Energy Drinks Under Fire
Attorneys general are asking federal regulators to crack down on the makers of energy drinks containing alcohol and caffeine, accusing them of misleading advertisement for a product that can pose serious health and safety risks.
In a recent letter to John Manfreda, the administrator of the federal Alcohol and tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, attorneys general from 28 states, Guam and the District of Columbia warn that aggressive marketing of alcoholic energy drinks targets young people who are buying energy drinks without alcohol.
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said beverage companies are making outlandish and outrageous health-related claims about the drinks. “Combining alcohol with caffeine hardly seems healthy – and that false claim is what we seek to halt,” Mr. Blumenthal said.
“Nonalcoholic energy drinks are very popular with today’s youth,” Oregon’s attorney general Hardy Myers said. “Beverage companies are unconsciously appealing to young drinkers with claims about the stimulating properties of alcoholic energy drinks.”
The attorneys general singled out three manufacturers: SABMiller PLC’s Miller Brewing Co. for Sparks and Sparks Plus; Anheuser-Busch Cos. For Bud Extra; and Charge Beverages Corp. of Portland, Oregon for its liquid charge and liquid core drinks.
Mr. Blumenthal said some ads contain misleading health-related claims regarding the product’s effects. For example, he said, Sparks and Sparks Plus advertises canned drinks and the cases in which they are packaged to look like batteries, implying that they are energy drinks. The slogan is “Powered by Sparks,” he said.
Julian Green, a spokesman for Miller Brewing, said Sparks was created only for customers who are of legal drinking age.
“There is no nonalcoholic version of Sparks,” he said. “We work closely with the Trade Bureau to ensure that all of our products meet federal regulatory requirements.”
Anheuser-Busch Vice President Francine Katz said the federal government approved the Bud Extra labeling.
“This product is simply a malt beverage that contains caffeine, and is clearly marked as containing alcohol,” she said.
The attorneys general also requested a federal investigation into the makeup of alcoholic drinks and other flavored malt beverages to determine whether, based on the percentage of distilled spirits contained in the drinks, they are properly classified as malt beverages under federal law. The malt-beverage classification, in many states, enables cheaper znd broader sale of these drinks, making them more readily available to young people than distilled spirits.
Besides Oregon and Connecticut, states involved in the action are Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming.
-----------------------------------------------------------
So, the real 'subject of debate' needs to be more carefully defined ...
are we debating the high=powered *Alcoholic* drinks;
or just the low-test, high-octane "sports" variety drink??
Drink ON!

|
Bookmarks