Comments on: McDonald’s and Hot Coffee http://indessed.com/roscivs/2007/04/15/mcdonalds-and-hot-coffee/ a little poison now and then, that makes for pleasant dreams Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:43:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: roscivs http://indessed.com/roscivs/2007/04/15/mcdonalds-and-hot-coffee/#comment-40 roscivs Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:54:39 +0000 http://indessed.com/roscivs/2007/04/15/mcdonalds-and-hot-coffee/#comment-40 I agree that the tone was a little over the top, and focused more on more debatable points of the case than I would have liked. In any case, I think the problem lies entirely with the people silly enough to order 200-degree beverages and then drive like maniacs. Oh, and the reason I've seen cited for that temperature is simply because it makes the coffee taste better. Something about releasing more of the flavor from the grounds. (I'm obviously not a coffee connoisseur.) I agree that the tone was a little over the top, and focused more on more debatable points of the case than I would have liked.

In any case, I think the problem lies entirely with the people silly enough to order 200-degree beverages and then drive like maniacs.

Oh, and the reason I’ve seen cited for that temperature is simply because it makes the coffee taste better. Something about releasing more of the flavor from the grounds. (I’m obviously not a coffee connoisseur.)

]]> By: Jacob Lewis http://indessed.com/roscivs/2007/04/15/mcdonalds-and-hot-coffee/#comment-39 Jacob Lewis Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:49:06 +0000 http://indessed.com/roscivs/2007/04/15/mcdonalds-and-hot-coffee/#comment-39 While I don't disagree with you, I do disagree with the tone of the blog to which you linked; I also have a nagging question that no-one seems to want to answer. First, common sense isn't the property of any "wing" of our extremely narrow electorate; one can be pretty far to the left and still see that this is frivolous (she did, after all, defy common sense by sitting in a puddle of scalding coffee for over 90 seconds). However, neither you nor the source you cited nor the sources they cared to cite explained <i>why</i> the "industry standard" is 170-200 degrees Fahrenheit. Is it to make "better coffee"? Is it to "maximize the flavor"? Probably not; as you point out, iced coffee is a big thing now. Also, note this: Ms. Liebeck was the only one of 13 cases of scalding to succeed, yet she gets blasted for having succeeded. Clearly there was a problem to some degree (pun slightly intended) with the cups, or the coffee itself, or the fact that people are silly enough to order 200-degree beverages and then get on the 50mph-minimum expressway and drive like maniacs. While I don’t disagree with you, I do disagree with the tone of the blog to which you linked; I also have a nagging question that no-one seems to want to answer. First, common sense isn’t the property of any “wing” of our extremely narrow electorate; one can be pretty far to the left and still see that this is frivolous (she did, after all, defy common sense by sitting in a puddle of scalding coffee for over 90 seconds). However, neither you nor the source you cited nor the sources they cared to cite explained why the “industry standard” is 170-200 degrees Fahrenheit. Is it to make “better coffee”? Is it to “maximize the flavor”? Probably not; as you point out, iced coffee is a big thing now.

Also, note this: Ms. Liebeck was the only one of 13 cases of scalding to succeed, yet she gets blasted for having succeeded. Clearly there was a problem to some degree (pun slightly intended) with the cups, or the coffee itself, or the fact that people are silly enough to order 200-degree beverages and then get on the 50mph-minimum expressway and drive like maniacs.

]]>