CSPI Has a Go at Energy Drinks
The FDA has begun hearings on standards for “functional foods”. Lobby group CSPI is testifying against a number of products including Rockstar and Monster.
CSPI are attempting show that energy drinks are making false claims (source).
Rockstar energy drink: The label promises that after drinking the 16-oz. can, one can “party like a rockstar.” The beverage contains an “energy blend” of milk thistle (an herb investigated for treating cirrhosis), two forms of caffeine, ginkgo (an herb investigated for improving memory in Alzheimer patients), and taurine, an amino acid.
Monster Energy drink: The beverage contains five types of added sugars (54g per 16-oz. can, about the same as a Coke), two sources of caffeine, and some natural enzymes and digestive acids. The label states “We went down to the lab and cooked up a double shot of our killer energy brew. It’s a wicked mega hit that delivers twice the buzz of a regular energy drink.”Tab Energy low calorie drink: In an effort to remake this 1960s diet cola, Coca-Cola has added guarana extract (a source of caffeine authorized for use in foods only as a flavoring), vegetable juice (for color), and B vitamins. B vitamins convert protein, fat, and carbohydrate into energy, but do not provide an energy boost that can be felt by the body. The product also contains the amino acid taurine and L-carnitine, a co-enzyme naturally found in the body.
7 Comments
Is there more than one form of caffeine? I like some of the energy drinks, but regulators should make the beverage companies accountable for “snake oil claims”.
Yes… I would be curious of what the legal definition is of partying like a rockstar.
The three-prong test from 1960s case law may not cut it anymore, as the nature of rock and rockstar-dom has drastically changed.
Maybe the cans should be specific about exactly which rockstar you would be partying like. It it’s Scott Stapp, you could just drink a smoothie.
Partying like a Rockstar? I imagine they would be consuming something a little harder than energy drinks.
I am doing a school report on Rockstar what bad ingredients are in it? and how bad are they?
Isn’t this exactly why every can/bottle/etc of all of these products also says on it, “These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA…” etc? That’s there to let us know that they’re just saying what they think of the product — how is it any different than a candy bar that says it’s delicious? What’s the legal definition of “delicious” anyhow?
I read their opposition (thanks for the link), and they seem like good opposition to me. Some of the examples listed there are pretty eye opening to see how FDA never really does anything for violators.
I am also curious why you have something against CSPI. You could have picked other examples that were much more revealing – instead you picked the above.
Here are two more, which I think shows CSPI has a good reason to challenge these.
• Enviga: This new carbonated drink from a Coca-Cola/Nestle partnership claims that thanks to a combination of caffeine and an antioxidant found in green tea, the product burns more calories than the drink provides and implicitly promotes weight loss. CSPI yesterday notified those companies that it will sue them if they continue to make those claims—which are based on inconsistent, short-term and industry-funded studies.
• DanActive “Immunity” dairy drink: This Dannon product claims to help “strengthen your body’s defenses.” But the only actual study conducted on people found that DanActive didn’t prevent illness, and 25 percent of the participants had to cut their dose in half because they suffered bloating, gas, and nausea.
If they are questioning the effects of the herbal supplements that is not within the bounds of the FDA