The FDA: Federal Doofus Association

[Crazed Rabbit]

Shouldn't you address the claimed health risks?

It doesn't have anything to do with diet (poor straw man).

Your diet is what you eat and drink. So I do think it relates.

The claim is that it leads to alcohol poisoning by masking the effects so that people can't judge how intoxicated they are.

It's easy to have an idea of how drunk you are by keeping track of how much you drink. What, we can't count and have to determine our sobriety using self-applied intoxication tests?

The government has no place deciding how we should be drinking. Just because its possible to overindulge is no excuse for a nationwide ban.

Q11. What's the difference between a drink that combines alcohol and cola and a beverage that contains alcohol and caffeine?

A11. Cola is a carbonated beverage made up of many ingredients, including caffeine.The addition of caffeine to cola-type beverages up to certain levels is GRAS. Consumers may themselves choose to add cola to alcoholic beverages according to their preferences. The beverages that are the subject of FDA's request for information are characterized by the intentional addition of caffeine to alcoholic beverages by the manufacturer.

And consumers can't choose whether or not to buy beverages that contain alcohol and caffeine like they choose to mix drinks themselves? There is no real difference, a fact that 'answer' neatly ignores.

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Your diet is what you eat and drink. So I do think it relates.

Hardly

It's like the outcry over the banning of trans fat. "the government is trying to ban tasty food!". But actually they are banning an industrial product that is used because it's cheap and convenient not because it tastes better.

This is not about banning foods because of the taste or because the government thinks its business is to intervene in peoples diets. It's genuinely about the alcohol poisoning issue.

It's easy to have an idea of how drunk you are by keeping track of how much you drink. What, we can't count and have to determine our sobriety using self-applied intoxication tests?

A second issue is people thinking they can drive. But the main issue is that the products are deemed deceptive. That's what you're skipping.

The government has no place deciding how we should be drinking. Just because its possible to overindulge is no excuse for a nationwide ban.

No age limit either? And it isn't about overindulging.

And consumers can't choose whether or not to buy beverages that contain alcohol and caffeine like they choose to mix drinks themselves? There is no real difference, a fact that 'answer' neatly ignores.

CR

If you acknowledge that consumers can mix the drinks themselves then what was all that about "the government deciding how we drink". They are only deciding what we can buy conveniently prepackaged.

I have actually not even examined the science behind the risk claims. It could all be a scare. I thought you had information to that point actually.


More generally though, I think you do a disservice to the true spirit of wanting to be free from government interference when you use this kind of rhetoric in defense of 24 ounce blue raspberry 12.0% abv energy drinks...if they are wrong then it is purely for the principle and the slippery slope nature.

[miotas]

And it isn't about overindulging.

But you just said it was...

It's genuinely about the alcohol poisoning issue.

We had a similar thing a few years back where pre mixed alcoholic drinks like vodka cruisers were taxed to high hell in an effort to make them prohibitively expensive for teenagers to buy since teens were drinking them like they were soft drink and getting absurdly drunk. Government interference had no effect in this case and I doubt it will in yours either. Young people just switched to drinking hard liquor straight or mixing it themselves, neither of which is preferable to buying premixed.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

But you just said it was...

No..."overindulging" is used to mean "getting to drunk" but in a specific way. An indulgent way. This is an "oops" way.

We had a similar thing a few years back where pre mixed alcoholic drinks like vodka cruisers were taxed to high hell in an effort to make them prohibitively expensive for teenagers to buy since teens were drinking them like they were soft drink and getting absurdly drunk. Government interference had no effect in this case and I doubt it will in yours either. Young people just switched to drinking hard liquor straight or mixing it themselves, neither of which is preferable to buying premixed.

The claim is that the caffeine masks the signs of intoxication. So that people who would stop drinking because they felt trashed don't stop.



perfect.

Cle Elum Police Chief Scott Ferguson says that not only were the students drinking the crazy-in-a-can, they were also spiking it with rum and vodka. Questionable mixology that led to blood-alcohol levels ranging from the seriously soused (.12) to the perilously-close-to-death (.35).

The "they were drinking it" and "then they got alcohol poisoning" is not the kind of evidence I had in mind, for obvious reasons.

four lokos aren't bad just the people who drink them are dumb i've been drinking them for as long as they've been in stores don't ban FOUR LOKOS

[Hosakawa Tito]

They can take my Irish Coffee when they can pry my cold intoxicated fingers from the cup.

[rory_20_uk]

Is this ready mixed, or at point of sale (i.e. can bars sell the aforementioned Rum and coke or would the customer have to purchase both then mix them)?

Neither makes any sense to me. Red Bull and Vodka has been a popular drink for ages and people are prepared to go the extra mile of purchasing two drinks, as they have with many other types previously.

My personal favourite is vodka jelly. You could feed it to toddlers as there's no perception of alcohol. It sits in the stomach and slowly dissolves so you can eat a vast amount and it only kicks in later allowing one to get vastly more drunk than one intended to... Happy times.

I can understand that packaging should not hide the fact there is an alcoholic content, and it should also not be packaged in such a manner to appeal to an inappropriate audience, but FFS, in America you have to be 21 to even have a tipple!

[Furunculus]

ah the FDA, how i love them.

i once spent a fortnight trying to understand their massively convoluted medical device acceptance program, the result was a twenty four page report for our venture capital partners into how our software-device could be 'processed' through the FDA.

great fun, in a masochistic way.

[Crazed Rabbit]

It's like the outcry over the banning of trans fat. "the government is trying to ban tasty food!". But actually they are banning an industrial product that is used because it's cheap and convenient not because it tastes better.

Something they (Center for Science in the Public Interest) used to (1990) encourage the use of?

This is not about banning foods because of the taste or because the government thinks its business is to intervene in peoples diets. It's genuinely about the alcohol poisoning issue.

How is this not intervening in people's diets? Even if the issue is alcohol poisoning, it's still interference in what people consume.

Does this product really make it more likely, or are politicians just overreacting to some recent events? Some idiots misusing the drinks are no excuse for a ban, just like idiots killing themselves speeding are no excuse for a ban on really fast cars.

A second issue is people thinking they can drive. But the main issue is that the products are deemed deceptive. That's what you're skipping.

I thought it was genuinely about the alcohol poisoning, not deceptiveness. Does it not state the ABV and that it contains caffeine?

If you acknowledge that consumers can mix the drinks themselves then what was all that about "the government deciding how we drink". They are only deciding what we can buy conveniently prepackaged.

They are putting barriers to drinking certain items - making it harder to consume certain types of products and not others.

More generally though, I think you do a disservice to the true spirit of wanting to be free from government interference when you use this kind of rhetoric in defense of 24 ounce blue raspberry 12.0% abv energy drinks...if they are wrong then it is purely for the principle and the slippery slope nature.

It's like freedom of speech; you have to defend hateful speech to defend all speech. Here you have to defend something you'd never care to drink in order to protect your right to eat what you want without government taxes or regulations compelling you one way or another.

EDIT:

Bless the Western democracies for having health inspections and food safety agencies.

You eat and drink stuff, kids put it in their mouths. Thank God independent government run agencies provide the consumer with some protection. Much as the cowboys of this world would prefer for all that regulation to dissappear.

I am here to call your bluff. You haven't read the article or even a related wiki article.

This isn't about consumer protection. Caffeine and alcohol are both safe to drink, together or apart. An unsafe product would harm people who used any amount of it. This is a ban because the government believes there's the possibility you will drink too much and not control yourself.

As for the FDA; I have no love for them, nor for how they deny dying patients access to experimental treatments.

Against all this, consumers need to protect themselves.

Then let them do so by making their own decisions. We are not children and should not be treated as such.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

It's like freedom of speech; you have to defend hateful speech to defend all speech. Here you have to defend something you'd never care to drink in order to protect your right to eat what you want without government taxes or regulations compelling you one way or another.

CR

But..but what if I just want to pay somebody $1.62 a year to check all of my food for me? It's marvellously efficient.

They do not tell me what to eat, they are rather told by me to keep safe the food I enjoy eating.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Something they (Center for Science in the Public Interest) used to (1990) encourage the use of?

This is a non-sequitar CR

Why do you think trans fat isn't how I described it?

How is this not intervening in people's diets? Even if the issue is alcohol poisoning, it's still interference in what people consume.

So is controlling city tap water. Saying that it's intervening with something that people put in their mouths does not make your case, even when you try and phrase it so that it sounds like they are making the food pyramid compulsory.

Does this product really make it more likely, or are politicians just overreacting to some recent events? Some idiots misusing the drinks are no excuse for a ban, just like idiots killing themselves speeding are no excuse for a ban on really fast cars.

Yes exactly, does it? That's what I was asking you. If it does then they are justified don't you think?

I thought it was genuinely about the alcohol poisoning, not deceptiveness. Does it not state the ABV and that it contains caffeine?

caffeine-->feel like not drunk--> actually have alcohol poisoning == deceptive

They are putting barriers to drinking certain items - making it harder to consume certain types of products and not others.

Yes, so that people who want to drink energy drinks with caffeine have to go through an extra step, showing that they understand the risks and genuinely want to take them. And if they do they are free to do so.

It's like freedom of speech; you have to defend hateful speech to defend all speech. Here you have to defend something you'd never care to drink in order to protect your right to eat what you want without government taxes or regulations compelling you one way or another.

CR

You should sound different when you talk about the government banning non-hate speech than you do when you talk about them banning hate-speech. Way different. Same here. We're not going to ban the fda because they believe in some science research that claims 4 loko is unsafe. The slippery slope doesn't work here given the justification they used.

[Crazed Rabbit]

This is a non-sequitar CR

Why do you think trans fat isn't how I described it?

My point is that the government often gets science wrong, and they shouldn't hold such broad power.

So is controlling city tap water. Saying that it's intervening with something that people put in their mouths does not make your case, even when you try and phrase it so that it sounds like they are making the food pyramid compulsory.

They don't ban private wells though.

Yes exactly, does it? That's what I was asking you. If it does then they are justified don't you think?

No. We aren't children. I don't support seatbelt laws either. The government's role should not be to protect us from our own choices.

caffeine-->feel like not drunk--> actually have alcohol poisoning == deceptive

If that's the case, why hasn't it been an issue with drinks like vodka and redbull?

Yes, so that people who want to drink energy drinks with caffeine have to go through an extra step, showing that they understand the risks and genuinely want to take them. And if they do they are free to do so.

They shouldn't have to.

You should sound different when you talk about the government banning non-hate speech than you do when you talk about them banning hate-speech. Way different. Same here. We're not going to ban the fda because they believe in some science research that claims 4 loko is unsafe. The slippery slope doesn't work here given the justification they used.

Four lokos may well be unsafe when misused - the point being that it's possible for people to responsibly drink it.

But..but what if I just want to pay somebody $1.62 a year to check all of my food for me? It's marvellously efficient.

They do not tell me what to eat, they are rather told by me to keep safe the food I enjoy eating.

The point of this thread is that they aren't simply just checking the food and informing you of the risks associated with consuming it. Also, your definition of 'safe' may well be different from other peoples - which means you want to impose your definition upon them.

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

When I drink, I (and most people) rely on being able to tell when I've had to much based on how I feel. You want the government to force counting or precise measuring. I want them to ban things that interfere (if they do) with that ability so that people don't think they can drive when they can't, and don't think they aren't drunk when they are near vomiting.

That's the basic difference, aside from the questions about the legitimacy of the science, which I think we are both doubtful of, or at least I'm doubtful you seem more sure. You are mandating something as well, you have to admit--you are putting the onus on me to examine everything I eat or drink, in the name of freedom (when you speak of stripping the fda of legal power).

Basically libertarianism is an overly-systemized version of a good political philosophy. It cuts corners for the sake of straight lines. And it's overly dramatic to, since all you are saying in the end is "people shouldn't have to mix their drinks on their own, they should have to keep careful count!".

[Xiahou]

Yes exactly, does it? That's what I was asking you. If it does then they are justified don't you think?

Let's look at their reasoning:

GRAS status is not an inherent property of a substance, but must be assessed in the context of the intended conditions of use of the substance. The assessment includes a consideration of the population that will consume the substance. Therefore, the scientific data and information that support a GRAS determination must consider the conditions under which the substance is safe for the use for which it is marketed. Reports in the scientific literature have raised concerns regarding the formulation and packaging of pre-mixed products containing added caffeine and alcohol. For example, these products, presented as fruity soft drinks in colorful single-serving packages, seemingly target the young adult user. Furthermore, the marketing of the caffeinated versions of this class of alcoholic beverage appears to be specifically directed to young adults. FDA is concerned that the young adults to whom these pre-mixed caffeine and alcohol products are marketed are especially vulnerable to the adverse behavioral effects associated with consuming caffeine added to alcohol, a concern reflected in the publicly available literature.

In other words... Both alcohol and caffeine are GRAS. Alcohol and caffeine together are GRAS. BUT, alcohol and caffeine together and marketed to young adults is not GRAS. So it's being banned because of marketing. What a load.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Let's look at their reasoning:In other words... Both alcohol and caffeine are GRAS. Alcohol and caffeine together are GRAS. BUT, alcohol and caffeine together and marketed to young adults is not GRAS. So it's being banned because of marketing. What a load.

Studies suggest that the combined ingestion of caffeine and alcohol may lead to hazardous and life-threatening situations because caffeine counteracts some, but not all, of alcohol's adverse effects. In one study, a mixture of an energy drink and alcohol reduced subjects' subjective perception of intoxication but did not improve diminished motor coordination or slower visual reaction times using objective measures (Ferreira et al., 2006). In a dual-task model, subjects co-administered caffeine and alcohol reported reduced perception of intoxication but no reduction of alcohol-induced impairment of task accuracy (Marczinski and Fillmore, 2006).
• Because caffeine alters the perception of alcohol intoxication, the consumption of pre-mixed products containing added caffeine and alcohol may result in higher amounts of alcohol consumed per drinking occasion, a situation that is particularly dangerous for naive drinkers (Oteri et al., 2007).

From right before the bit you quoted. Do believe that it's inaccurate?


I'm curious what you guys think about San Fran banning happy meals (the inclusion of a toy with a meal of over 600 calories). It also seems very reasonable to me.

[Xiahou]

From right before the bit you quoted. Do believe that it's inaccurate?

Lots of things may lead to hazardous situations. Consumption of any alcohol can and does lead to such. Where's the standard? They try to use the GRAS standard as a fig leaf... tobacco is known to cause cancer- where's the ban? I guess the tobacco companies have better lobbyists...

Again, it gets back to the marketing- why were only 4 companies issued FDA warning letters? They aren't the only ones making caffeinated alcoholic beverages.

I'm curious what you guys think about San Fran banning happy meals (the inclusion of a toy with a meal of over 600 calories). It also seems very reasonable to me.

It's stupid. If, as a parent, I want to take my child to McDonald's to have a Happy Meal once a month- why can't I? The whole premise is that I'm too stupid to make an informed decision and need the nanny state to make decisions for me.