Baylen Linnekin, author of the recent CEI On Point “Extreme Refreshment Crackdown: The FDA’s Misguided Campaign Against Alcohol Energy Drinks” and contributor to the food regulation blog Crispy on the Outside, looks at the recent push to ban alcoholic drinks that contain caffeine.
Baylen believes that regulators are over-reacting. Alcohol energy drinks typically contain no more caffeine than a cup of coffee, and their appeal to underage drinkers is overstated.
Late yesterday evening, the maker of Four Loko announced it was removing caffeine from the popular alcohol beverage. This came following media-driven hysteria, state bans, and a potential federal ban from the FDA. My colleague Greg Conko analyzes the likely FDA regulation here.
You might not like the idea (or the taste) of Four Loko, the popular beverage that combines caffeine, other stimulants, and 12 percent alcohol in a candy-colored 23.5 ounces. But if you do like any alcohol beverage or any other product that could be remotely controversial, you should care about the banning and treatment of Four Loko and other similar alcohol energy drinks by government officials.
While several states have banned or taken steps to ban Four Loko and other similar products, which some believe contain a dangerous cocktail of caffeine and alcohol, the most disturbing developments occurred in New York where the product was not banned through a legislative process. Rather, it was intimidation and strong-arm tactics, including “convincing” the state’s largest distributors to “voluntarily” agree to stop selling the beverage, and conducting raids on bars and restaurants serving the drink. According to an account by Eddie Huang, the owner of New York City restaurant Xiao Ye, which proudly serves Four Loko, the New York State Liquor Authority (SLA) raided Huang’s restaurant last Friday night, just before announcing the deal with distributors not to sell Four Loko. Eddie reacted to the raid on his blog:
We followed the law, we were in line with the SLA requirements, but basically, it was understood that if we kept selling Four Loko, we would be seeing a lot of raids… All Four Loko in the house was destroyed on site, it was taken off the menu, and four Loko Thursdays is cancelled.
It still isn’t certain that the SLA actually destroyed any of the product (the SLA denies destroying any Four Loko), but the raid is obviously meant to scare Eddie Huang from promoting the drink at his restaurant. The “voluntary” agreements with the large distributors is disturbing alone, especially when one considers that future federal legislation would likely make it impossible to get beer any way other than going through a distributor.
The CARE Act (H.R. 5034) would prevent the federal government from using the dormant Commerce Clause to stop states from enacted discriminatory laws against out-of-state producers of alcohol. My colleague Angela Logomasini describes the proposed legislation here.
Of particular concern is the fact that the new legislation would almost certainly be used to prevent direct shipping of wine, beer, and any other alcohol beverage. This means that retail operations would be forced to rely on distributors to get the products their consumers want. If one regulator has an issue with a particular product, vineyard, or brewery, he or she could convince distributors to “voluntarily” agree not to sell the product.
The FDA: Banning Out of Fear
For the last few years a widespread skepticism about alcohol energy drinks (AEDs) has prompted the FDA and other regulatory agencies to investigate the products. In 2008 MillerCoors “voluntarily” agreed to reformulate their massively popular drink called Sparks after state attorneys general applied pressure to the company. In 2009, the FDA jumped into the debate when it sent letters to several manufacturers AEDs, giving them 30 days to produce evidence showing that the alcohol-caffeine combo is safe for consumption.
Now the FDA has set it sights on Four Loko and will likely announce their decision today on whether caffeine is a “safe” ingredient to add to non-cola products. Such a decision could impact many more beverages than Four Loko alone.
Lawmaking that is based purely in panic and on anecdotal evidence as opposed to scientific is nothing new. The FDA and state lawmakers are up in arms about Four Loko as a result of a few isolated incidents of people behaving badly while drinking the product. Whether or not their is a direct correlation between the behavior and consumption of the product is not known and doesn’t seem to matter to the FDA or state regulators.
Whether or not you like Four Loko, you should defend consumers, retailers, and restaurant owners’ right to make the choice for themselves whether or not they want to buy or sell a product.
CEI saw this wave of misguided, manufactured outrage coming. Earlier this year, we published a study on alcohol energy drinks (AEDs) by Baylen Linnekin, “Extreme Refreshment Crackdown,” on FDA’s continued harassment of AED manufacturers and the lack of evidence supporting their alarmist claims.
Image credit: The Wisest Wizards’ flickr photostream.
As I reported last week, though federal attempts to legalize online gambling have seen little progress in the last year, states’ efforts have shown much more promise. In particular, New Jersey State Senator Raymond J. Lesniak’s attempt to legalize online gambling in the state has made significant progress. Yesterday his bill, S490 and its companion S11, were approved by the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee and they await a full Senate vote.
S-490 would authorize the state’s Atlantic City casinos to offer online versions of their games to New Jersey and also to international customers. The bill is meant to bridge the state’s budget gap and support the state’s flailing horse racing industry. The Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) estimate that New Jersey’s intrastate gambling system could raise up to $250 million in gross revenue and $55 million in taxes per year.
According to the text of the bill, the games that casinos would be allowed to offer online include:
[Roulette] Poker, roulette, baccarat, blackjack, craps, big six wheel, slot machines, minibaccarat, red dog, pai gow, and sic bo; any variations or composites of such games, provided that such variations or composites, and any above listed game or variation or composite of such game to be offered through Internet wagering,
The bill also leaves room for the commission to approve other games in the future so long as the game is found to be “compatible with the public interest and to be suitable for casino use after such appropriate test or experimental period as the commission may deem appropriate.”
While it shouldn’t have taken a budget crisis to move this forward and the state should not be subsidizing the horse racing industry, it is a step toward freedom for individuals who wish to gamble. If other states follow New Jersey’s lead and legalized Internet gambling within their borders, states could enter into agreements that allow residents to gamble online at each other’s online casinos. It isn’t perfect, but it is better than a blanket ban.
Image credit: FamilyofFun’s flickr photostream.
With an 8-3 vote, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors banned the greatest menace facing it or any other city: Happy Meals.
Restaurants are no longer allowed to include a free toy with kid’s meals. “This is a challenge to the restaurant industry to think about children’s health first,” said the bill’s sponsor, Eric Mar. He was named Reason.tv’s Nanny of the Month for his troubles.
I’m guessing restaurants’ first thoughts about the ban are not printable on this blog.
There is a loophole, though. If a kid’s meal is under 600 calories, includes sufficient amounts of fruit and vegetables, and does not include a sugary drink, then restaurants may include a toy.
Children’s reactions are said to be less than positive. Hearing “no” now and again is an important part of not growing up spoiled; though parents are the ones who should be saying it. But who needs parents when the nanny state is here?
As a self-made business mogul, a mother and wife, and a cancer survivor, there are many aspects of Jenna Jameson to admire and emulate. That said, I’m not looking to Jameson’s movies for advice on safe sex; just as I wouldn’t turn to Martin Scorcese for lessons on how to be a successful cab driver in New York City. Movies are works of art, fiction, and fantasy. The argument that condoms should be made mandatory in pornographic films due to viewers potentially imitating what they see on screen is logically indefensible and somewhat shocking, considering that it is written on a site that regularly publishes articles defending freedom of speech, free expression, and keeping government out of the bedroom.
Kellee Terrell’s article, posted on Huffington Post yesterday, gives us a glimpse into the type of thinking that leads many intellectuals to advocate at one time for social liberty while at the same time demanding that government intervene in the personal choices of others. It stems from a condescending disbelief in the ability and the right of the average individual to make choices about their own life.
Why the Porn Industry’s HIV Problem Is Our Problem, Too:
While it is obvious that not using condoms on porn sets is a safety hazard, I have often wondered: How much of a safety hazard is it for viewers to consume condomless porn? How much does watching bareback sex influence or reinforce our desire to mimic that same behavior in our own lives?
…I am not so naïve as to believe that if the porn industry were to make condom use mandatory, that act alone would completely revolutionize how Americans view safer sex or condoms. But it cannot be denied just how powerful media is …
Perhaps now is the time for the porn industry to make some changes in terms of safer sex practices — not just for the sake of their own employees, but for the sake of all of us.
It is not the porn industry’s responsibility to teach anything to anyone. They make films and money. We can call them artists, or business people, and though some may release instructional videos, it isn’t fair to label them as custodians of anyone’s sexual decisions. It may be interesting to examine possible correlations between behavior and viewing habits, but even a evident connection would not make actors, directors, or producers culpable for that behavior.
Based on Terrell’s logic couldn’t the argument be made that we ought to ban films and TV shows that feature rebellious youth (i.e. My So Called Life), dangerous driving (Rebel Without a Cause) or victimization of women (everything on the Lifetime TV Network) lest someone takes them as guidance for their life choices?
Obviously, this isn’t the case. It may seem incomprehensible that the same people arguing for a condom mandate are the same people who would normally scream at the top of their lungs if the government tried to regulate bedroom activities. However, because pornography is an issue of capitalism, of “big business,” they look upon the actors as victims in need of protection-whether they want it or not.
It is not the government’s right to regulate how adults engage in sexual activity; we each can and should take responsibility for our own sexual safety. And, as Jenna Jameson has proven throughout her career, adult film actors also should be left free from government interference to make the decisions that affect their lives and career.
Note: Jenna Jameson appears to favor either a condom mandate or at least some stronger regulations on set. That doesn’t affect her status as a sharp business lady, but, like I said, I’m not looking to her for safe sex advice–nor am I looking to her for regulatory analysis.
The federal government is considering limiting, or even banning potatoes from school lunches. Officials fear the tasty tubers are causing childhood obesity. They would rather children eat more leafy greens instead.
The children are not pleased. One child told the Associated Press, “That would be so not cool. I love tater tots.”
Critics of the nanny state’s slow but steady mission creep often ask, “What’s next, a law saying eat your vegetables?” Well, apparently it is next. Freedom advocates need to find a new reductio ad absurdum.
In fact, the USDA already has a temporary regulation in place disallowing food stamps to be used to buy potatoes. The rule may be made permanent next year. Poverty has more important indignities than losing some choice of what you buy at the grocery store. But what a way to treat adults.
Eat your vegetables. Or else. They’re good for you.
Most car thefts happen to unlocked cars. The government of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, thinks it can help. It plans to issue $25 fines to people who forget to lock their cars. First-time violators get off with a warning.
Bear in mind that enforcing this policy involves police systematically trying to break into peoples’ cars. First, that’s inherently creepy. Second, that’s a significant privacy violation. It’s also a Fourth Amendment issue. If an officer stumbles upon something illegal and decides to prosecute, he has performed a warrantless search.
It’s also a safety issue. If a thief decides to play dress-up and look like an officer, he could very easily steal valuables from parked cars in broad daylight and no one would be the wiser.
One more problem to add to the pile is corruption. A legitimate officer might be tempted to give himself a quick pay raise at a forgetful car owner’s expense. Policing for profit is all too common.
Better for the government to stay out of this one.
In the world of regulation, no good deed goes unpunished. In the UK, an ex-soldier named Derek Evans decided to mow the lawn at the cemetery where his mother is buried. At first, he had intended to tidy up only her grave. But out of kindness, he ended up mowing the entire cemetery.
Regulators quickly put a stop to Mr. Evans’ good deeds. British blog Big Brother Watch reports:
The jobsworths at the Council have told him that as he was without public liability insurance he was banned from carrying on – despite the fact, as Mr Evans points out in stark terms, “the only people I was mowing near are six feet under.”
… There’s just no common sense to decisions like this: they’re so stupid you have to be an “expert” to reach them.
(Via Iain Murray)
GlobalWarming.org WorkPlaceChoice.org CEI.org
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast