IEA - Government wrong to propose “unscientific” and “discriminatory” ban on energy drinks, says report
Plans to ban the sale of energy drinks to teenagers are “unscientific” and “discriminatory” according to a new report from the Institute of Economic Affairs.
‘Vox Pop’, written by the IEA’s Head of Lifestyle Economics Christopher Snowdon, found that the plans – proposed on the basis that high levels of sugar and caffeine could be damaging to health – unfairly target teenagers, while there was a lack of scientific evidence linking the drinks to negative behaviours.
The report cites the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee which concluded “the current scientific evidence alone is not sufficient to justify a measure as prohibitive as a statutory ban on the sale of energy drinks to children.”
The government’s proposals focus on the levels of sugar and caffeine but ‘Vox Pop’ argues a ban on energy drinks have no more sugar or caffeine than many drinks which are more commonly consumed and not being considered for a ban.
High sugar content:
- Energy drinks don’t contain the most sugar – many brands contain little or no sugar, even the most sugary contain less than Pepsi
– PROPOSED BAN – Sugar in a can of Red Bull (250ml): 28 grams; 11 grams per 100ml
– NO BAN – Sugar in a can of Pepsi (330ml): 36 grams; 11 grams per 100ml
- The proposed ban includes energy drinks which contain no sugar – from an obesity prevention perspective, a stated aim of the ban, this makes no sense
High caffeine content:
- Energy drinks don’t contain the most caffeine – most single-serve coffees from high street coffee shops contain more caffeine than one can of an energy drink
– PROPOSED BAN – Caffeine in a can of Red Bull: 80 milligrams
– NO BAN – Caffeine in a Starbucks Americano (venti): 320 milligrams
– NO BAN – Caffeine in a Costa Americano (massimo): 370 milligrams
- Young people get more caffeine from tea, coffee, and cola – even the heaviest adolescent consumers of energy drinks get over 80% of their caffeine from other sources
- Children aged between 10 to 17 years get just 10.5 per cent of their total caffeine intake from energy drinks. They get three times as much from cola and four times as much from tea.
While many supermarket chains took the decision to stop selling energy drinks to under 18s, largely in response to publicity-driven campaigns which used phrases like “turning our children into addicts”, the science does not exist to back this up. ‘Vox Pop’ suggests a ban could be used by such shops to constrain smaller, independent businesses who have benefitted from the voluntary ban and that such rent-seeking should be resisted.
Christopher Snowdon, author of ‘Vox Pop’ and IEA Head of Lifestyle Economics, said:
“Banning the sale of energy drinks to minors is not justified by scientific evidence and would be discriminatory and disproportionate. The vast majority of caffeine and sugar consumed by teenagers comes from other products.
“The government is not proposing a ban on the sale of drinks which have a higher caffeine or sugar content – and nor should it – so it is hard to see how a ban on one particular type of beverage can be justified.”
“Placing an age restriction on energy drinks would put them in the same category as alcohol and fireworks, products which pose a demonstrable risk to users and those around them. As the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee confirmed last year, the evidence of similar risks from energy drinks is sorely lacking.”
Notes to editors:
For media enquiries please contact Emily Carver, Media Manager: 07715 942 731.
To download ‘Vox Pop’ click here.
The mission of the Institute of Economic Affairs is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.
The IEA is a registered educational charity and independent of all political parties.
Latest News from
Adam Smith Inst - Response to winter economy plan: sensible but not costless24/09/2020 14:35:00
The Adam Smith Institute has released the following statement in response to the Winter Economy Plan.
Ethnic minorities most at risk from debt as economic crisis creates Covid-19 ‘double whammy’, finds IPPR24/09/2020 11:35:00
One in eight employed before pandemic are now out of work, more than twice the UK average, according to new analysis by think tank
IFS - Even after the COVID-19 crisis, councils will need billions of extra funding to address a growing funding gap24/09/2020 10:35:00
English councils are facing a financial double whammy, with increases in costs and losses in income as a result of the COVID-19 crisis coming on top of underlying upwards pressures on spending, especially for adults’ and children’s social care services.
King's Fund - Urgent action is needed to improve working conditions for nurses and midwives24/09/2020 09:35:00
New minimum standards to improve working conditions and a review of 12-hour shifts are needed to address exhaustion and burnout among nurses and midwives, according to a new report from The King’s Fund, commissioned by the RCN Foundation.
10pm closing time “from a random policy generator” says IEA expert22/09/2020 12:35:00
Christopher Snowdon responds to latest coronavirus measures
Every two weeks of lockdown could cost the UK at least £8 billion in lost output, says IEA expert22/09/2020 11:35:00
Julian Jessop, IEA Economics Fellow, commented on the potential economic impact of a second national lockdown
Adam Smith Inst - The state of the (student) unions22/09/2020 10:35:00
The report, from the free market Adam Smith Institute, argues that student unions are perceived as ineffective by students, lack democratic legitimacy, and undermine freedom of association and expression. Extraordinarily, it finds that student unions that receive higher block grants from universities tend to be poorer performing in the National Student Survey.
IFS - Larger funding cuts for schools in poor areas leave them badly placed to deal with COVID-19 challenges22/09/2020 09:35:00
Schools serving more deprived pupils face major challenges over the next few years. Educational inequalities will have widened during lockdown. Planned increases in teacher starting salaries will also weigh more heavily on such schools, given they are more likely to employ new teachers.