The problem with energy drinks

 The increasing consumption of caffeinated energy drinks and alcospeed has been raising concern among health professionals, authorities and even senior figures of the Episcopal Church of Scotland have been publicly criticising the consumption of the popular Buckfast wine, labelling it as anti-Christian. The reason is no other than the effects that the tonic wine seem to cause due to its high concentration of caffeine, equivalent to six cans of coke. Buckfast, like any other alcoholic energy drink presents the same risks for consumers as products like Tilt and Budextra did before they were forced to reformulate without caffeine, guarana, and ginseng. These risks mean, among other things, an alteration of the psychological effects of alcohol making consumers believe that they can drink more than they are actually psychically capable of. In addition a study published by the “Centre For Science in the Public Interest” (CSPI) also stated that the interaction between alcohol and energy drinks found that stimulants did not reduce the negative effects of alcohol on motor coordination skills and visual reaction times.

 
It seems that the popularity of energy drinks owes its origins to brutal marketing campaigns of the product. According to an article by members of the Departments of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences and Neurosciences of the John Hopkins University, the absence of regulatory oversight has resulted in aggressive marketing of energy drinks, targeted mainly toward young males, for psychoactive, performance-enhancing and stimulant drug effects. And while nobody seems to care it seems there are more and more reported cases of energy drinks -related intoxication and problems with caffeine withdrawal. Perhaps the image of Britney Spears with her Red-Bull in her hand and her shaved head prior being admitted into hospital can be used as a collective memory of how the star was going through her manic-depressive episode with the artificial help of concentrated caffeine. This example can also serve to illustrate how the pop singer confessed after leaving the mental institution that she had finally lost weight and returned to be in physical shape again thanks to having quit Red Bull.

Energy drinks may vary in both caffeine content (ranging from 50 to 505 mg per can or bottle) and caffeine concentration (ranging from 2.5 to 171 mg per fluid once). For comparison the caffeine content of a normal cup of coffee varies from 77 to 150 mg. Although different countries have tried to regulate the labelling of the products, these measures have proven to be useless. The EU for instance requires that energy drinks contain a “high caffeine label” while Canada requires labels indicating that Red Bull should not be mixed with alcohol and that maximum daily consumption not exceed two cans.  The USA on the contrary has a more relaxed policy because when the FDA tried to eliminate caffeine from soft drinks producers argued that caffeine was a flavour enhancer and not a psychoactive ingredient. However, the FDA limited the maximum of caffeine content of cola-type drinks to 0.02% caffeine. This measure though did not see to take effect as more than 130 energy drinks on the market exceed that limit in the USA.

According to the JHU study the reason why the marketing campaigns are so successful is because they transmit stimulant effects claiming a variety of benefits including increased attention, endurance and performance, weight loss and having fun. Products like “Full Throttle” (www.drinkfullthrottle.com) or “AMP Energy” (www.ampenergy.com) invite to the fast, adventurous and rebellious way of life by sponsoring rock bands or dangerous risky and attractive sports such as snowboarding or car races. Other brands go a little bit further with their provocations and they clearly link their image with other illicit substances such are the cases of “Cocaine” or “Blow”. This last drink was in its origins being packed in glass vials and shipped with mirror and plastic credit cards in an attempt to model cocaine use (www.bandddesigns.com/energy/arch/Blow_Energy.jpg).

In other cases mouth-to-mouth advertising has been the best possible advertisement campaign. Thai Red Bull, the original version of the famous brand, whose formula according to the rumours contains substances related to the amphetamine and nicotine, perhaps constitutes the best example of this.. In words of one consumer the effects of this drink could be described as “a wave of fire washing over my body, driving off all traces of sleep”.

But all these powerful effects fail however to be proven real. The same research continues providing evidence that the majority of the advertised claims remain to be cleared, arguing that caffeine reduces performance decrements due to reduced alertness (i.e. conditions of fatigue or sleep deprivation).  In addition clinical evidence also suggests that among high-dose habitual consumers, performance enhancement effects are not likely to vary. On the other hand the problems with energy drinks seem to be more than its idyllic benefits, firstly there is the risk of substance dependence because caffeine can cause addiction. Secondly there is the problem caused by the targeted population. Research published by the (CSPI) showed that 31% of energy drinks consumers in the USA are between 12-17 years old. Moreover almost 25% of college student drinkers report mixing alcohol with energy drinks, a number of these students mixes energy drinks and alcohol to drink more and not feel as drunk and finally college students who consume energy drinks drink significantly more than their peers. This information would be as not relevant as if it was not because according to the Surgeon General 5,000 people under 21 die each year from alcohol related injuries.