Friday, June 4th was the last time I drank coffee. I love iced coffee and have
been drinking it on daily basis for 2 years. Well, I was starting to feel the coffee
intake was hindering my health, so I decided to give it up.

I did some research and found that caffeine is not as harmless as many people may believe.

The questions for debate:

Should the public, at large, be made aware (through advertisments and
warning labels) of the health risks associated with the consumption of caffeine?

Should children (under 18) be allowed to purchase/consume caffeinated
beverages, if caffeine has indeed been proven highly addictive and harmful?

I have to say I absoluetly like coffee. I like the flavor. I even like things that are not coffee but coffee flavored. Coffee flavored Ice cream. Coffee flavored Jelly beans. Iced Coffee. Fu-fu hollywood doctored custom esppressos.

I own a rental house next door to my mom's house in Hawaii and she grows coffee on nearly 2 acres in Hilo. I have had coffee overnighted to me by my Mom when she is living there. I am not joking, it is true, believe it or don't LOL

Oh, yeah, I love the stuff

So, instead of going to a twelve step program, I just very strictly regulate my intake of coffee to 3-4 cups on the weekdays and 5-6 on Weekends.

I don't quite fit into any of the categories listed in your poll. I loathe coffee, but I like a nice cup of tea when I go to my favorite British tea shop. Overall, I go many more days without caffeine than with it.

Although there is no doubt that consuming a lot of caffeine is not good for you, I think the health risks with moderate consumption are minimal. Here's an article with a lot of information about this:

Caffeine and Health: Clarifying the Controversies

They come to this conclusion:



I don't think that warning labels are appropriate, but some accurate information about avoiding too much caffeine would be reasonable. I don't think that preventing persons under 18 from purchasing caffeine products is possible (can you imagine the outrage of the soft drink industry?) Even if it were, I doubt that this would be a good idea. There is evidence that children consume far less caffeine than adults, without any restrictions:



I think the bottom line is that caffeine, like a lot of substances, is just fine in reasonable amounts. It is possible to abuse it, like almost any other substance, but the risks are very low compared to other substances.

(By the way, you would have to eat a lot of chocolate to get the same effect from it as from coffee. Compare these figures:)

Caffeine Content of Beverages, Foods, and Drugs



If you choose to give up caffeine, great! I think you will feel a little better and be a little healthier.

I hate coffee...absolutely detest it even though I love the smell of fresh coffee beans (particularly love hazelnut varieties).

I do love my chocolate though, so I get my fair share of caffeine from it. I am not much of a soft drink person and will usually only drink sprite or root beer anyway, neither of which has caffeine.

I don't mind coffee ice cream, but I don't like ANYTHING else even remotely resembling coffee. I once had a yummy hot chocolate coffee blend in Estes Park, Colorado (it was like 9/10ths hot chocolate though), but I don't have any desire to add any coffee products to my "diet". I'm addicted enough to chocolate I don't need another caffeine addiction

edited to add responses to the questions for debate (duh!)

Should the public, at large, be made aware (through advertisments and
warning labels) of the health risks associated with the consumption of caffeine?

This I'm not sure of. I suppose the experts would have to come to an agreement upon how big of a risk caffeine is (and in what amount) and the specific health risks associated with the intake of caffeine.

Should children (under 18) be allowed to purchase/consume caffeinated
beverages, if caffeine has indeed been proven highly addictive and harmful?

Again, I suppose it would depend upon the severity of caffeine's effects. I don't think it's possible to get a "high" off caffeine like illicit drugs - that would take a helluva lot of coffee, methinks. I don't think the effects could be considered life-threatening though

Dang! I like beer and I like scotch and I like bourbon, and they tell me that's unhealthy for me. I like red meat, cooked medium rare and they tell me that's going to kill me. I like certain kinds of candy, keep bags of it in my car and they tell me this is unhealthful. I like wine which I view as a member of the fruit food group and that's probably not a good thing either. I already know they think it's not healthy to breathe the air in Los Angeles, and there's most likely something wrong with the water and now they're telling me my few cups of coffee I drink everyday is bad as well. I just have to wonder what is left to do in life other than to enjoy it in the time one has here.

So, to do a mass answer to the questions posed, I think it's fine for people to "warn us" that at some point, we're all going to die. That is a truth, somewhere down the line, something's gonna get us. I'm glad people are so concerned about me, it keeps them occupied and that's probably a really good thing. In the meantime, while they worry, I'm going to enjoy my "vices" like a cup of coffee in the morning and a bourbon night cap, and when I'm gone, I'll at least go with a smile on my face and a song in my heart.

Coffee is great but I consider it for special occasions only when Im really in the mood. I do drink black tea in the morning but I also drink herbal teas regularily.

I have heard that addiction to coffee and diet drinks can cause women a more severe menopause. Its probably good for women to consider what their addictions are and lower them already in their 40's not to suffer more greatly when menopause hits. That includes sugar, alchohol, caffeine, tobacco and aspartame, as in diet drinks.

I think when you 'need' something you might consider why and the risk level and just for experimentation break the need part of it. Its a spiritual practice as well as a health improvement. Caffeinated drinks are diurectics as well, so you may be dehydrating without knowing it. Often you cant tell until you stop and find yourself unusually thirsty for some days.

On the subject of quitting, Id like to recommend to anyone going on a healthier regimen a series of products called Yogi Tea , they can be found in any health food section of your local grocer. They have all kinds of great tasting formulas which are natural herbal teas. They have fasting, pick-me-up , computer stress, mens strengthening, womens moon-cycle, bedtime, cold formula, immune strengtheners and more. They come in pretty boxes that look attractive in your collection, are ayurvedic formulas and have lots of info on the boxes as to Yoga positions to help you along with whatever you are trying to accomplish. Each tea bag has a little positive quote as well. There are ways to treat yourself with a nice product that makes you feel you are doing yourself some good, and herbs can be as good as other things once you become accustomed. *Serving your Spirit*.

Should the public, at large, be made aware (through advertisments and
warning labels) of the health risks associated with the consumption of caffeine?

Should children (under 18) be allowed to purchase/consume caffeinated
beverages, if caffeine has indeed been proven highly addictive and harmful?

I think that the health risks should be made public.
I think 18 is a little old for banning of caffeinated drinks. I drank coke as a child and was not horribly affected but I dont think its great that kids drink this stuff now that I know. Parents should be made aware of potential risks and what sugar and caffeine highs do to children.

Education is never a bad thing.

I hate coffee but, as one of you pointed out, the smell is great. I have an addiction to a simialar thing though....

Coke...

No, not the infamous white powder that hails from the jungles of South America and is a relative of caffine, but the drink.

I will chug Coke until I have an anuerysm. I love it.

Now is that necessarily a good thing? No. When I go on a no soda regimen to lose a pound or two, it works. I usually drink sweet juices to put down the sweet tooth urge. Its healthier anyway.

Personally, I don't think a warning label is needed for caffine like it is for nicotine. I think the public knows that caffine is a stimulant and should be consumed carefully.

And if a 15 year old can buy a Big Mac then he/she can purchase a caffine product. Now 'No-Doze'.... that might be a different story.

Titus, I have to give a boost to a product called Emer'gen-C. This is for people trying to break the soda habit and just cant do plain water. Its a fizzy vitamin drink put in water. They come in 10 or so flavors and are sweet or not---1000mgs of vitamin C , 32 mineral complexes, B vitamins plus electrolytes, makes bubbles and is better for you than fruit juice and much better than coca-cola. You can find it easily in most stores these days, its a matter of direction.

Not to toot own horn, but Ive had some success by example turning people onto healthy replacements in eating and drinking habits if they are interested. My recent ex could not just drink water after a big soda habit. Emergen' C's did the trick. The knowledge that you are effecting your health positively by what you choose to drink and shielding yourself from disease and negative effects (free radicals and all that) is a huge impetus, especially when the drink tastes great too.
There are also now these Vitamin Water drinks.

Aquilla, I like to have some beer ( micro brews are yummy), and wine with dinner and definately an expresso or latte sometimes, fattening dessert too, butter on my potato or with crab legs, a great imported cheese, a steak on the grill on occasion. I just try to cut corners when I can. I mean you cant do everything and expect to survive in good health. Kids should not be drinking soda everyday, WE should not be sustaining ourselves in diet drinks and coffee, meat and Tiramisu if we want to 1. Keep our teeth 2. Not have a heart attack at 45 y/o, diabetes, cancer or many other things.

For sure as we get older we have to consider what we can do to maintain good health since it is really our most precious resource. We can go without some things, I suppose a quality vs. quantity situation.

Nothing could be better for you than a great meal of filet mignon, seafood, or vegitarian, red wine or a spliff, together good conversation with friends or family, even perhaps a cognac, scotch and cigar if thats your thing. This is the good life. Much of our health is about mental happiness.

But:
Two cups of coffee in the morn, 3-4 diet or regular cokes a day, a snickers bar on break, MacDonalds for lunch or a Top'Ramen, followed by some quik thing you eat for dinner is a recipe for an overtime bad health program. Small but positive substitutions can make a world of difference in our busy lives. Its the habitual negatives or unthoughtful food neglect that can contribute to terminal diseases.

I think we have to make up for our vices somewhere, that does mean some sacrifices, hopefully coming to a balance between our concious desicions (the wine, butter or latte which we luxuriate in sometimes) and that which we habitually abuse like diet drinks, coffees or fast food.

To Doomed Planet, with much respect I think if you thought coffee was a problem then it probably was for you, and giving up the need for it is a positive. I hope you'll find other great drinks that you can rely on and enjoy and after 'breaking the habit' the occasional iced coffee will not be anything but a treat.

I like to make experiments with myself and challenge my needs and wants. If I see myself depending too much on anything I like to try to cut it loose, just to prove I am not a slave to it. Like I said previously its an interesting spiritual paractice. These kind of things make us stronger.
PS. I did this with AD for a week, but here I am posting again although I said to myself I would take the summer off, HA!

As I understand it, there is little risk to your health is you consume a moderate amount of caffeine. As for me, caffeine one of my food groups (Im he 7+guy), I drink a pot of coffee before I leave for work, take 2 24 ounce cups with me to the office, refill them before I leave for the job site, and frequently drink another pot when I get home. So I'm pretty much doomed.

However, you can not live in this country and not know that caffeine has risks. Every week a news program somewhere discusses all the things that "will kill you dead" from caffeine to fiberglass insulation to guns without trigger locks.

However, if moderate consumption results in little to no health risk to the average American then why spend the money on the regulation of caffeine? It will cost a small fortune for the government to regulate it, regulation will cost the companies as well. And of course as a resulting costs will be footed by the tax payer and the consumer. Are we willing to pay for this through a "coffee tax" anyone remember a little party in Boston?

If you have to consume large amounts of coffee before a health risk is realistic then why is this program necessary? Or to illustrate the point better: Large amounts of fatty foods can lead to all sorts of health risks, while moderate fatty foods are perfectly fine, and some fatty foods are a needed part of your diet. Should we begin to regulate bacon and sausage because a few people in the country are not capable of moderation?

Lastly, I couldn't find a link but there was a study talked about on my local news about a month ago that showed coffee consumption, in moderation, was actually good for you and had a preventative effect on heart disease or a particular type of cancer (I can't remember which). Since there are little to no health risks when consumed moderately, and even a possible health benefit, does it make sense to demonize coffee and spend millions of tax payer dollars to regulate it?

I, too am a major coffee drinker. In fact, I can't vote in the poll because my particular intake isn't listed. I have it fed to me intraveinously!

Yes there can be some adverse side effects to ingesting a large amount of caffeine. On the other hand, there have been shown to be some health benefits as well.

4 to 5 cups of coffee per day have been shown in laboratory testing to help prevent liver damage. The same amounts have been shown to help prevent diabetes by as much as 30%.

As always, there's good and bad to anything you may eat, drink or otherwise partake in.

Great subject, Doomed and good for you for quitting caffeine.

Unfortunately, I am a complete coffee addict, and I've been that way since college. I only quit for my pregnancies, and I don't know how I did that . My habit got worse after the birth of my first child, because he had a sleep disorder and I got about 3 hours of Zs a day for two years straight. I drink about 5 cups a day, I'd say. If I don't get it, it REALLY effects the way I feel. I don't get the withdrawl headaches, but I become energy-less and depressed. It isn't the placebo effect, because it happens even when I don't know I'm missing caffeine. About a month ago, I was having a bout of depression and felt very tired for about three days. I found that I'd bought decaf by mistake.

Anyway, I don't allow my kids to drink any soda, but I wouldn't make it a law. Even sugar can be addictive, and is definitely bad for you if overconsumed. I agree that the public should be made aware of the drawbacks to caffeine, but let the parents decide if their kids can indulge, and how much. Especially chocolate which is, afterall, one of the great joys in life!

Should the public, at large, be made aware (through advertisements and warning labels) of the health risks associated with the consumption of caffeine?

Should children (under 18) be allowed to purchase/consume caffeinated beverages, if caffeine has indeed been proven highly addictive and harmful?

I don't see the harm of a health campaign to make the public aware of caffeine intake the same way we found out about wine, red meat, etc. Warning labels are over the top, though.

Yes, children should be allowed to drink caffeinated beverages--if their parents allow it. I have a problem with vending machines in schools. Schools subsidize their budget by selling "advertisement rights" to distributers (the school allows vending machines with Coca-Cola products but bars Pepsi-Co products) instead of cutting programs or raising taxes, two unpopular moves. The school doesn't make waves, the company increases its market share taking aim at younger and younger consumers, and our children's eating habits are commodities in a free economy.

I have one small cup of coffee a day. A third of that is heavy cream. I try drinking 4-5 glasses of water or combine it with liquids like lemonade. I used to go through a pack of Coke a day in my college years. It wired me up but I'd crash and reach for another can. I feel a lot better now, like my energy is my own. As long as I have 8 hours of sleep I'm fine throughout the day.

Oh, and stay away from my medium-well, Emeril Southwest Style with a hint of lime broiled steak or risk being speared by a fork.

Should the public, at large, be made aware (through advertisements and warning labels) of the health risks associated with the consumption of caffeine?
I'm with Aquilla on this one-heck, everything is dangerous to your health these days. One week drinking caffeinated beverages is good for you, the next it's bad. With all the warning labels and vitamin/calorie/carb labels, it's a wonder they can fit the product's name on a package.

Rather than buy into "this week's hype", I think a person should consult their doctor regarding caffeine. Each person is different, and will be affected in different ways.
Should children (under 18) be allowed to purchase/consume caffeinated beverages, if caffeine has indeed been proven highly addictive and harmful?
Sugar is addictive and children are given it mere hours out of the womb. I think it's up to a child's parent as to whether they're going to be alarmist and withold beverages/foods they consider dangerous. Making it illegal to purchase is too extreme, IMHO.

As for me, I have 3 favorite beverages: iced tea (fresh brewed and unsweetened), Diet Dr Pepper and coffee. All have caffeine and two have Equal...which is another substance that has been deemed dangerous by some. Eh, I'm gonna die of something, I might as well enjoy my stay.

2-3 Coffees in the morning.
2-3 Soft Drinks throughout the day.

Sometimes, coffee at night (maybe once or twice a week).

Of course, I am a creature of habit. I drink coffee and pop because--I drink coffee and pop.

I am not an addict.

Maybe not to caffeine, but you sure do spend a lot of time here.

Well I would ask you to quit for one day, but I am not so sure that I want to see you WITHOUT your coffee Amlord.......no offense.

20 oz Dark Roast in the morning.

2-3 soda in the afternoon. (Although I just pounded a Red Bull, so please, bare with me.)

Of course this is offset in the evening with the consumption of Six 12oz. beers. America's real favorite drug.

I don't generally drink coffee because even half a cup can make me feel jittery, depressed, and queasy. I do frequently drink jasmine tea which is basically green tea infused with jasmine flowers. It has caffeine, but a cup of caffeinated tea has about one third the amount of caffeine that is in a cup of coffee. It's more agreeable to my body.

I also drink a soda in the evenings, sometimes caffeinated and sometimes not.

All in all, I would say that my caffeine intake is moderate, and I'm okay with that. My body lets me know when I've had too much, and I listen and learn my limits. This is true for caffeine, alcohol, fast food, etc.

Should the public, at large, be made aware (through advertisments and
warning labels) of the health risks associated with the consumption of caffeine?

Are they not aware? It seems to me that most everyone hears about the negative effects of caffeine on the television, in the newspaper, and in magazines. It's not a direct label on the product, but the information is circulating, and while I wouldn't be opposed to labeling, particularly in regards to pregnant women avoiding caffeinated beverages, I'm not sure that it's really necessary.

Should children (under 18) be allowed to purchase/consume caffeinated
beverages, if caffeine has indeed been proven highly addictive and harmful?

I don't believe that parents should give their children a large amount of soda, but I don't think that the government needs to restrict the purchase of caffeinated beverages either. What I would like to see is a stronger effort put forward to teach kids' proper dietary guidelines, and I'd like to see the soda machines in schools replaced with healthier choices.

I think one of the reasons that caffein has not received the same amount of attention as other addictive drugs like nicotine is that it doesn't cause many deaths, if any direct deaths. One of the main reasons things get brought to the publics attention is from direct cause and effect. If X causes Y and it's obvious then people will get all riled up about it and start making a big deal to educate. As far as caffein goes it's just: caffein --> wake up/get energy (or at least that's what I'd say most people would think the direct cause of caffein would be). If we're going to put warning stickers on coffee, soda, tea, ect. then we might as well put choking hazard stickers on baby carrots. In the realm of addictive drugs caffein is on the lower end, if not the lowest to me.



If you really want to get crazy with warnings then sure. I hope someone doesn't sue Coke for making them addicted to soda's and therefore grossly overweight.



Yes, but if they're at an age where the can't determine what the correct amount of caffein is to have, then the parents should be there. I've had it up to here with bad parents blaming society for their problems.

I am a confirmed Diet Coke junkie. It's one thing that is always---always in my refrigerator.

Despite my nickname and years of working the night shift, I have never developed the taste for coffee. I love the smell of it, but I won't drink the stuff.

Let's face it. Everything you like that is bad for you tastes good. What's the option? Eat healthy. Get plenty of fruits and vegetables. Work out like an Olympian. Watch your diet. Drink healthy liquids and no sweets.

And die anyway.

Give me COOOFFEEEE....

I love the taste of coffee in the morning, especially when I have to drive about 30 min. to get to college at an unhealthy 7:00 a.m. in the morning.

But, I know enough about not to drink huge amounts of it (daily).

One thing I want to try is ESPRESSO!

Yeah, but only if millions if not billions of tax-payer dollars are used to fund such an "educational" campaign.



Absolutely not! That is of course unless the parents of said children have purchased an official Government waiver ($1,000.00 per annum) stating that they understand (and their children understand) the possible side effects of caffiene consumption and hereby forego any claim upon the Government for any costs to "the village" associated with caffiene abuse by the aforementioned children.

Edited to add for Christopher: Espresso (no X) is just concentrated coffee. One "shot" of espresso is equal to a regular cup of coffee. I prefer a large (20 Oz.) triple shot Mocha with whip cream please...

Thanks for the info Artemise, I think I might look that up. But I also forgot to mention that a local supermarket chain out here (Albertsons) has this sparkling water that I'd never thought I'd touch, but God does it taste great. If anyone knows of Albertsons, I'd reccomend that they try it!

The FDA is a regulatory agency that is bought and sold by big business.
If the countless caffeinated beverage companies want caffeine to be
deemed "safe", you can be rest assured, the FDA will deem it safe.

It has now been two weeks since I've had any coffee. It has not
been the greatest two weeks of my life. I've been so lethargic and
exhausted at times, and depressed. I know this is temporary, so
I'm riding out the storm, so to speak. But, it just goes to show what
a powerful drug caffeine is. And, I was drinking two iced coffees
a day (each morning). That would be considered "within safe limits,"
per the FDA.

I would like to see more attention brought to this matter, in a public
way. Children are getting hooked on soft drinks. Yes, it is the
parents responsibility, bottom line. However, when kids and adults
are getting addicted to such a drug, perhaps it is time to make the
general public more aware about the dangers, so they can start to
care about what they are ingesting on a daily basis.

It would be okay with me if there was an age requirement for the
purchase of caffeinated products. Such a measure would not adversely
affect our children. It may hurt the multi-million dollar companies,
like Coca Cola, but who cares!

The 50,000+ employees of the industry would probably care. If children we restricted from buying there products there sales would drop sharply. If sales drop sharply then the companies need to reduce costs to remain profitable. The first place companies go to reduce costs is labor. After all it makes sense. If your selling less, you need to produce less so you need less people. I think the 5000 or so people would would find themselves unemployed would care a great deal.

The American Tax payer would care. A reduction in earning in the industry would means a reduction in the taxes they pay, further reducing the revenues of the states and the federal government. Furthermore, the layoffs that would be likely would result in further loss of revenue due to the loss of wages and thus the loss of income tax revenues. On top of that the cost of regulating the beverage would reduce tax dollars that are available for other programs. What programs should we cut to make up for this?

Lets not forget the costs to State and Local governments from the reduction in sales tax revenues. Again, what programs should they cut to make up for it?



Doomed, I strongly suggest you consider visiting your doctor. When I was deployed to Iraq I was forced to quit cafinated coffee cold turkey for just short of the first two months I was there due to a lack of availability. I was lethargic and suffered brutal headaches. For the first 4 days. After that, it was nothing. And as I said in my earlier post I easily drink 2-3 POTS of coffee a day. I am wondering if you might not be dealing with so other illness of medical concern that you are not aware of because it happened to pop up at the same time that you quit coffee. This honestly concerns me, I really would like you to call your doctor and ask about it, just to be on the safe side.

I want to also reiterate what overlandsailor said, doomed:

Get to a doctor now. Something is wrong and it's not caffeine.

The amount of caffeine you were ingesting was not large enough to cause what you're experiencing. Depression and exhaustion for two weeks are NOT normal responses to cutting off your caffeine intake.

I also kicked the caffeine habit about 15 years ago. Wasn't much of a habit, maybe 2-3 Coke/Pepsi sodas a day. But it was enough that I noticed that my energy levels would drop some as I headed into a meal. (Some of that feeling could also have been sugar related, too.) So I quit one Xmas vacation, suffered a couple of days of headaches and that was it. And I really haven't missed it at all. I sleep better, I stay awake longer. I think when you mess with your normal sleep patterns via caffeine, you don't necessarily mess with them for the better.

Have to go with the others on this one Doomed- I do lay off it now and then, like when I am out in the woods or something, and a couple of bad headaches, usually not even for more than a day or two and I am a 30 year addict of the stuff!

(O.S., AMF, C.R.)

You are very considerate to show concern on my behalf. I do appreciate it.
However, I must clarify: I have felt low-energy, fatigued, down, at times.
Not every minute of the day. Keep in mind, each of those iced coffees that I
consumed every morning had two teaspoons of coffee and 3 teaspoons of sugar.
In a month's time that becomes 120 teaspoons of coffee and 180
teaspoons of sugar. In a year I have consumed 1,460 teaspoons of
coffee and 2,190 teaspoons of sugar. I would expect that my body may need
a little bit of time to adjust to the lack of such stimulants.

I did have a headache the first day, then it subsided. The other symptoms, as
mentioned above, have occurred on and off since I quit. Overall, I'm starting to
feel much better. This has not been an easy undertaking. I looked forward to
those coffees with excitement, and I thoroughly enjoyed them. To give them up
has taken much will power.

Perhaps it is the combination of coffee and sugar that makes an even
deadlier mix. I couldn't do coffee without sugar. Likewise, Coca Cola and all the
other soft drinks that are available are not only filled with caffeine, but also
tons of sugar.

More public awareness will not hurt Americans. (Congress will spend our money,
regardless.) If an age requirement were imposed on the purchase of soft drinks,
maybe the soft drink manufacturers will step up to the plate and come up with a
healthier alternative for our kids. I highly doubt they'd just roll over and die.
Necessity is the mother of invention.

Let them make a soft drink that has no sugar or caffeine, or any other harmful
ingredient, and they'll get my business. Kids just want something that tastes
good. We are needlessly getting them hooked on caffeine at a very young age,
thus setting them up for a lifetime of artificial-stimulant-addiction.

Perhaps, however, the small amount you consumed simply should not have such a long term effect on your body. I still feel you should consider discussing it with a professional.



OK, then considering the fact that government revenue is a limited resource, what government programs would you suggest we cut to fund this awareness? Or would you prefer a tax increase to fund it?



They do this now. Sprite has no caffeine and has a diet variety. there is Caffeine free, diet coke, etc. The fact is, few people drink these things when compared to the numbers that choose to drink the regular versions of these drinks.

Caffeine, in moderation is not harmful. All the medical research you read will tell you that. On top of this you can not own a television and not have heard that caffeine, or sugar, or nicotine for that matter can be harmful. So are we really willing to loose jobs, reduce government revenues, etc for an issue that the private sector has already addressed? The media informs us of these things because the stories bring more viewers, which means higher ratings, and thus higher advertising revenue. How many times have you seen a ad for you local news that said something like: "tonight on action news, The hidden killer lurking in you kitchen"? The soft drink industry doesn't just make regular soda and coffee, they also make caffeine free versions, diet versions, health drinks, etc. These companies likewise do this not out of the goodness of their hearts but because there is a market for these drinks which means there is money to be made by them.

Why risk all the potential losses associated with the regulation of these drinks when the market is doing a good job of informing the public and providing alternatives already?

Do we really need more "protect us from ourselves" legislation / regulation? What happened to taking responsiblity for our own choices?


Edited to add:

Here are two sites I found with a broad range of information on coffee / caffeine.

Mochajen's Caffeine page
International Food Information Council

An interesting side not is that they both read VERY similar. I wonder which stole from the other or if they both stole from yet another source.

Both site studies and organizations that can be researched if one feels the need.

I drink at least three or four 16oz cups per day. I find that I am unable to think or function well until I have my first cup of the day. Does that make me an addict? Probably. But I'm not sure the addiction is physical. On those occasions when one of my friends thought it would be funny to stick me with decaf I still found myself awake and refreshed by the time I finished the cup. So maybe I'm a lunatic and not a caffeine addict.

But let's assume caffeine is a physically addicting substance. And let's further take for granted that caffeine is detrimental to one's health and that it is particularly bad for children. Well then, so what? Every day we're presented with numerous opportunities to engage in activities that will shorten our lifespans, and when faced with these temptations we often give in. Fast food, cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, not wearing a seat belt, failing to stretch before exercising, leaving the bathroom without washing my hands, and all the other bad things I do. My coffee habit is starting to look like not such a bad thing.

So I shouldn't drink coffee. OK, I know that. I shouldn't do a lot of other things too. But I like coffee, and I like the other bad things I do. No one forces me to drink coffee, I do it because I like it. I acknowledge I'm engaging in an activity that may well shorten my life, but I feel the point to life is to enjoy it and I just can't see myself enjoying life without coffee.

No, I would not prefer a tax increase. As far as I'm concerned the
soft drink companies should pay for the adds, and pass the expense
along to their devoted customers. That's what the cigarette companies
do....



In moderation, okay. But, are people not over-doing it? Children do not
need any caffeine. They have naturally high levels of energy, and soft drink
companies are reeling the kids in purposely. They want life-time customers,
and what better way to insure that, then to get 'em hooked early on...



I wish I knew what happened to "personal responsibility." It's lost on most
of America, nowadays ..I agree with you, for the most part. I'm just pretty
disgusted with the garbage being dished out, wholesale, in this country (i.e.
McDonalds, Coca Cola, and most any other product you will see in Saturday
morning cartoon-time commercials)... Companies are getting rich off of our
ignorance and complacency.

First of all, the cost of regulation will be on government. It is government agencies and employees that enforce regulation. Those people who pose as underage kids to see if store owners will sell them smokes don't work for free. And the miles of paper work they have to do on each attempt to buy is reviewed by umpteen beureucrats who also don't work for free. The cost of expanding these programs comes out of the general revenue.

Secondly, if you artificially increase the cost of something (IE Tax it) the sales of that item naturally go down. If sales go down, then production can go down, so to remain profitable the companies layoff PEOPLE to make up for the loss. This not only costs jobs, it reduces government revenues from income taxes.

So how would you pay for the enforcement of these regulations and how would you make up for the lost tax revenues from the reduced sales and the higher unemployment rate?





Companies are getting rich by providing people with what they want. Why are there no giant, multi-national health food companies? After all everyone who has gone to public school in the last 25 years had to take a health class that had at least one quarter of one year devoted to nutrition. Not to mention that if you own a TV you can't help but see news stories, commercials, PSAs etc telling you how important it is to eat right.

The reason there is no McDonalds like health food restaurant chains or Coke like heath drink organizations is because the majority of our people CHOOSE junk food and soft drinks over health foods. America is a free country, we have the freedom to choose what we want to buy, eat, etc.

Nowadays, Mcdonalds, Coke and most other companies have added low-carb options to their product line, as well as other healthier choices. Why? because the number of Americans who CHOOSE a healthier diet is increasing every year and these companies want to continue to "get rich".

I hear people take about the "evils of corporate America" all the time. But without corporate America where would we work? How would we earn a living? America's population is much to large for everyone to have their own farm to produce food for their families, not to mention all the little micro industries they would have to have to produce everything from the furniture they use to the appliances they prepare food with.

This is a capitalist company. Companies will provide healthier options to the public if the public wants them. The low carp craze is proof of that.

The problem with America's diet is not the companies producing junk food, but the Americans who choose to consider Twinkies dinner. The problem with Children and junk food is not because evil corporations are out to brainwash them, it is that their parents don't bother to educate or monitor them.

I have 2 teenage brother-in-laws, and one teenage sister in law. The generally eat well. Like when I was a kid they have a nutritious dinner, a somewhat nutritious breakfast (if they choose to eat it) at home, and a reasonably nutritious lunch at school. They also choose chips or donuts or the like for mid day snacks. They don't drink too much soda simply because my In-Law do not buy very much of it. A case of soda has to last this family of 5 a week. They don't get to live of of junk food because my in-laws don't buy a lot of it and will not allow it for breakfast. They do get McDonalds as dinner as treat on occasion. As we all have done.

This is an example of how simple it is for the family to control the kids diets. When the kids have money do they buy soda and junk food on their own. Of course, but it happens in frequently simply because they don't get alot of their own money and most of the time they want a cool shirt, new video game or concert tickets over coke or milkyways.

The issue here is not about what the companies provide to the market or even how they market it. The issue is lazy, non-involved parents who would rather just say yes to everything their kids want then deal the the argument over the word no or spend the time actually talking to or teaching their children.

If you want to address child obesity in America, start talking to the parents. Want a healthier diet for kids? it is the parents who buy the food. What less caffeine in kids diets? Again, the final step in the distribution of 90% of the food and drink kids get is their parents.

Lets just for once, try not to demonize corporate America and look at the real problem. Ourselves. Our choices for ourselves and our children.

Okay, let's educate the parents. A lot of parents are not as smart as you
OS. Many parents don't know about proper nutrition. That's the cold
reality. If we want parents to do right by their children we must help them
become more knowledgeable about what is really healthy. We can spend the
money now, with public service announcements, and other government-funded
programs. Or, we can spend the money later, when those kids become adults
who develop diabetes or other health complications brought on by excessively
bad eating habits. Either way, the tax payer will pay.



I agree, wholeheartedly. But, if you think the masses are going to start
taking personal responisiblity, when the social climate nurtures the opposite,
you will be disappointed.

A side note about soft drinks, and the accessibility that children have to them:

Many children are not supervised every minute of every day. If the purchase
of soft drinks were restricted to minors, the consumption of soft drinks would
go down. That would make for healthier kids. But, like you so vehemently
stated, that may cause lay-offs at the Coca Cola factories, which will hurt the
economy. And, money is much more important than the health of our future!

Or we could just as a society expect the parents to go to the library or turn on PBS. Why is it always a government program that is the solution? Why do we not simply suggest that people take responsiblity for themselves and the children the bring into this world. Why do I, as a marginally surviving American Financially have to pay (though tax dollars) for the choices other people make? When will we just accept the fact that some people are better off then others and if you're the one that is worse off it is YOUR job to work to improve YOUR situation, education, etc.

We already have a government funded program to educate parents on everything imaginable. It's called the Library.



Money is what produces the health of our future. The research that produces miracle drugs, great new medical practices, etc are all funded by money. Money invested in the research because if it is successful the sales of the developed product will provide a massive return on that investment.

Would you care so little for the factory workers at Coca Cola loosing their jobs if you were one of them?

As for kids not being supervised, again that is the parents problem. My child IS supervised EVERY MINUTE of the day, either by myself, my wife of a trusted family member when we need a baby sitter. And even when she grows older and can go out and about on her own, where will she get the money for these soft drinks? From me. So I still have control. Don't want here to spend the money on junk, then pack her a lunch and don't give her money.



So then I, as a parent who tries very hard to support my family and do the right thing by my daughter is financial penalized, because of other people's bad choices, failure to visit the library, etc? How is this possibly fair?

I did not sign up to be the nanny of every idiotic adult who fails take care of themselves or their children. Furthermore, what do you think the average parent in this category does when your PSA airs? They go get another beer.

You cannot force feed education to people. If they do not choose to learn they will not. all you can do is ensure the information is available, and hope they use it. The Library, the Internet, the 1001 pamphlets at the doctors office and a multitude of PSAs are already out there and easily accessible to these folks. And they choose to not use them, ignore them or tune them out.

How will more money on more education they will likely ignore possibly help anything?



Edited to Add:

HAPPY FATHER's DAY EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That isn't entirely true. How many women do you know who smoke/drink alcohol/ or chug a whole lot of coffee when they are pregnant? Women cut down on those things because it's been hammered into them to do so. In the sixties, pregnant women smoked, drank alcohol, and maintained their caffeine intake, because it was never an issue. Subtle education can work to an extent...though obviously, it's not a panacea.

I don't think a PSA is the way to go (too expensive), but maybe incorporating some nutritional advice, and the strong suggestion to the parent to monitor their child's caffeine intake (I've never seen a pamplet in the doctor's office warning about caffeine intake in children), could go into every pediatric appointment and well-baby check up. That wouldn't cost a thing.

I did not sign up to have my child sitting next to another child who has been put
on a narcotic, such as Ritlin, for hyper-active behavior, when the real
problem is the kid's intake of sugar, caffeine and other hyper-activity-causing
products.

You can be mad about irresponsible parents until you turn blue in the face. It's
not going to help matters. Some parents CAN be influenced. And, most
parents love and want what's best for their kids, they just aren't "in the know"
about what IS best.

I know many parents, who are responsible, caring adults, yet they feed their kids
foods/beverages that are loaded with sugar, preservatives, caffeine. They aren't
doing it out of malice. They simply never learned some of the basic facts about
what products to avoid giving children. Most commercials are advertising products
that are unhealthy and give nothing to a child, nutritionally. That's what parents
are buying at the store, because that is what they see on the commercials....

My main point to all of this is that we all need to take responisiblity for the health
and future of our children (as a society).

Mrs. P.


That's an excellent idea.

I live on caffeine. Coffee, sodas, chocolate covered coffee beans( and not just a couple, mind you, but GOBFULLS!)
It just aint morning till my vision blurs and my hands beging to shake.
My left eye begins to twitch and the voices begin to seranade me softly.
Then I get in my car, crank the radio, crack open a Coca Cola and get on the highway.

"Wouldn't cost a thing"? Someone will have to write the pamphlet. Lawyers will have to research the pamphlet to ensure no can be sued, bureaucrats will have to review and approve the pamphlet. Accountants will have to administer the funds behind the pamphlet. All these people have salaries.

Then the pamphlet will have to be printed which costs money, the pamphlet will have to be distributed, which costs ALOT of money, and if you are writing a law to make it mandatory that they are handed out then the will have to be people who regulate that to ensure they are actually being given out and they will have to be paid as well.

That is a far cry from not costing anything.



Well, this is a subject for another debate. However, my mother was very strict on how much sugar, soda, etc I could have (as in next to none). I was still very hyperactive and had a short attention span. That was because I was a child. ALL children have a tendency towards hyperactivity and short attention spans, it is because they are children. Take all sugar and caffeine away and the vast majority would still have these problems, though they would likely have better teeth.



Bottom line. If you are not willing to do the work of parenting, then don't have kids. I cannot afford to pay anymore in taxes, to help support these people my family is just making it as it is. Many famous and rich people came up from adverse home lives. Perhaps these people will get lucky and their kid will be the next one. I refuse to take away from my child who is my responsibility because someone else will not take responsibility for their own.





Those loving caring parents who are not in the know merely need to go online to find out about anything and everything that can help or harm their child. Don't have Internet access at home? Go to the Library. Can use a computer? Try reading one of the thousands of things on the shelves there that we call books. Can't read? Try books on tape. Anyone who says "I want to learn about what is best for my child but I don't have access to any information" is either lying to cover their laziness or a fool who should not be trusted with pets, let alone children.

If those parents had doctors to deliver those children and doctors who do wellness visits and checkups then the only reason they do not know these things is because they didn't bother to read the reams of information the doctors give to new parents. Nutrition, home safety, A thousand and One signs of possibly medical problems to keep an eye out for, etc. It is all in those packets, those brochures and those booklets that EVERY new parent is inundated with even before the child is born.

These are common sense things. Perhaps you don't give these people enough credit. Perhaps they know what SOME people say about caffeine, preservatives and sugar and perhaps they just don't buy it. After all, they had all that stuff when they were kinds and they turned out just fine. And if they did do the research they would find there was no consensus in the medical community on all the supposed negative health effects of caffeine. Where there is a consensus it is when something else caffeine is supposed to do to you is proven to be false.



And we will pay for this how?

It wouldn't cost a thing for the doctor to include nutritional advice as a small, routine part of the checkup. I only mentioned the pamphlet because your previous post indicated that there are 1001 at the doctor's office. Every expectant mother receives nutritional advice, and a parent who brings his/her child in for their routine exam should as well.

This could be a good idea, but one problem with telling a patient information at the doctors office is that it could (and probably will) lead to other questions being asked by the patient. This isn't necessarily bad, but doctors are almost always running on a tight schedule in order to see as many people as they can in one day.

One very common occurence is that someone will have several problems and wait until they have something like a sore throat to come in. They will then proceed to tell the doc the other 5 problems they have been noticing even though the person has been scheduled for 10 minute sore throat check. This often sets the doctor back a few minutes as s/he doesn't want to completely blow off the patient. What I'm getting at here is that if a doctor is required to tell the patient additional information it will make each appointment last longer and then less people will be able to see a doctor in a day.

I'm not so sure if there is a cheap/free way to combat this problem that is effective. Aren't they supposed to teach nutrition in school anyway? I remember learning about the food pyramid a few times, they should just do some research and update what they tell the kids. That might be the an alright way.

Doctor's routinely give this advice now. The suggestion was that we fund an education campaign to teach parents about nutrition. Yet when I go to the doctor with with daughter we asked a ton of questions including questions about her diet. The Doctor points out areas she is concerned about with my child, areas she is concerned about children in general and gives us more booklets, pamphlets, etc on all sort of things related to children my daughter age. A great deal of that info is on nutrition.

Many parents get all this stuff and never read it. Many wo do read it don't bother to take the advice because that would require that they tell their child no and the child might throw a fit.

How is spending money and regulating the distribution of this material possibly going to solve that? Especially, when parents have more resources then ever in history when it comes to getting information on anything and everything that might be good or bad for their child, but choose not to use any of them?

This is a very similar approach that many have to public schools. Kids doing poorly on tests? Not learning? Graduating from high school without being able to read? Lets give the schools more money. It's politically expedient, and it is the easy answer. To actually try to address the mismanagement of money or the poor quality of the education, or the outright neglect itself would likely result in school administrators and teachs throwing a fit. The same people that say yes to their kids to avoid that struggle do the same with the schools.

First of all, you didn't go for my original idea: to make the soft drink companies
pay for the ads. They would pass the cost on to the consumers, who will stop
buying so much of the crap, and the company and it's workers, shareholders, etc.
will take the hit. Just like the tobacco companies.

Or, perhaps, those same soft drink companies could rise to the occasion and stop
pumping unnecessary garbage into their products. Yeah, I know what you are
going to say: Those soft drink companies are just supplying the demand. IF you
think that Coca Cola didn't know it was dealing a highly addictive, toxic product to
the masses, think again.

By the way, if you want to rant about the problems of public schools, do what I
did, put your money where your mouth is, and send your children to a private
school.


Edited to add: I recommend a person to read the whole article about Coca-Cola.
It is an eye-opener.

Why is all of it necessary? Almost every soft drink maker also makes a caffeine-free version, a diet version, a caffeine-free/diet version and now more and more are making a low carb version. Not to mention that many have divisions of their companies that produce health drinks. They are putting products out there that address this perceived problem and giving consumers a choice. People are just not buying them nearly as much as the others.



Must be nice to be able to afford such a luxury. I for one could not, well that is unless we decided to stop eating, dropped internet access, and sold the house to live out of our van (down by the river ).

I for one would rather that we tried real reform in the public schools so that all of the poor and working class folk's kids could have a good education, giving them to tools they need to succeed in life, as well as the kids from "wealthy families" that can afford private school. It's interesting to me that most, if not all of the politicians that oppose real reform in education have their kids in private school. But, that is a subject for another topic.

I'm with Aquilla here:



I myself usually drink three to four mountain dew "livewires" a day. (thank dio for food stamps) sometimes I drink more. I'm tired of hearing this or that will end up killing you. the way I look at life is that I'm dead already. I could eat nothing but veggies and soy and cut all "harmful" foods and substances from my diet, and yeah I may live until I'm 120 but from what I can tell life after 60 stinks. your body starts to fall apart, and ceases to function properly. so I say, enjoy life while you can, you never know, you could cross the street today and get nailed by a bus. Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks!


Should the public, at large, be made aware (through advertisements and
warning labels) of the health risks associated with the consumption of caffeine?

sure, and while were at it let's put a warning label on big trucks "impact at high speeds may cause damage" and advertise that staring at the sun for long periods may cause damage to the eyes. let's round off all sharp edges while were at it make cars out of foam rubber and have a strict speed limit of 2 miles per hour. don't want anyone to get injured now. personally I'm sick of societies need to protect everyone from harm. life is inherently dangerous. we need to face facts; people get hurt, sick and everyone, and I mean EVERYONE eventually dies.

Should children (under 18) be allowed to purchase/consume caffeinated
beverages, if caffeine has indeed been proven highly addictive and harmful?

yeah, and we all KNOW people under 18 NEVER smoke cigarettes and people under 21 NEVER drink. if we banned minors from drinking caffeinated beverages, they would find ways to get them still. prohibiting people from engaging in an activity has NEVER kept them from engaging in that activity. even when they thought they would face god's wrath for doing it!

by the way, do you realize just how impossible it would be to ban caffeine? do you realize just how many products aimed towards younger people contain caffeine? the soda companies alone have outrageous amounts of revenue from kids drinking soda. there is no way they would allow it to be banned for minors!

also, for anyone who's interested, here are the Caffeine Content of Beverages & Medications

Aspartame: This chemical is used as a sugar substitute in diet soda.
There are over 92 different health side effects associated with aspartame
consumption including brain tumors, birth defects, diabetes, emotional disorders
and epilispsy/seizures. Further, when aspartame is stored for long periods of time
or kept in warm areas it changes to methanol, an alcohol that converts to
formaldehyde and formic acid, which are known carcinogens....



Actually, it's not that nice watching my husband leave the house at 4:00 A.M.,
put in a 12-15 hour day (six days a week), come home dog-tired, all so we can
give our children a good education. I sympathize with your disgust with the
public schools systems, and the bureaucratic nonsense that controls it all.



Part of reforming the public school system should include nutritional "reform."
Take all the soda cans that fill the vending machines out. Replace them with
water, juice and other nutritional products that will give children the right kind
of energy to actually assimilate the knowledge that teachers are trying to impart.
How can we expect our children to learn, or even want to learn, if their most
basic nutritional needs are not being met.

there exists in this world of ours caffinated WATER! just water with caffeine. no sugar or artificial flavoring,, just water.

Forgive me if a have my doubts but I remember when Sacarin (sp?) was the big killer in diet soft drinks. They determined it was a killer through the study of lab rat that they feed raw Sacarin (sp?) to in amounts exceeding their body weight on a daily basis. If you feed them vitamin C in excess of their body weight on a daily basis you would kill them too.

One of the most common sources of toxic metals, pollutants, bacteria, and fungi come from water....One of the most common and prolific sources of man-made chemicals polluting the human body come from our drinking water.

So I guess we should eliminate water from all soft drinks as well.



So with all the issues concerning kid in public schools you choose to focus on this? I think some prioritizing is in order here. How about we focus on there areas of childrens education that they have no control over, like the quality of the education themselves and worry about the soda machines later. Also, how would you fund extra curricular programs? When I went to school money to support school clubs came from the vending machines. A Juice and Water vending machine would generate far less revenue then a soda machine because juice and water are available for free in the cafeteria. So how would you fund those programs for kids?

If you want to disregard the facts re: sugar substitutes, be my guest. As they say, ignorance is bliss.



Coca-Cola is currently using tap water in their soft drink products. Why? Because it would cost
more if they were to filter the water, and let's face it, with all the other garbage
they are pumping into their carbonated-crap, what good would it do?



Perhaps you underestimate the importance of proper nutrition. But, let's talk
about caffeine. Those vending machines in the public schools are filled with
caffeinated sodas. Caffeine is a stimulant. It produces artificial and short bursts
of energy, followed by major zapping of any natural energy.

Children have unlimited resources of natural energy. By giving them caffeinated
beverages, we are extracting the organic energy they produce (with the help of
proper nutrition) and replacing it with the anxious energy that sugar and caffeine
produce. It's not ethical to sacrifice the health and overall well-being of children,
for the sake of the almighty dollar ( "How will our schools get !!" ). That
type of thinking is irresponsible and lazy. Surely, there are ways of bringing
money into the schools without making the students spastic.

Unethical? I think it is unethical to demonize a food ingredient that has no PROVEN negative effects other then dehydration (which is very small problem considering the balance of the water in the drinks).

You would have us spend millions to billions of federal money to educate people on health risks that no one including the AMA considers to be fact.

You would have us ban the consumption of these things, at least by those under 18 again, without any proven facts concerning the health risks of this product. This would likely lead to thousands of Americans being laid off from the industry do to a steep drop in sales. And poverty is far more unhealthy to people the a soda or cup of coffee.

You would do all this because some Americans choose of overindulge in these drinks and some parents do not do their job.

By the same standard we should ban children from TV (sitting to close can harm your eyes), the Internet (too many sites where they can learn how do do harmful things), Skateboards (too many child are harmed by the tricks they try), pet dogs (children can be harmed if they tease a dog and it bites them), Driving (the most at risk group of Americans when it comes to auto accidents are those under 18), etc, etc.

This is a free country (or at least a close proximity). People have a right to choose what they want to do, even if it is stupid, dangerous or nieve.

It's the Big Brother, protect you from yourself, corporations are evil, we know what is best for you mentality that is doing far more damage to this country then any food additive. This type of thinking is what is destroying the concept of personal responsibility and is taking society down the tubes.

EVERYONE has seen the news stories about nutrition, doctors constantly harp on parents about it, there are tons of web sites about it, hundreds of books and magazines in the library about it, and there are as many tv ads for healthy products as there are for the dreaded caffeine laced soft drinks. NO ONE out there is totally ignorant of what good and bad nutrition is. Many just choose to ignore all that info and live the way the want. You would have us take millions of taxpayer dollars and spend them on even more education for these people to ignore. That is truly irresponsible.

Want people to stop drinking caffeine? America is a free market. So Develop something better. Choosing the same old useless approach of banning something from kids (like they all don't get cigarettes and beer somehow already) and throwing money at it is what is really lazy here.

Were Coke and Pepsi "banned" before they ever set their sites on schools? Would keeping them out of schools drastically cut the companies' payroll jobs? With large-scale goals as the one below their profit margin can't hinge on school vending machines:


Profits made by aggressive marketing techniques are harder to quantify. Coke and Pepsi are shelling out millions over years for exclusive advertising rights. The consumer--formerly called "students"--sales made at vending machines and cafeterias may not offset the cost of the contract. The company has to consider this possibility and make conservative adjustments in their return on investment estimates.

One way for the company to increase its chances of turning a profit is applying pressure on schools after the contract is signed. Would you have a problem with this?:


Sex ed is one thing, but I wouldn't smile at the thought of teachers pushing condom vending machines. But hey, some Trojan employee could lose his job.

You mentioned caffeine-free drinks as an alternative.


I couldn't find the percentage of school vending machines that carry caffeine-free drinks. I'm curious to know. Arguably less addictive, caffeine-free soda's prospects to turn profits seems less likely and gives companies fewer incentives to make them available to kids.

You could argue free economy, unemployment, corporate welfare, parents give kids money to spend in the first place, but none of the defenses address why schools are starved for funding and have to pimp soda to stay on operating target.