Caffeine

Caffeine (pronounced ka-feen, kaf-een or kaf-ee-in)

A white, crystalline, bitter alkaloid with the chemical compound C8H10N4O2.

1830: From the French caféine, the construct being café (coffee) + ine (the chemical suffix).  The earlier German was kaffein, from kaffee (coffee); the adjective is caffeinic.  Technically, caffeine is a trimethyl-derivative of xanthine, a coining as Kaffein in 1830, from German Kaffein, by German analytical chemist Friedlieb Ferdinand Runge (1794–1867).  He chose the name because the alkaloid was found in coffee beans; its presence accounting for the stimulating effect of coffee and tea.  The noun caffeinism was coined as medical jargon in 1880 to describe the "morbid state produced by prolonged or excessive exposure to caffeine" although the condition had for centuries been noted by doctors and others.  The existence of the adjective nondecaffeinated (not decaffeinated) is explained by the use in technical documents where its necessary to distinguish between substances which have been decaffeinated (had the caffeine removed) and those not so treated.  Caffeine, caffeinism & caffeinator are nouns, caffeinating, caffeinate & decafinate are verbs, caffeinated is a verb & adjective; the noun plural is caffeines.

Of coffee

Caffeine's molecular structure.

Methyltheobromine (or caffeine) is a central nervous system stimulant and the most widely consumed psychoactive drug which works, inter alia, by reversibly blocking the action of adenosine on its receptor and consequently prevents the onset of adenosine-induced drowsiness.  Caffeine is a bitter, white crystalline purine, a methylxanthine alkaloid, chemically related to the adenine and guanine bases of DNA and ribonucleic acid RNA.

Human caffeine consumption is said to date from circa 3000 BC when, according to Chinese legend, the mythological Emperor Shennong (Divine Farmer) serendipitously invented tea, a story derived from an early book on the history of tea.  Coffee drinking first became common in the mid-fifteenth century in the Sufi monasteries of Yemenin Arabia and it spread first to North Africa and by the sixteenth century was widely consumed throughout the Middle East, Persia and Asia Minor.  The first European coffee houses were in Italy and they soon became common throughout the continent.

Voltaire (1760) by Théodore Gardelle (1722–1761); he doubtlessly agreed with de Fontenelle.

In its pure form, caffeine can be fatal in tiny quantities although in the form usually enjoyed, coffee, one would need to drink over a hundred cups in a day to approach toxicity.  Voltaire (1694–1778), often at the Café de Procope in Paris, drank sometimes as many as forty cups a day, enjoying it so much he ignored the advice of his doctors to stop.  He lived to eighty-four but there’s no evidence the often attributed quotation: “It may be poison, but I have been drinking it for sixty-five years, and I am not dead yet” was his.  The more likely source is French author Bernard Le Bovier de Fontenelle (1657–1757) whose actual words were: “I think it must be [a slow poison], for I’ve been drinking it for eighty-five years and am not dead yet.”   Fontenelle died a month short of his hundredth birthday.

Depiction of seventeenth century London coffee house.

Whatever the concern about coffee the drink, the coffee house the place attracted its own concerns.  There’s some evidence coffee houses were welcomed by the authorities when first they became popular in seventeenth century London because they seemed a desirable alternative to the ale house where men would drink beer and later gin, leading to all the notorious social ills.  However, it seemed soon to kings and ministers that while having drunken men brawl or beat their wives was hardly good, it was a more manageable problem than having them cluster, share the newly available cheap newspapers and pamphlets, talk and think.  Men taking and thinking might lead to them getting ideas which was worse than them fighting in the street and government made repeated attempts to suppress the coffee shops.  Ultimately, caffeine prevailed.

Johann Sebastian Bach (circa 1760) by Johann Eberhard Ihle (1727–1814).

On the continent, the Habsburgs were no more impressed than the Stuarts in England, the government there encouraging the idea of coffee was a subversive societal vice and there was something of a minor moral panic among good citizens disturbed at the corrupting influences of such places.  This didn’t amuse a German composer famously associated with the late Baroque, JS Bach (1685–1750) who was fond of taking his frequent shots in his favorite coffee shops and, although never noted for his light-heartedness, he took an amusing poem mocking the public’s concerns, written by his frequent collaborator Christian Friedrich Henrici (1700–1764; pen name Picander), and set it to music as Schweigt stille, plaudert nicht (Be still, stop chattering).  Composed between 1732-1735, it’s usually called the Coffee Cantata, although, it’s really a comic operetta.  A satirical commentary, the work makes fun of the concerns respectable folk had about coffee and coffee houses.  In Vienna as in London, caffeine triumphed.

Despite the joys of a Bach cantata and the persuasive (if misattributed) endorsement of Voltaire, the killjoy editors of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) weren’t sure ordinary folk could be trusted to decide how many cups of coffee daily to enjoy and declared more research was needed.  They often conclude more research is needed.  Strangely, the DSM’s editors appear to be less trusting than most clergy, caffeine a drug to which even normally condemnatory priests, rabbis and mullahs don’t object, the only famously abstemious among the major faiths being the Church of Latter-Day Saints (the Mormons), the Seventh-Day Adventists and the Rastafarians, the last perhaps a surprise given how well a long black complements some good weed.

Simple pleasure: the long black.

Widely consumed, caffeine is a psychoactive drug which produces its psychomotor stimulant and reinforcing effects through antagonism at adenosine receptors and indirect effects on dopaminergic neurotransmission.  The editors of DSM-5 (2013) were prepared to concede consumption of caffeine at recommended dietary doses is usually at least harmless and may even have some benefits such as the enhancement of analgesia but do caution some may experience caffeine-related health effects and functional impairment and that this can manifest in different people at different levels of consumption.  Higher doses can produce dysphoric subjective effects and caffeine intoxication, including restlessness, nervousness, insomnia and an irregular heartbeat.  It’s also associated in some with gastrointestinal problems, urinary incontinence and anxiety, use during pregnancy said to be associated with especially poor outcomes.

Lindsay Lohan with coffee, leaving Coffee Bean, Los Angeles, December 2007.

Cold turkey may not be the solution either, the editors documenting withdrawal symptoms which some may experience if abruptly discontinuing regular use, including headaches, fatigue, irritability, a depressed mood, difficulty concentrating, and even flu-like symptoms, the DSM-5 codifying the conditions as (1) caffeine intoxication, (2) caffeine withdrawal, (3) caffeine-induced anxiety disorder and (4), caffeine-induced insomnia.  These are listed as the potential diagnoses when symptoms cause clinically significant distress or impairment and, because some individuals report an inability to reduce their consumption despite clinically significant problems even after seeking treatment, caffeine consumption can be said to lead to substance dependence.

Caffeine is an essential part of the recommended pro ana breakfast.

Thus the DSM-5 proposed three necessary diagnostic criteria for caffeine use disorder: (1) a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to reduce or control caffeine use, (2) continued caffeine use despite knowledge of (it’s not specified if an explicit acknowledgment is needed) having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by caffeine and (3), withdrawal, as manifested by the characteristic withdrawal syndrome for caffeine, or caffeine or a closely related substance being taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms. Six additional diagnostic criteria included in other substance use disorders, such as craving, tolerance, and taking caffeine in larger amounts or over a longer period of time than intended, were also included as markers for greater severity beyond the three key criteria for caffeine use disorder.  Because caffeine is so widely consumed, to reduce any potential for over-diagnosis, the proposed diagnostic strategy for caffeine, despite sounding onerous, is actually more conservative than for other substances.

Red Bull girls.  One can see the attraction of energy drinks.

The editors did note the paucity of data relating to the prevalence and clinical significance of caffeine use disorder and the suspicion is the interest may have been triggered not the usual suspect, coffee, but the newer generation of energy drinks and diet supplements.  Previous research was apparently too focused on specific, small-subsets rather than the general populations, some of the studies so specialized as to be thought unrepresentative of the general population.  One (very small) study of caffeine use disorder in the United States (reported in the DSM-IV (1994)) found that 30% of caffeine consumers fulfilled the generic DSM-IV criteria for substance dependence as applied to caffeine but this fell to 10% under (the supposedly more realistic) DSM-5 criteria, a hint the concerns of clinical over-diagnosis do need to be taken seriously.  Again, the point was made that more research is required, the extent to which caffeine use disorder is associated with markers of clinical significance such as self-reported caffeine-related distress or impairment, psychological distress, sleep problems, or other drug use is wholly unknown.

The documented study the editors reviewed was the most thorough evaluation yet conducted of the prevalence, clinical significance and correlates of meeting proposed criteria for caffeine use disorder yet it was extensive enough only to inform future research and considerations regarding risk and differential diagnosis, technical points about the parameters of control group populations especially noted.  Despite the apparent lack of robustness, the editors were persuaded the findings did support the inclusion of caffeine use disorder in future editions of the DSM.  Although only a small percentage of sampled caffeine consumers met the proposed key diagnostic criteria, where the standards were met, there were clinically meaningful effects.

All reputable authorities recommend a caffeine intake of not more than 400 mg a day, or two long black coffees.  Many coffee fiends exceed this before breakfast is over.

Caffeine has become more interesting as a drug because of the late twentieth-century phenomenon of the energy drink, the interest not so much in the caffeine content which, can be much more or much less than a cup of coffee but because the pattern of consumption is, in certain sub-groups, so associated with strong alcohol, often on a 1:1 (ie 30-60 ml spirits to 250 ml energy drink) basis, a pattern well known with long-established mixers like Coca-Cola but now in both much greater volume and a much higher caffeine content.  It’s difficult to tell whether a problem has emerged because while the deaths associated with the combination attract attention, the aggregate numbers, impressionistically, seem small and may not be statistically significant.  There's even been the suggestion extreme variations in ambient temperature may have been an at least contributory factor in some deaths.

Caffeine addiction is one of humanity’s most widespread vices and it extends to those driving cars.  In famous tort case, Stella Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, P.T.S., Inc. and McDonald's International, Inc (1994 Extra LEXIS 23 (Bernalillo County, N.M. Dist. Ct. 1994), 1995 WL 360309 (Bernalillo County, N.M. Dist. Ct. 1994), a passenger in a car (a 1989 model with no cup holders) received severe burns from spilled coffee, just purchased from a McDonald’s drive-through.  Although the matter received much publicity on the basis it was absurd to be able to sue for being burned by spilling what was known by all to be “hot” and the case came to be cited as an example of “frivolous” litigation, there were technical reasons why some liability should have been ascribed to McDonalds.  The jury awarded some US$2.6 million in damages although this was, on appeal, reduced to US640,000 and the matter was settled out of court before a further appeal.

Hertella Auto Kaffeemachine, 1959.

In the twenty-first century, some now judge cars on the basis of the count, capacity & convenience of its cup-holders but in the less regulated environment of the FRG (Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany; the old West Germany, 1949-1990) of 1959, one company anticipated the future trend by offering a dashboard-mounted coffee maker for the Volkswagen Type 1 (better known as “the Beetle”).  The Hertella Auto Kaffeemachine was not a success, presumably because even those not familiar with Sir Isaac Newton's (1642–1727) First Law of Motion (known also as the Law of Inertia: “An object at rest will remain at rest, and an object in motion will continue in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced external force”) could visualise the odd WCS (worst case scenario).

A happy caffeine addict, pouring himself a cup of coffee in his Volkswagen Beetle.

That it was in 1959 available in 6v & 12v versions is an indication Hertella may have envisaged a wider market because VW didn’t offer a 12v system as an option until 1963 (the range-wide upgrade to 12v introduced for the 1967 models and phased in between August-September 1966) and the company seems to have given some thought to Newtonian physics, the supplied porcelain cups fitted at the base with a disc of magnetic metal which provided some resistance to movement although the liquid obviously moved as the forces were applied.  The apparatus was mounted with a detachable bracket, permitting the pot to be removed for cleaning.  The quality of the coffee was probably not outstanding because there’s no percolation; the coffee added in a double-layer screen and “brewed” on much the same basis as one would tea-leaves and for those who value quality, a thermos-flask would have been a better choice but there would have been caffeine addicts willing to try the device.  The trouble was there clearly weren’t many of them and even in the FRG of the Wirtschaftswunder (the post war “economic miracle”) the fairly high price would have deterred many although now, one in perfect condition (especially if accompanied by the precious documents or packaging) would command a price well over US$1000.

Soda

Soda (pronounced soh-duh)

(1) In science and industry, a common verbal shorthand for various simple inorganic compounds of sodium (sodium carbonate (washing soda), sodium bicarbonate (baking soda), and sodium hydroxide (caustic soda) etc).

(2) A common clipping of soda water.

(3) A fizzy drink made with carbonated water (water impregnated with pressurized carbon dioxide, originally made with sodium bicarbonate), flavoring (such as fruit or other syrups) and often ice cream, milk etc (once exclusively North American use, now more common); a shortening of the original "soda-pop".

(4) In the game of faro, the top card in the pack, discarded at the start, the game played with 51 cards.

(5) In Australian slang, something easily done (obsolete).

1490s:  From the Italian sida (sodium carbonate; an alkaline substance extracted from certain ashes), from the Medieval Latin soda (a kind of saltwort (sodanum barilla; a plant burned to obtain a type of sodium carbonate)) of uncertain origin.  It was once thought to have been from the Arabic suwwādah (a similar type of plant) but this is now discounted by most but may be from the Catalan sosa, first noted in the late thirteenth century.  There is also the speculative suggestion there may be some connection with the Medieval Latin sodanum (a headache remedy), ultimately from the Arabic suda (splitting headache).

Soda is found naturally in alkaline lakes, in deposits where such lakes have dried, and from ash produced by burning various plants close to sources of salt-water.  It was one of the most traded commodities in the medieval Mediterranean and manufacture of it at industrial scale began in France in the late eighteenth century and the smaller operations gradually closed as transportation links improved.  .  The metallic alkaline element sodium was named in 1807 by English chemist Humphry Davy (1778-1829), so called because the element was isolated from caustic soda (sodium hydroxide); the chemical symbol Na is from natrium, the alternative name for the element proposed by Swedish chemist Jöns Jacob Berzelius (1779–1848) from natron (a naturally occurring mixture of sodium carbonate decahydrate (Na₂CO₃·10H₂O).

A "soda spiral".

The soda-cracker, first sold in 1863, has baking soda as an ingredient.  Although modern, commercially bottled soda water now rarely contains soda (in any form), the name is a hangover from 1802 when “soda water” was first used to describe water into which carbonic acid had been forced under pressure, the meaning “"carbonated water" dating from 1834.  In the mid-nineteenth century, it became popular to flavor soda water with various sweetened concoctions (typically fruits rendered with sugar syrup) and after 1863 these were often called soda pop, the clipping “soda” (flavored, sweetened soda water) the most common use of the word in North America (it quickly supplanted “pop”, one of the occasions where a two-syllable slang was preferred over a shorter form).  The soda fountain dates from 1824 and originally described a counter in a shop at which sodas, ice-creams etc were prepared and served; later it was used of the self-serve machines which dispensed fizzy drinks at the push of a button.  Someone employed to run such a counter was described first (1883) as soda-jerker, the slang clipped to soda-jerk in 1915.  The colloquial pronunciation sody was noted in US Midwestern use at the turn of the twentieth century.  Synonyms for the drink includes: carbonated drink, fizzy drink, fizz (UK), (fizzy) pop (Northern US, Canada), soda pop (US), soft drink, lemonade and (the colloquial) thirst-buster.

The extraordinary range of derived terms (technical & commercial) includes: soda glass, Club Soda, cream soda, Creaming Soda, ice-cream soda, muriate of soda, nitrate of soda, soda-acid, soda ash, soda biscuit, soda cracker, soda bread, soda cellulose, soda counter, soda fountain, sodaic, soda jerk, soda jerker, soda lake, soda-lime glass, sodalite, soda lye, sodamide, soda niter, soda nitre, diet soda, soda paper, soda pop, lite soda, soda prairie, ginger soda, soda process, soda pulp, soda siphon, Soda Springs, soda waste, soda water, sodium, sulfate of soda, sulphate of soda, sulfite of soda, sulphite of soda, washing soda, baking soda & caustic soda.

The Soda Geyser Car.

For girls and boys who wish to explore the possibilities offered by the chemical reaction between soda and Mentos®, the Soda Geyser Car is available for US$22.95, offering both amusement and over a dozen experiments with which to demonstrate Newton's laws of motion.  In its default configuration it will travel over 200' (60 m) (the warning label cautioning it's not suitable for those aged under three and that it may upset pet cats etc) but for those who want more, it's possible to concoct more potent fuels, a recipe for the ominous sounding “Depth Charger” included.  Tinkerers can adapt this technology to experiment with their own rockets and the kit includes:

Mentos® Soda Car
Turbo Geyser Tube.
Roll of Mentos®
2 Liter Bottle.
Inflation Needle.
Nose Cone.
Geyser Rocker Car Frame.
Flagpole.
Decals.
Velcro Straps.
Experiment and activity guide.

Dirty Soda

The Doctrine and Covenants (the D&C (1835)) and usually referred to as the Word of Wisdom) is the scriptural canon of the Church of the Latter Day Saints (the Mormons), section 89 of which provides dietary guidelines which prohibit, inter-alia, the consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and hot drinks (ie tea & coffee).  This index of forbidden food accounts not only for why noted Mormon Mitt Romney usually looks so miserable but also why manufacturers of chocolate, candy & soda have long found Utah a receptive and lucrative market; other than joyful singing, the sugary treats are among their few orally enjoyed pleasures.

It therefore surprised few that it was between two Utah-based operations that law suits were exchanged over which owned the right to sell “dirty sodas”.  Mormons aren’t allowed to do anything “dirty” (though it's rumored some do) so the stakes obviously were high, a dirty soda as close to sinfulness as a reading of the D&C will seem to permit.  A dirty soda is a soda flavored with “spikes” of cream, milk, fruit purees or syrups and is a kind of alcohol-free mocktail and the soda shops Sodalicious and Swig had both been active promoters of the sugary concept which had proven increasingly profitable.

Mitt Romney (b 1947; Republican nominee in the 2012 US presidential election, US senator (Republican-Utah) since 2019), buying 12-packs of Caffeine Free Diet Coke and Wild Cherry Diet Pepsi, Hunter's Shop and Save, Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, August 2012.  Mitt knows how to have a good time.

In documents filed in court in 2015, Swig had accused Sodalicious of copying their trademarked “dirty” idea, even replicating the frosted sugar cookies sold alongside the spiked drinks.  Both shops had become well-known for their soda mixology, Swig’s concoctions including the Tiny Turtle (Sprite spiked with green apple and banana flavors) and the company sought damages and a restraining order, preventing Sodalicious from using descriptions or signage with any similarity to Swig’s.  Sodalicious counter-sued, claiming “dirty” is a longtime moniker for martinis and other cocktails, noting the product differentiation in their names for dirty sodas such as “The Second Wife” (a daring allusion to the polygamous past of the Mormons) and the “The Rocky Mountain High”, made by adding cherry and coconut caffeine-free Cola.  The case concluded with an out-of-court settlement, neither side seeking costs and no details of the terms were revealed.

Long time Pepsi consumer, Lindsay Lohan.

In December 2022, as a holiday season promotion, the Pepsi Corporation teamed with Lindsay Lohan to promote Pilk.  A Pilk is a mix of Pepsi Cola and milk, one of a class of dirty sodas created by PepsiCo which includes the Naughty & Ice, the Chocolate Extreme, the Cherry on Top, the Snow Float and the Nutty Cracker.  All are intended to be served with cookies (biscuits) and although Ms Lohan confessed to being “…a bit skeptical when I first heard of this pairing”, she was quickly converted, noting that “…after my first sip I was amazed at how delicious it was, so I’m very excited for the rest of the world to try it.”  Tied in nicely with her current Netflix movie “Falling for Christmas”, the promotional clip explores the pilk as a modern take on the traditional milk & cookies left in thanks for Santa Claus and the opportunity to don the Santa outfit from Mean Girls (2004) wasn’t missed, the piece concluding with the line : “This is one dirty soda Santa”.

Santa Redux: A Mean Girls moment celebrated with a pilk, PepsiCo dirty soda promotion, 2022.   

PepsiCo provided other dirty soda recipes:

(1) The Naughty & Ice: For a pure milk taste that's infused with notes of vanilla, measure and combine 1 cup of whole milk, 1 tbsp of heavy cream and 1 tbsp of vanilla creamer.  From there, pour the mixture slowly into 1 cup of Pepsi – the brand's hero product – and consume it alongside a chocolate chip cookie.

(2) The Chocolate Extreme: Blend 1/3 cup of chocolate milk and 2 tbsp of chocolate creamer together, transfer the mixture to 1 cup of smooth & creamy Pepsi Nitro to enjoy the richness of the flavor atop of a frothy foam head.  This "Pilk" will satisfy the chocoholic in you, especially by pairing it with a double chocolate cookie.

(3) The Cherry on Top: A hint of cherry always sweetens the deal.  Combine ½ cup of 2% milk, 2 tbsp of heavy cream and 2 tbsp of caramel creamer.  To bring the complex flavors to life, place the mixture into 1 cup of Pepsi Wild Cherry while pairing the drink with a gingerbread cookie.

(4) The Snow Fl(oat): An oatmeal-based cookie loaded with raisins is sure to complement an oat milk "Pilk".  Start by taking ½ cup of oat milk and adding 4 tbsp of caramel creamer.  Then, slowly pour the sweet mixture into a glass filled with 1 cup of Pepsi Zero Sugar.

(5) The Nutty Cracker: Combine ½ cup of almond milk and 4 tbsp of coconut creamer and place the mixture atop a pool of smooth & creamy Nitro Pepsi Vanilla.  For true richness, pair with a coated peanut butter cookie.

Historically, PepsiCo’s advertising always embraced DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion), depicting blondes, brunettes and redheads.  They needed just to be white, slender and attractive.

PepsiCo dirty soda promotion, 2022.

7up advertising from the 1950s.

The idea of combining milk and soft-drinks has a history in the US and it may have been a cultural practice although given there seems nothing to suggest it ever appeared in depictions of popular culture, it may have been something regional or occasionally faddish.  The 7up corporation in the 1950s used advertising which recommended adding the non-carbonated drink to milk as a way of inducing children who "won't drink milk" to up their dairy intake.  The reference in the copy to "mothers know" does suggest the idea may have been picked up from actual practice and although today nutritionists and dentists might not endorse the approach, there are doubtless other adulterations of milk which are worse still for children to take.

Rehab

Rehab (pronounced ree-hab)

(1) A clipping of rehabilitation.

(2) In slang (though also sometimes used formally), a programme or facility for treating substance abuse (those addicted to narcotics or alcohol.

(3) In slang (though also sometimes used formally), a programme or facility for treating those recovering from certain medical conditions:

(4) In slang, a building which has been renovated, usually in the context of urban renewal and re-development being.

(5) Of or relating to rehabilitation.

(6) In the vernacular of post-war New Zealand English, the informal short form for the Department of Rehabilitation, a government institution established to cater for the needs of injured military personnel.

(7) To rehabilitate (something, someone, a concept or idea).

(8) In political science, to restore an individual to their previous status (drawn from late medieval civil & canon law and associated particularly with Soviet-era Russia and undertaken to rectify those unpersoned).

(9) In environmental science, a defined area (land or aquatic) in which a programme of rehabilitation is being undertaken or has been completed.

1948 (as documented although there may have been previous ad-hoc use in various oral traditions):  The original form emerged in the vernacular of post-war New Zealand English NZ the informal short form for the Department of Rehabilitation, a government institution established to cater for the needs of injured military personnel.  It worked in conjunction with the civil organization the Rehabilitation League, formed in 1931 with similar aims.  By the early 1970s, the word as a slang term was used in relation to housing and urban renewal programmes.  The extension of the meaning to “an action of restoring anything to a previous condition” emerged in the mid-nineteenth century and was soon used of land, buildings, machinery etc and in the 1940s it began to be applied to programmes designed to re-educate & re-train criminals, addicts and such for a successful re-entry to society.  Rehab is a noun & verb, rehaber is a noun & rehabbed & rehabbing; the noun plural is rehabs.

The Collins Dictionary tracks patterns of word use and while the pre-modern statistics are neither comprehensive or exact to the extent revealed by analysis of the wealth of modern data, it's thought still usefully illustrative.  Clearly there was a trend of use in the eighteenth century but this is thought not indicative of "rehab" being treated as a stand-alone word but as a contraction to save space when printing legal and ecclesiastical documents, a required technique in an era when ink and paper were both expensive.  Rehab, as currently used, is very much a word of the twenty-first century.

The noun rehabilitation (act of reinstating in a former rank or standing) dates from the 1530s and was from the French réhabilitation or the Medieval Latin rehabilitationem (nominative rehabilitatio) (restoration), a noun of action from the past-participle stem of rehabilitare, the construct being re- (again) + habitare (make fit), from the Latin habilis (easily managed, fit).  At least some etymologists suspect the derived verb rehabilitate may have emerged concurrently but the earliest known citation is from 1583.  The process originally applied exclusively to those who, having earlier been punished for some transgression by being stripped for rank or status, were for whatever reason restored to their former position.  The verb was from the Medieval Latin rehabilitatus, the past participle of rehabilitare and the processes were at various times codified in both civil and canon law.  The process is now best remembered from the practices in the Soviet Union where comrades guilty of especially unworthy acts (or thoughts) could be “unpersoned” (ie erased from all records).  In some cases, circumstances could change and the unpersoned were rehabilitated.

Lindsay Lohan with broken wrist (fractured in two places in an unfortunate fall at Milk Studios during New York Fashion Week) and 355 ml (12 fluid oz) can of Rehab energy drink, Los Angeles, September 2006.  The car is a 2005 Mercedes-Benz SL 65 (R230; 2004-2011) which earlier had featured in the tabloids after a low-speed crash.  The R230 range (2001-2011) was unusual because of the quirk of the SL 550 (2006-2011), a designation used exclusively in the North American market, the RoW (rest of the world) cars retaining the SL 500 badge even though both used the 5.5 litre (333 cubic inch) V8 (M273).

Doubtlessly, substance abuse has existed ever since substances became available to be abused and just a certainly, over the millennia, individuals, families and societies have devised their own methods to rehabilitate those afflicted.  There was great variation in the approaches but in the West, most tended to be influenced by the dominant ethos that addiction was a moral failing and personal weakness, the literature suggesting punishment and abstinence were there preferred course of treatment; “drying out” has a long history.  It was in the late twentieth century that the notion of “rehab” being not only a process but one which could be treated in a permanent structure, an institutionalization of earlier ad-hoc approaches of which Alcoholics Anonymous, beginning in 1935 is probably the best known although it was by no means the first and much of its success in attracting followers has been attributed to it distancing itself from the religious affiliations which characterized many of its predecessors.

Lindsay Lohan in rehab center, Sundance, Utah, 2007.  It is possible to purchase alcohol in Utah although the regulatory environment is more restrictive so presumably the state is more suited than many to host rehab centers.

Even by the 1970s, there was still much stigma attached to rehabilitation programmes and it was probably the admission by Betty Ford (1918–2011; US First Lady 1974-1977) that she was an alcoholic which was most instrumental in lending some legitimacy to the concept.  After leaving the White House she would found her own rehab clinic which continues to operate.  In the years since, there’s been an attempt to re-classify addiction as a treatable medical condition rather than a moral failing or something worse which need to be treated punitively.  To an extent that has worked and there’s probably a general public perception that addiction is exactly that, a chemical relationship between the substances and the physical brain but in some jurisdictions, such is the volume of addiction that it’s simply not possible to provide rehab services on the scale required.  There’s a critique also of rehab as something which has come to be seen by the TikTok generation as something almost fashionable, presumably because of the frequency with which pop-culture celebrities are clients and even addiction can now thus be rationalized as one of the corollaries of the creative mind.  There’s also of course the link between rehab clinics and wealth, the association created because (1) they’re places where even short-stay programmes can cost tens of thousands of dollars and (2) the only time they’re attract publicity is when a celebrity or some other famous figure attends.  Criticism has been extended too because there’s often little sympathy for those who use an admission of addiction in mitigation (“excuse” in the popular imagination) when on trial for this or that and there’s a perception rehab is an attractive alternative to actual punishment.

Monster Rehab energy drinks.

According to the helpful site Caffeine Informer, Monster's Rehab energy drinks (Peach Tea, Raspberry Tea, Orangeade, Watermelon, Strawberry Lemonade & Tea + Lemonade) contain 160 mg of caffeine (except the watermelon flavor which weighs in at 150).  A cup of black coffee will typically contain between 55-70 mg.  According to the manufacturer, the Rehab drinks are "packed with electrolytes, vitamins, and botanicals that deliver on advanced hydration helping you reduce fatigue and increase concentration."  Their target market is those who wish to "refresh, recover & revive" and their staccato advertising copy captures the moment they'd like customers to visualize:

It’s 2 P.M. Still sleeping, but who’s banging on the door?  “Housekeeping!”  Your eyes open to see a mermaid scoot her ass across the floor.  The housekeeper screams and mutters a prayer.  This can’t be right.  Your eyes close.  It’s after 4 now.  Your head’s pounding.  So many questions.  You’ve got to meet everyone downstairs in an hour to do it all again.  Not a problem.  You’re a professional.  You crack open a Rehab Monster Tea + Lemonade and let the lemon-infused electrolytes, vitamins, and botanicals work their life-giving, hydration magic.  Congrats, You’re back from the dead.

Puffery

Puffery (pronounced puhf-uh-ree)

(1) Undue or exaggerated praise; inflated laudation; publicity, claims in advertising, acclaim etc, that are exaggerated (also known as the “puff piece”).

(2) In common law jurisdictions (often as “mere puffery), certain claims or assertions made which, even if literally untrue or misleading, are not actionable.

(3) An act of puffing (rare except in humor).

1730–1735: The construct was puff (in the sense of “to praise with exaggeration”) + -ery.  The noun puff was from the early thirteenth century Middle English puf, puffe, puff & puf, from the Old English pyf (a short, quick blast of wind, act of puffing) which was imitative and cognate with the Middle Low German puf & pof.  It was derived from the verb which was from the Middle English puffen, from the Old English pyffan & puffian (to breathe out, blow with the mouth) and similar forms in other European languages included the Dutch puffen, the German Low German puffen, the German puffen, the Danish puffe and the Swedish puffa.  The sense of “to blow with quick, intermittent blasts” was common by the mid-fourteenth century while the meaning “pant, breathe hard and fast” emerged some decades later.  It was used of the “fluffy light pastry" from the late fourteenth century while the “small pad of a downy or flossy texture for applying powder to skin or hair” was first so described in the 1650s.

The meaning “to fill, inflate, or expand with breath or air” dates from the 1530s while the intransitive sense (in reference to small swellings & round protuberances) was noted by 1725.  The transitive figurative sense of “exalt” was known by the 1530s which shifted somewhat by the early eighteenth century into the meaning “praise with self-interest, give undue or servile praise to”, the idea by mid century focused on the figurative sense of “empty or vain boast”, this sense soon extended to mean “flattery & inflated praise”.  The derogatory use of poof for “an effeminate man; a male homosexual” was noted from the 1850s and is presumably from puff (possibly in the sense of “powder puff”, an allusion to the stereotype of their “excessive concern with maintaining a delicate appearance”)) and the extended form “poofter” was early twentieth century Australian slang, an unusual linguistic departure for a dialect which tended either to clip or add a trailing “e”, “y” or “o” sound to words.  The correct spelling for the furniture piece (A low cushioned seat with no back; a padded foot-stool) was pouf, from the French pouf & pouff (again of imitative origin) but, presumably because of confusion caused by the pronunciation, the spellings puff & poof sometimes are used.  The suffix -ery was from the Middle English -erie, from the Anglo-Norman and Old French -erie, a suffix forming abstract nouns.  The suffix first occurs in loan words from the Old French into the Middle English, but became productive in English by the sixteenth century, sometimes as a proper combination of -er with “y” (as in bakery or brewery) but also as a single suffix (such as slavery or machinery).  Puffery is a noun; the noun plural is pufferies.  Lawyers can probably get a feeling for what is "pufferyish" without being "puffery as defined" but probably don't use the non-standard adjective.

Mere puffery

The origin of “puffery” in the publishing industry is thought to be the character of Mr Puff, the verbose and bogus critic in Richard Brinsley Sheridan’s (1751-1816) The Critic (1779).  Puffery was the class of “criticism” used as a tool by literary cliques (comprising groups of authors who praised each other’s works) and this excessive lauding was referred to also as a “blow up” (ie the notion of puffing into a balloon, inflating something which although becoming bigger, remains essentially “empty’).  In the jargon of publishing, a puff (or puff piece) is the equivalent of a “blurb”.  In law, the concept of “mere puffery” was created to provide a buffer between the “meaningless” sales pitch and the deceptive or misleading claims which amount to a misrepresentation.  A misrepresentation may be actionable; “mere puffery” is not.  Puffery is used to describe a claim that (1) a “reasonable person” would not take seriously or (2) is so vague or subjective that it can be neither proved nor disproved.  Those two definitions operate in conjunction because even if an assertion can be disproved, if it would be absurd for the “reasonable person” to claim they believed it, it will be held to be “mere puffery”.

Doubling down: Disappointed at losing the case based on their £100 offer, to restore public confidence, they offered £200. 

In contract law, the term “puffery” comes from one of the most celebrated cases in English jurisprudence: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1892, EWCA Civ 1) before the Court of Appeal.  During the deadly influenza pandemic in the northern winter of 1889-1890, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company it would pay £100 (equivalent to some £14,000 in 2023) to anyone who became ill with influenza after using their smoke ball in accordance with the instructions enclosed with the product.  Mrs Carlill was concerned enough by the flu to buy a ball which, following the instructions, she used thrice daily for some weeks but nevertheless, caught the flu.  Unable to persuade the company to pay her £100, Mrs Carlill brought an action, in court claiming a contract existed which the company denied.  At first instance, despite being represented by a future prime-minister, (Henry Asquith QC (1852–1928; UK prime minister 1908-1916)) the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company lost, a verdict upheld unanimously by the Court of Appeal.  It was a landmark in the development of contract law, refining the long-established principles of (1) offer, (2) acceptance, (3) certainty of terms and (4) payment although it would be decades before the implications would begin comprehensively to be realized in legislation.  Not only did Mrs Carlill secure her £100 but she survived the pandemic, living to the age of ninety-six.  On 10 March 1942, she died after contracting influenza.

So, Mrs Carlill, having used the smoke ball three times a day for almost two months before she developed influenza sued for breach of contract and the court held the offer made in the advertisement was not “mere puff” but constituted a valid offer of contract; the Smoke Ball Company’s offer was thus a misrepresentation because, in the particular circumstances detailed, a “reasonable person” would be likely to believe that they would receive £100 and thus, relying on the claim, be persuaded to purchase the product.  However, all the circumstances must be considered on a case-by-case basis and an individual’s simple reliance on a claim they sincerely believe to be true is not sufficient to for something to be held a misrepresentation.

Something will be regarded as "mere puffery" if obviously a "joke line", even if it could be disproved with enough research and analysis.

In the famous Red Bull lawsuit in 2013, the court noted the company’s advertising slogan “Red Bull gives you wings” was “mere puffery” in that no reasonable person would believe ingesting even many cans of the stuff would mean they would “grow wings and fly” (although there are other consequences which can follow high consumption) but the lawsuit claimed that implicit in the slogan was the allegedly deceptive and fraudulent suggestion that the drink was a “superior source of energy”, something not backed up by scientific evidence.  heard before US District Court for the Southern District of New York, the class action was lodged by someone who had been drinking Red Bull for a decade-odd.  His claim was not that he expected feathers to sprout but that idea drinking Red Bull would increase performance and concentration (as advertised on the company's television, on-line and marketing campaigns) was “deceptive and fraudulent and is therefore actionable”.  The scientific basis for the action was research which found energy drinks gained their “boost” through caffeine alone, not guarana or any other ingredient, adding although there was no academic support for the claim Red Bull provides “any more benefit to a consumer than a cup of coffee”, the defendants persistently and pervasively market their product as a superior source of “energy” and thus worthy of a premium price over a cup of coffee or other sources of caffeine.  Red Bull, while denying any wrongdoing or liability and maintaining its “marketing and labeling have always been truthful and accurate”, the company settled the lawsuit “to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation”.  As part of the settlement, anyone resident of the US who claimed to have purchased a can of Red Bull at some time after 1 January 2002 was eligible to receive either a $US10 reimbursement or two free Red Bull products with a retail value of approximately $US15, a webpage created to enable those affected to lodge their claim.  To avoid any similar claims, the company “voluntarily updated its marketing materials and product labeling".

Advertising is often a mix of puffery and specific claims which can be actionable, depending on the circumstances, either in damages or restitution.

So every case is decided on its merits.  A case before the Federal Court in Australia in 2017 held that a false assertion an app had “the most property listings in Sydney” was a misrepresentation because uncontested evidence proved otherwise although the court note were the app to claim it was “the best” app of its kind that would be mere puffery because, in that context, the phrase “the best” means nothing in particular because it’s not something which can be reduced to a metric or precisely defined.  More intriguing for those who like to speculate when grey turns black or white was the Pepsi Points Case which was in many ways similar to Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company.  PepsiCo’s advertising included a point system which customers could use to redeem prizes and one campaign had offered a military jet fighter (then invoiced by the manufacturers at US$23 million odd) in exchange for 7 million "Pepsi Points" (then worth US$700,000).  Mailing a $700,000 cheque to PepsiCo, a customer asked to collect his jet.  The court held the offer was “mere puffery” on the basis of (1) aspects of the campaign which clearing indicated “its jocular nature”, (2) that no reasonable person would believe a US$23 million jet could be obtained by exchanging US$700,000 and it was (3) anyway impossible for the company to deliver a military fighter jet in operable condition to a civilian customer.  It was an interesting case because it might have been decided differently if the object had been closer in value to the points mentioned and been something there was no legal impediment to supplying (such as a US$1 million car).  Were it a US$143 million car (there is one such used car), the promotion would presumably still be judged puffery but at some point, it must be that the relative values would be close enough to for the “reasonable person” test to apply.  That however is something impossible to reduce to an equation and each case will be decided on its merits.  Just to be sure, PepsiCo bumped up by several orders of magnitude the points required to start one’s own air force and added some text to make it clear the whole thing was just a joke.

In the matter of Tyrrell’s Crinkly Crisps.  Often packaging & advertising will contain a number of claims, some of which will be mere puffery (even if it’s easy to prove blatantly they’re untrue) while others need to be verifiable:

2 Pack: Not puffery; every pack must contain two packets.  There have been instances when customers have complained they’ve received more than was advertised and paid for but it’s rare.  Usually, such things are treated as “windfalls”.

Vegan: Not puffery; the contents must be vegan (as defined in the regulation of whatever jurisdiction in which they’re sold).

Triple Cooked: Probably puffery because it’s doubtful the term has any legal definition although were it possible to prove the production process is essentially the same as for any other crisp (chip), it might be actionable.  Because “triple” does have a defined value, were it proved the goods were cooked only twice as long as the practice of other manufacturers, that would presumably compel a change of text to “Double Cooked”.

More Crunch: Probably puffery because the measure of such things is so subjective and there is a point at which to increase crunchiness becomes self-defeating because other desired qualities will be lost.

Crinkly Crisps: Not puffery; the crisps must to some extent be crinkly although it might be fun to have a judge explore the margins and tell us how slight a corrugation can be while still being called “crinkly”.

No Artificial Nasties: Not puffery; these packets probably contain artificial ingredients because they’re almost impossible to avoid in the industrial production of food.  What constitutes a “nasty” is however a thing of quantity as well as quality; something millions every day harmlessly (even beneficially) can be a toxic “nasty” in large quantities so what’s included in the packet will be safe as supplied.  If potential “nasties” are found to exist in a quantity above a certain point, it’s actionable.

Gluten Free: Not puffery; unless there is an allowable quantity (ie trace amounts) permitted by regulation, there must be no gluten.

Sea Salt & Vinegar: Not puffery; sea salt is a particular type of salt so it must be used and there must be evidence of the use of vinegar.

165 g Net: Not puffery; each pack must contain 165 g of edible content +/- the small % of production line variation a court would deem acceptable.

Content guide (fat, energy etc): Not puffery; again, what’s claimed must be a reliable indication of the products within whatever small variation is acceptable.

Photograph with giant crisp: Puffery and an example of how the “reasonable person” test works in conjunction with an objective test of truth.  The packs do not contain crisps as large as is represented in the image (indeed, such would be too big even to fit in the packet) and no reasonable person would believe this is what they’re buying.

Smith's Double Crunch Chips, now available in Hot & Spicy Chicken Wings, Ultimate BBQ Ribs, Original and Cheesy Garlic Bread.

The advertising for Smith's Double Crunch was a handy case-study in the way courts treat the words and phrases used in “mere puffery” in a different way from when they appear as warranties, guarantees, contractual clauses an such; in that, it’s an example of one of the exceptions to use usual convention in common law jurisdictions of following the “Vagliano rule”.  The rule was established by the House of Lords in Bank of England v Vagliano Bros (1891) AC 107 and although technically a principle in statutory interpretation, it has influenced other areas in law; it holds that when interpreting a statute, courts should start by considering the natural meaning of the words in the statute itself, without referring to previous case law or historical background, unless the language is ambiguous.  The rule is of such significance because it prioritizes the literal and ordinary meaning of words over any interpretation which could be derived if other factors are allowed to intrude.  In his judgment, Lord Herschell (Farrer Herschell, 1837–1899; Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain 1886 & 1892-1895) wrote: “I think the proper course is, in the first instance, to examine the language of the statute and to ask what is its natural meaning, uninfluenced by any considerations derived from the previous state of the law, and not to start with inquiring how the law previously stood, and then, having ascertained that, to see whether the statute will bear an interpretation which is in accordance with it. If the statute is clear, its provisions must prevail, whatever the previous law may have been. If the statute is ambiguous, then, and only then, may the history of the law be referred to.”

Smith's Double Crunch Chips, Flamin' Hot flavor.

The “Flamin' Hot” claim would be “read down” as being understood by any “reasonable person” as being a piece of puffery suggesting “spicy” and nobody would open the packet expecting to find flaming chips inside (indeed, that would demand very different text on the packaging).  The Flaming Hot flavour is no longer on sale.

Obviously, the strictures of the Vagliano rule can’t be applied to what genuinely is “mere puffery” and courts need to decide which words & phrases “at the margins” should be subject to the usual rigor (and treated thus as conveying their “natural meaning”) as opposed to those which may be accepted as just the way things are done in advertising.  The advertising may be deconstructed thus:

While the company may claim their Double Crunch Chips are “irresistible”, it’d not be required to remove the assertion even it was proved an individual (or thousands of them) indeed could resist the inclination to eat the product.  It would however have to be truthful in the claim to being “gluten-free” and manufactured with “no artificial flavours” and “no artificial colours”.  In saying they’re a “deep ridged chip” it would be necessary for a court to determine only that ridges exist and they’re not obviously “less deeply ridged” than other comparable products.  The manufacturer is not claiming the ridges are the “deepest” or even “deeper than most”, just that they are “deep”.  Of course the core claim for a product called Double Crunch Chip was that it delivers “twice the crunch”.  While it might be possible to quantify the quality of “crunch” (in terms of audio volume or sensation), no court would require the findings to suggest “twice the audible volume” and the experience of biting a chip is so individually variable as the make the use of the term to vague to be of use in this context.  The same would apply to the “big, bold flavour you love”, the first element being impossible to define and the latter a classic piece of puffery.