitors. Not the safest of procedures, but not UNsafe, either. Should you undertake such a procedure, it can be done safely, but there is an inherent risk in enjoying such things, and you do so at your own risk.
I bet the temp has something to do with bacteria levels in the pot. That was usually one of the determinants for us. Sitting warm liquid gathers bacteria very very fast.
Having been forced to take (and pass) a food safety certification course, I feel comfortable stating it has absolutely zero to do with bacteria levels in the pot. The temperature range at which bacteria are an issue is between 40-140. Below 40, they pose no danger, and above 140, they are killed off. Also, coffee that would be at 140 would be slightly more than the temperature of the hottest water that comes out of your faucet at home (somewhere in the 120-130 range, depending on what you've set it at). People might be tempted to throw it in the server's face to demonstrate just HOW cold they thought the coffee was (okay, maybe not, but that'd be "cold" to even ME, and I'm not a fan of coffee UNLESS it's cold!)
Standard temperatures for food to be held at in restaurants are around the 160 range so that they remain above 140 when served. Health inspectors will generally note their warning if your holding temperatures come close to that temp (usually between 142-145), but won't dock you any points on your inspection.
What I can't imagine being accurate, though, is that bit about the profit McDonalds makes on coffee in a day. Surely you must have meant in one year or something else. She was originally awarded $300 million dollars. You can't possibly believe that McDonald's makes $109 billion profit, per year, just on coffee sales. Hell, Starbucks doesn't make that kind of profit on coffee!
Coffee is the top profit item on any restaurant's menu. If they brew their own tea, that is usually second. The reasoning is simple. You use a small amount of an ingredient to create a large amount of that product. Coffee is simply ground coffee and water, and the mix means coffee is the most profitable item on their menu. They pay practically NOTHING to make an entire pot, then turn around and sell it for eleventy brazillion times that amount.
Starbucks doesn't make that kind of profit because they don't come close to approaching the sheer size of McD's. I'm kinda surprised you threw that out there shmokes.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
Send this topic
Print
Topic: i have a new understanding of the mcdonalds coffee case now (Read 8953 times)
