Do you really want to know how to hit Monster beverage the hardest?

[TwoTankAmin]

So what can members here, or on other sites, do that would have the greatest negative impact on this company? Petitions are nice, letters or emails to the company are nice too. But the problems is they will have little or no effect. Now boycotting the products so it results in a loss of sales substantial enough for them to notice would be very effective. The problem is we don't constitute a big enough part of their sales to do this. So what can we do that would really hit them where it hurts?

The answer is really simple and its in the news. There are several ongoing congressionanal investigations into the the energy beverage business. recently a state issues subpoenas to Monster and a couple of other companies. There is also concern being expressed by politicians from a number of states.

This should be a light bulb moment.

While we as fish keepers may be relatively powerless, our senators and congress persons are not. While Monster Beverage can bully us poor hobbyists, Washington is another story. So consider writing/emailing your reps indicating your concern for the high caffine contents and loads of other unregulated ingredients in these products. Express your concern and outrage that these drinks are sold where even young children can buy them. Be sure to mention Monster Beverage by name. You may want to mention the names of the other big companies involved as well.

This link will help you find out who your reps are and how to contact them http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

Last year, Monster had a 35% share of the energy-drink market based on volume, while Red Bull had 30% and RockStar had 19%, according to Beverage Digest. Coca-Cola and PepsiCo are far smaller players in the arena, with about 5% each.

The investigation disclosed by Monster is just the latest red flag for the energy drink market. In April, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) called on the FDA to investigate the industry, noting that the high levels of caffeine and stimulating additives in the drinks could be dangerous for younger consumers.

So you may also want to send a complaint to the FDA.
Contact CFSAN

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
Outreach and Information Center
5100 Paint Branch Parkway HFS-009
College Park, MD 20740-3835
Toll-Free Information Line:

1-888-SAFEFOOD
(1-888-723-3366)
Email:

Industry: industry@fda.gov
Consumers: consumer@fda.gov


Go here for more info re the above http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofFoods/CFSAN/ContactCFSAN/default.htm


Hit em where it hurts if you want to hit em.

 

[Samsmobb]

Nice idea

 

[MissRedneck]

Fantastic idea TTA

 

[SubRosa]

If collateral damage to other uninvolved companies isn't a problem it could be very effective. However, regardless of its effectiveness it would imo be very reprehensible to suddenly develop a problem with an entire industry simply to hurt one specific company, regardless of how much that one company deserves to be hurt. I don't want to get into an argument about this, and I guarantee that after the fact you won't have wanted it either. Let's keep this noble effort of ours noble.

 

[TwoTankAmin]

1. Their effort isn't noble.
2. I think these beverages should not be out there in the first place. I already have a problem with this industry.
3. These companies, especially Monster, are marketing this junk in much the same fashion as tobacco companies used to sell cigarettes. Did you also rail against the efforts and laws regarding smoking because of the collateral damage they would cause?
4. I have no problems with the approach I suggested and would not regret it one bit if it succeeded.
5. If going after this industry in general disturbs you, I wonder if you are you also writing to your reps asking them to help end the congressional investigations?

Here lies MFK, it died a noble death............

 

[SubRosa]

1 Our effort is. Well mine is anyway.
2. I take it then as a given that you were in support of this legislation, and wrote so to your representatives before the situation with Monster occurred. Or were you?
3. These products are being purchased by people who want to buy them. They're no more dangerous than coffee. Would you ban distilled spirits because they're more concentrated than beer?
4 Your morals and values are your own. But that's not good enough for you is it?
5. I hadn't given it that much thought, since banning something like these drinks isn't something worthy of serious thought. But it looks good on you!

 

[platytudes]

I honestly do believe these products are dangerously unhealthy, we just haven't tested them long enough. Sugar free sweeteners, while "safe" do promote insulin resistance. They may not cause cancer as was suspected, but they mess with the body in an indirect way and can lead to problems such as diabetes and obesity...meanwhile, people believe they are making a healthy choice by having a diet soft drink.

People who have a dependency problem with sugar need to deal with that by tapering off their consumption, or use natural sweeteners like Stevia if they are planning on continuing to sweeten everything under the sun. However most people aren't really addicted to sugar itself, but processed food in general. Nobody satisfies their sweet tooth by having a spoonful of sugar.

The people who are "addicted" to energy drinks...are obviously abusing them, just like you can give yourself problems with too much coffee, I am sure (heart palpitations, etc.)

I do believe they need to be regulated more. Coffee is an ancient drink and it's merely another kind of boiled plant material, the way tea is. In contrast, Monster drinks and their ilk are loaded with all sorts of chemicals...and overdosing on B vitamins can result in long term consequences such as neurological and cardiac problems.

There needs to be more awareness, because drinking a 2 liter of Mountain Dew a day, while absolutely horrible for you, is not as bad as drinking the same amount of this kind of energy drink...you will feel the negative effects much more quickly, I'm pretty sure. We need more tests to be absolutely sure, but the problem is...who is going to pay for them? Not the government, I don't think.

If anything, I think we should tax the hell out of energy drinks, the way we do cigarettes.

 

[SubRosa]

I don't use energy drinks, or anything remotely like them, but apparently a lot of people do. The same with tobacco, excepting a very infrequent cigar. If people want them, they should be able to have them. If their usage exacts some legitimate cost to society, then by all means tax them to cover the cost and more. As far as "addiction", nose drops can be very addictive if misused. It comes down to knowledge and self control. You can't legislate those successfully since too many people wish to remain ignorant and impulsive. Saying that something is safer merely because it's extracted from a plant is ridiculous, given that ricin, abrin, atropine, cyanide, strychnine and a host of other extremely toxic compounds are plant derived. Tea, and to a lesser extent, coffee are not merely tasty sources of caffeine. They're a soup of methylxanthines, the chemical family to which caffeine belongs, interacting with each other in much the same way cannabinoids do in marijuana. If we're going to ban something simply for being unhealthy, why don't we start with sunbathing and artificial tanning? Or refined sugar in general? If it's that difficult to determine where to draw a line, you should take a step back and determine whether or not a line needs to be drawn in the first place. That's the step everybody forgets. Again though, my main argument with this is in regards to our behaviour here.

 

[platytudes]

Saying that something is safer merely because it's extracted from a plant is ridiculous, given that ricin, abrin, atropine, cyanide, strychnine and a host of other extremely toxic compounds are plant derived.

I know what you're saying...I didn't express myself well. I just mean that coffee and tea are simple substances that have been used practically since the beginning of recorded history and there have been no studies that prove them to be harmful if used in a reasonable way. In fact, they practically all have some health benefits, especially certain kinds of tea.

Of course, there are ways to add flavoring agents and other "unnatural" additives which remove it from that basic state...but I'm sure you would agree that basic coffee and typical tea (not cohosh tea or kava kava or something) are safe, even if you consume them daily. I don't think you could really say that about energy drinks. For one thing, they are terrible for your teeth, and dental problems affect the whole body and aren't just a cosmetic issue.

I am by no means saying energy drinks should be banned, although I don't doubt that they are in some parts of the world. I agree that if people want them, they should have them. However I think they should incur some sort of "vice tax" (although I doubt they ever will, because of the lobbying power of the beverage companies and the political state this country finds itself in, post Clinton years) because they do contribute to the already poor health of a great number of Americans.

We won't know how much, until we run more tests. I think it would be worthwhile to do so (even if it is at a very modest taxpayer expense for all Americans) because energy drinks are sort of uncharted territory.

I imagine the visible result of such testing would be a warning label on the can...which probably would have very little effect (I certainly never think twice about the label on my beers). However the knowledge would be valuable, so that people can make more informed choices. I believe many people think energy drinks are just another kind of soda, perhaps with more caffeine....and that's not all they are. It's a gray area, which needs to be illuminated upon.

 

[SubRosa]

I know what you're saying...I didn't express myself well. I just mean that coffee and tea are simple substances that have been used practically since the beginning of recorded history and there have been no studies that prove them to be harmful if used in a reasonable way. In fact, they practically all have some health benefits, especially certain kinds of tea.

Of course, there are ways to add flavoring agents and other "unnatural" additives which remove it from that basic state...but I'm sure you would agree that basic coffee and typical tea (not cohosh tea or kava kava or something) are safe, even if you consume them daily. I don't think you could really say that about energy drinks. For one thing, they are terrible for your teeth, and dental problems affect the whole body and aren't just a cosmetic issue.

I am by no means saying energy drinks should be banned, although I don't doubt that they are in some parts of the world. I agree that if people want them, they should have them. However I think they should incur some sort of "vice tax" (although I doubt they ever will, because of the lobbying power of the beverage companies and the political state this country finds itself in, post Clinton years) because they do contribute to the already poor health of a great number of Americans.

We won't know how much, until we run more tests. I think it would be worthwhile to do so (even if it is at a very modest taxpayer expense for all Americans) because energy drinks are sort of uncharted territory.

I imagine the visible result of such testing would be a warning label on the can...which probably would have very little effect (I certainly never think twice about the label on my beers). However the knowledge would be valuable, so that people can make more informed choices. I believe many people think energy drinks are just another kind of soda, perhaps with more caffeine....and that's not all they are. It's a gray area, which needs to be illuminated upon.

I have no problem with the acquisition of knowledge, it's the ignorance behind the "just ban it" attitude people so thoughtlessly take when their own interests aren't the ones at stake that I have little tolerance for.