Brooklyn Roasting Company recalls cold brew sold in New York and New Jersey over botulism risk ⁠18%

7/24/2026, 4:30:56 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Framing Effect, and Indoctrination, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 20.9% saturation with 48 hits. Analysis detected 201 faulty-reasoning hits from 230 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33% and a BS Rank of ⁠18% (18,079 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 82.60% of the article peer group.

A New York -based coffee company is recalling some of its cold brew drinks sold in New York and New Jersey because of a risk of botulism, according to the U.S. 
Food and Drug Administration. 
The Brooklyn Roasting Company issued the recall this month for 2.5 gallon bags of pasteurized cold brew concentrate after finding that room temperature storage could lead to the growth of Clostridium botulinum toxin formation. 
The affected products were distributed between April 1 and June 20, and they include best by dates between June 3 and Sept. 
30. 
Botulism is a rare condition caused by a toxin that attacks the body’s nerves, which can be fatal. 
Symptoms of foodborne botulism usually start 12 to 36 hours later and include trouble swallowing, dry mouth, blurred vision, drooping eyelids, upset stomach, trouble breathing and paralysis. 
Anyone experiencing botulism symptoms is urged to go to the emergency room immediately. 
There have been no reports of illnesses caused by the cold brew products. 
The Brooklyn Roasting Company sells its products at its cafés, other coffee shops, gourmet grocery stores , independent markets and online, according to The Patch. 
The company didn’t specify where the affected cold brew had been distributed. 
The Brooklyn Roasting Company did not immediately respond to FOX Business' request for comment. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.7%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Confirmation Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 3.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Availability Heuristic7.8%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 3.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 13.5%FoxBusiness: 12.9%Framing Effect13.5%This article: 5.7%FoxBusiness: 1.5%Loss Aversion5.7%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 8.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%FoxBusiness: 2.0%Pessimism Bias5.7%This article: 20.9%FoxBusiness: 7.9%Negativity Bias20.9%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 4.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 3.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 2.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 1.7%FoxBusiness: 7.2%Appeal to Authority1.7%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 6.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 14.8%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice14.8%This article: 11.7%FoxBusiness: 1.7%Indoctrination11.7%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 2.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

230 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker20%attributed speech184writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageBrooklyn Roasting Company • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageBrooklyn Roasting Company • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverage
74%flagged-word coverage
46 attributed words100% of attributed speech74% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Biased Writer Voice+73.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Brooklyn Roasting Company: 73.9%73.9%Indoctrination-14.7 ptsWriter: 14.7%Brooklyn Roasting Company: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.