Is there actually any evidence that caffeine is bad for kids? From the article, it looks like the impetus for this change is concern from teachers, not from scientific research regarding the impact of high doses of caffeine on children under 16.
I can't speak to the caffeine but that is by far not the worst aspects of energy drinks.
- The drinks have an addictive property due to caffeine and many of these drinks are full of sugar causing the consumer to continuously consume sugar. Nobody should be consuming added sugar especially not kids who's brains are still developing. They do not need insulin resistance yet another fun topic.
- The excessive B vitamins in the drinks are the cheap low quality inactive forms and worse there are only a couple different vitamins. This is a fun rabbit hole to research. Adding even one inactive B vitamin in large quantities can shut down the conversion of all inactive B vitamins in the liver and in some cases the kidneys and can lead to a B vitamin deficiency, somewhat ironically.
B vitamins are required for energy production. Shutting down the conversion process can lead to people feeling tired and weak, thinking they need more energy drinks... This is a vicious cycle that can only be remedied by a healthy diet, exercise and sleep. Excessive energy drink consumption can interrupt or lower the quality of sleep. A lack of good sleep interrupts the healing process which every person requires or they start taking age related damage earlier and faster leading to more diseases and vulnerabilities.
This rabbit hole goes many layers deeper and would require writing a book and this is even before talking about how this exacerbates all the effects of drugs that doctors have shamefully prescribed to kids and adults.
Hmmm, even a small amount of rabbit-hole diving turns up some curious statements around this :
> Cyanocobalamin is also the most common form of vitamin B12 found in supplements. It is named because it contains a cyanide molecule. The amount of cyanide found in cyanocobalamin supplements tends to be small, but the body still has to do extra “work” to remove and eliminate the cyanide molecule. If your liver is already overworked, this added step can make activating this nutrient more challenging.
I'm sceptical that the extra 'work' here to convert CNCbl to MeCbl is significantly taxing for the liver. B12 is needed in very small amounts ("the upper limit of absorption per single oral dose is about 1.5 μg" - wikipedia).
> Numerous studies and reviews of B12 metabolism have shown that CNCbl, MeCbl, OHCbl, and AdCbl are reduced to the core cobalamin molecule inside the cytosol. It is important to note that the ligands specific to the ingested B12 form—methyl and adenosyl—are removed during that process and not used inside cells during the conversion of cobalamin to the 2 active forms of B12
Certainly that review suggests that taking one of the bioavailable forms (MeCbl, OHCbl, AdCbl) is _better_ than the usual CNCbl one, but I see no mention of CNCbl being more 'taxing' in some sense.
You are quite welcome. I hope this gets some people curious enough to research.
Even if they were the active form there are typically only two or three of them. A healthy diet is the optimal method to get all the B vitamins or at least the 13 critical B vitamins but if ones lifestyle is preventing this one can get them from a B-50 complex. A healthy diet should be preferred when possible.
If you are saying that they should also be banned, I completely agree. The qualifiers should be based on sugar and low quality vitamins but of course that gets into the rabbit hole of things like real bread vs. highly processed bread a.k.a. WWII rations a.k.a. American bread. Real bread only contains three to five ingredients. Real foods are getting harder to acquire due to fake foods having a much higher profit margin and longer shelf life.
I have a different kind of appetite hormonal issue (ghralin sensitivity), but for people that don't know, insulin resistance will make your kid constantly hungry, increasing the likelihood of him/her being fat.
The Danish Technical Universities Food institute had some research suggesting that around 40% of children experienced sleep issues and restlessness from drinking to much caffeine. [1]
The risk associated with to much caffeine according to the same study is: Disturbed heart rhythm, high blood pressure, palpitations, shortness of breath, stomach ache, nausea, anxiety, nervousness, trouble sleeping, and in the worst case, cardiac arrest.
It's not that children can't safely drink an energy drink, it's just that some teenagers might down can after can and the "safe" amount of caffeine is less than 1L of energy drink per day (which already seems like a lot).
In Romania, in 2024, after a 17-year-old the previous year and a 13-year-old died from consuming too many energy drinks, authorities decided to ban their sale to minors
> Is there actually any evidence that caffeine is bad for kids
It's complicated as there can be beneficial effects as well. The issue is likely with the dosage as typical tea drinking hasn't seemed to cause any issues and us brits have been drinking tea for a long time. I've heard anecdotes of extreme coffee drinking (multiple espressos over a short time) causing heart palpitations, but that's not common as excessive coffee tends to make people jittery (c.f. Futurama episode where Fry drinks 100 coffees).
Energy drinks have high levels of caffeine and high levels of sugar and tend to be chugged, so they're likely to excessive doses.
I think just about every school in the land has one or two kids in each year who spend their lunch money on Monster/Red Bull (Caffeine is addictive - they cannot help it).
Sadly, there is often only enough money for caffeine or food: So you end up with children who are living off Sugar & Caffeine. They look as healthy as you'd expect.
This legislation is as much about preventing such scenarios as it is about the effects of the energy drinks themselves - (not that it'll work, but that's a another point entirely)
As for the tea/coffee points - I don't think any school allows access to a kettle - it is already a moot point.
In Sweden a bunch of teenagers died from drinking red bull and vodka, and politicians raved and limited sale of energy drinks to people under 16.
Of course, it was almost certainly 99% the alcohol, and the rest 1% could be equally blamed on having a broken heart, or a hamburger, or candy as on the energy drinks.
Mixing caffeine and alcohol is genuinely and generally considered more dangerous. Caffeine masks the effects of intoxication, so you don't act as drunk nor feel as drunk at the same blood alcohol level. It was almost certainly the alcohol that was lethal, but caffeine (especially in high doses) absolutely contributed to increased lethality when paired with alcohol.
Coffee is approximately the same as an energy drink (very approximately), but how many kids can down a pint or three of bitter coffee? The flavor is enough to keep it relatively self regulating.
They have much lower caffeine. About half an energy drink. And they are way more expensive. No kids out there drinking six grande frappucinos during their school day. That's like $40, lol.
> The flavor is enough to keep it relatively self regulating
Not if you make it properly - correct water temperature of less than 100° (maybe as low as 70° for AeroPress), freshly ground beans and beans roasted less than 4 weeks ago or so. Also, drip coffee machines are terrible as they over-extract the coffee in the middle and under-extract the coffee round the outside. And a good grinder is essential to avoid too much dust and boulders that lead to over/under extraction.
Poland issued similar ban with 16mg/100ml as limit - matching coffee and Cola/Pepsi. Most energy drinks on market were at 32mg/100ml level, with few uncommon ones at 40mg/100ml.
Kids, just in general, are the most anxious people? No, I don't think so. If you'd gone with restlessness that might have been true, but then I guess that wouldn't have been such a compelling argument.
This doesn’t solve the underlying issue: heavy marketing towards minors, using all available channels. Sure, heavy sugary/caffeinated drinks are bad for minors, but regulating this at the sales level feels like playing cat/mouse game with the industry.
Two points: 1. Marketing towards illegal markets seems foolish, and 2. Marketing towards illegal markets sets the company up for easy failure at court, in many conceivable lawsuits.
The alcohol industry is very comfortable with age limits. The more the better (e.g. beer and wine at 18 but liquor at 21).
The reason is that they understand that this enshrines alcohol as a maturity symbol. It ensures that you're seen as immature for not drinking.
An alcohol lobbying group around here made posters with a huge foaming glass of beer and the text "over 18? Prove it!". Nominally it was about showing ID, but I think youth got the intended message, and it wasn't about showing ID. Alcohol advertising is forbidden, but profit finds a way.
I see no reason to think energy drink restrictions will be different.
I think there should be as few different age limits as possible. Put everything at 18, or possibly 16. If there's something you really think there's good reason to have different age limits on, implement it differently (e.g, say that you can only take a driver's license two years after you started driving lessons, and let the limit for taking driving lessons be at the one age limit.) The exact age of majority is largely arbitrary. Fine-masked age limits suggests it's not. Also, one of the reasons we have an age of majority is that kids are easy to manipulate. Age limits and the carrot of "maturity" can be abused to do just that, manipulate kids. I think we should discourage it.
Things which have no possible cachet as a maturity symbol can still have other age limits if they really must (e.g, the age at which you can be decide which of your parents to live with if they're divorced is usually well below the age of majority, and that's fine).
As for alcohol, I think there should be harsh limits on private profit. I'd let you drink whatever you want, but not profit from whatever you want. Redistribute profits from alcohol sales (and also gambling, tobacco and other things where most of the profit comes from self-destructive use) in such a way that no one has an incentive to sell one more unit. Then the problems will take care of themselves, is my belief. Also, I think profit restrictions are much more palatable to the actual public than restrictions on alcohol itself, which people often chafe at. This makes profit restrictions more democratically sustainable.
Based on various studies about things like acetaminophen toxicity, effects of screens on nervous system and eye health, effects of eating ultra processed foods, etc. we know that anything that harms kids tends to harm adults, just less acutely. I think realistically energy drinks are just not healthy for humans. But it's interesting how we moralize harms to kids while enabling them for adults.
I think the thinking is something along the lines of adults can understand the consequences better. I actually am not certain I buy that, as adults rarely understand the consequences of their actions, broadly.
I'd counter that an individual who routinely fails to understand the consequences of their actions is by definition not an adult. Pondering the full implications of this are left as an exercise.
"Understanding the consequences of one's actions" has never been part of the definition of "adult". Generally speaking, a mammal reaches adulthood when it stops growing.
Were someone to attempt to pinpoint the exact moment you begin talking past each other, this is where I'd say to look. Legally, you're right; legally, we kind of need a hard line to for all kinds of things. Voting, driving, alcohol, cannabis, or tobacco purchase and consumption, the list goes on (even if not everything on the list uses the same line).
Socially, we have no such constraints. We can make case-by-case judgements for ourselves, and disagree with each other. Most notably, we can describe someone as acting like an adult. We can recognize that behaving like an adult, with the responsibilities that go along with that, can be independent from age.
Forgetting we have multiple definitions of "Adult" is reasonable. Nobody is perfect every minute of every day.
Refusing to acknowledge it, even after it's pointed out, is bad form; further, it's against site guidelines asking us each to use reasonable interpretations of each others thoughts and comments.
I don't agree that forgetfreeman and I are talking past each other.
>Legally, you're right
Cool, but my response doesn't hinge on there being a legal definition of "adult". In fact, the definition I gave was biological, which besides the legal is the definition most people use in casual conversation. When would you say a dog is an adult?
>Most notably, we can describe someone as acting like an adult. We can recognize that behaving like an adult, with the responsibilities that go along with that, can be independent from age.
Sure. But notice that you had to say that acting like an adult is independent from age, and not being an adult is. You wouldn't say that someone who, say, gambled his home is not adult, except figuratively, would you? You wouldn't think he should be entrusted to a guardian and that he should be signed up for school with other children. Regardless of how irresponsible his behavior, he still is an adult in your eyes.
>Refusing to acknowledge it, even after it's pointed out, is bad form
What's been pointed out, exactly? forgetfreeman said something -- something stupid, in my opinion -- I countered it, and they doubled down on it. What, I should just capitulate to anyone who is being insistently stupid?
>it's against site guidelines asking us each to use reasonable interpretations of each others thoughts and comments.
So what's the "reasonable interpretation" for the comment? "An individual who routinely fails to understand the consequences of their actions is by definition not an adult." By all means, tell me what I missed.
Your belief that comprehension of consequences isn't part of the definition of "adult" suggests you are young and presents a stark commentary. Past generations considered this character the bedrock that adult behavior rested upon. Additionally, casually tossing out the term "mammal", as though human behavior lends itself to comparison with the activities of groundhogs (etc) seems like a bit of a non sequitur.
>An adult is an animal that has reached full growth. The biological definition of adult is an organism that has reached sexual maturity and thus capable of reproduction.
>In the human context, the term adult has meanings associated with social and legal concepts. In contrast to a non-adult or "minor", a legal adult is a person who has attained the age of majority and is therefore regarded as independent, self-sufficient, and responsible. They may also be regarded as "majors". The typical age of attaining adulthood for humans is 18 years, although definition may vary by country.
Merriam-Webster:
>(adjective) fully developed and mature
>(noun) one that is adult; especially: a human being after an age (such as 21) specified by law
Your definition of "adult" is one no one uses.
>Past generations considered this character the bedrock that adult behavior rested upon.
Even if I grant that that's true, why should I care? Past generations killed infants in fields to benefit crops, and captured survivors of battles to enslave them. Appeals to tradition are uncompelling.
Appeals to tradition are only uncompelling if the tradition in question is problematic. Otherwise you end up in a situation where provably successful strategies are jettisoned for no reason beyond their age.
>Otherwise you end up in a situation where provably successful strategies are jettisoned for no reason beyond their age.
"Otherwise"? Uh, no. Let's appeal to neither tradition nor to novelty. Let's instead judge things on their own merits.
But that's totally irrelevant, because the definition of a word is a neutral fact; it's neither good nor bad, it just is. You just tried to appeal to tradition to bring legitimacy to your made-up nonsense. I insist: Even if it was true that past cultures defined "adult" the way you do (which I don't grant), that's not the modern meaning.
> Your belief that comprehension of consequences isn't part of the definition of "adult" suggests you are young and presents a stark commentary.
I'm 60, and I've never, ever heard of such a definition. Not encoded in law. Not by societies (American middle-class 50s? Nope. Puerto Rican immigrants? Nope. Amish? Nope.).
I certainly did not and at your age you should be embarrassed to get behind the notion that childish behavior was normalized in adults 40 years ago. That isn't even revisionist, it's an outright lie.
While it seems clear that permitting adults to do what suits them is broadly reasonable it is less clear that it is reasonable to permit business models that profit from individuals harming themselves with or without marketing.
It's still not reasonable from an individual perspective, but good luck enforcing a draconian rule about not drinking alcohol. The harm outweigh the benefit.
But at the same time, there's basically no benefit to consuming alcoholic beverages that could be achieved some other ways,
It's pretty damn clear as to how bad alcohol is. People went to jail, and lives ended because of alcohol. The downside is huge, arguably overwhelmingly not a net positive for humanity.
Make of that what you will.
Note that I didn't say we shouldn't have the right to put alcohol in our bodies. There are also negative consequences to prohibition, as we have seen with the drug war. It's a disaster.
This isn't the burn you think it is. Plenty of folks are against prohibition.
More, I'd argue we should tell people the consequences and make sure they understand them before they do it, which may be tantamount to telling them they shouldn't. So maybe we should tell people not to but not punish them if they do.
My condemnation does not imply my consumption of energy drinks. I tried a couple and found them distasteful. There are more pleasant ways of getting caffeine.
I think what most commenters are missing is the fact that we now live in an age where it is trivially easy to heavily market to kids on social media like tiktok etc.
I think this is similar to why we ban sales of cigarettes to the under aged. It's just common sense no?
To those who advocate for zero drug prohibition, can we imagine a world where there was no drug prohibition and kids could be marketed fentanyl on TikTok at will?
Obviously this is an extreme, but it's an example of the kind of problems our society now faces?
(For some reason the catastrophic problems China had with opium in the late 1800s springs to mind).
Maybe a good thing. Less developed systems with the various ingredients, sugar, etc .. given the problems adults have had it… I think this could be a good thing
