Cocaine Energy Drink: It's not just the name that's in bad taste

Who ever thought we'd see the day when kids could go into stores and buy "cocaine" but not spinach?

Las Vegas-based Redux Beverages has created a new energy drink called -- get this -- Cocaine.  The beverage, which according to the manufacturer is 350% stronger than Red Bull, is being marketed to young adults as the "the legal alternative".  Redux officials claim consumers will experience both a psychological and physical high, and the inventor of the drink, Jamey Kirby, told the New York Post, "I can think of no other product except real cocaine that could have that effect on the public."  Kirby believes the name of the beverage will cause consumers to experience a psychological energy buzz prior to the physical one, which Redux says lasts five hours beginning with a high that hits within five minutes followed by a caffeine boost 15 minutes later.

But studies of caffeine consumption show that at high doses a caffeine "high" can turn quickly from wakefulness, alertness and feelings of energy to "anxiety, tension, insomnia, and even nausea and an upset stomach," according to Roland Griffiths, a professor in the departments of psychiatry and neuroscience at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. Younger consumers are likely to be more vulnerable, since smaller doses of caffeine are needed to produce these effects in people with lower body weight.  Routine consumption may pose chronic health risks as well. Research linking increased heart risk with high coffee intake has been mixed. Such high doses can harm arteries, speed bone loss, and in pregnant women it might also reduce birth weight and raise the risk of miscarriage. That would make super-caffeinated drinks like Cocaine a poor choice for many consumers -- especially children and teens, women who are pregnant or may become pregnant and postmenopausal women who are vulnerable to osteoporosis.

Our recent tests suggest that passing up this drink might not be too difficult. Consumer Reports had ten people informally taste the Cocaine Energy Drink.  It was a blind test for a few of the participants who didn’t know what the drink was before they tasted it.  Overall, the testers found the controversial fizzy, neon pink beverage to be very sweet, similar to artificially flavored fruit punch, and also bitter.  Several of the participants thought it tasted like cough syrup.  Most notably, the drink had a big spice heat sensation and burned the back of the throat.  Perhaps this is the reason for the manufacturer’s claim that the drink tastes like a "carbonated atomic fireball!"

Although Redux claims it doesn’t advocate drug or alcohol use, naming its drink Cocaine, making marketing assertions such as "Cocaine -- Instant Rush.  NO Crash!", putting a throat-numbing ingredient in its beverage in order to add an oral sensation much like cocaine does, and listing possible alcoholic concoctions on its Web site makes that claim hard to believe.  In a recent statement, Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Chairman and President of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University and former U.S. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, has called Cocaine Energy Drink a "disgusting product", and states "putting a product on the market that glamorizes an illegal and addictive drug like cocaine is irresponsible and reprehensible".  Consumer Reports agrees, and concurs with Califano's hope that retailers, businesses, bars, and coffee shops will refuse to sell the new drinks.

Ed Comeau: Campus fire fighter

For Ed Comeau, the die was cast when he went looking for cheap student housing.  He found the local fire house. Rent was free -- as long as he and seven other housemates served on the volunteer fire department.

That was in the early 1980s at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. Ever since, Comeau has been hooked on fire safety and campus-fire safety in particular. Today, Comeau -- a civil engineer turned fire investigator -- heads the Center for Campus Fire Safety. He founded the Massachusetts-based group three years ago to track and, more importantly, reduce the number of fires on campuses around the country. 

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) estimates that U.S. fire departments respond to an average of 2,460 fires in dorms, fraternities, sororities, and barracks every year. Comeau says about 11 to 14 fatalities occur annually from campus fires. That's a small number compared to the 4,000 lives lost due to fires every year. But Comeau believes that by teaching college students safe fire practices, the annual number of fire fatalities can be substantially reduced.

“Ask a college student about fire safety and all they know is what they learned in elementary school: stop, drop and roll,” Comeau said in a recent telephone interview. “They’ve been taught what they need to do if a fire is imminent but never taught how to choose responsible, fire-safe housing.” That means stressing the importance of sprinklers, smoke alarms, fire extinguishers, the use of proper electrical extension cords and other things.    There are 17 million students now enrolled in college. “That’s the largest captive demographic that can be reached with fire safety messages,” Comeau noted. “If we can influence their behavior, we will see a dramatic change in fire safety.” 

Comeau's group says four out of five of the campus deaths occur in off-campus student housing, which is often rented one-and two- family homes. The group cites four common factors are behind these deaths:

No automatic fire sprinklers

Missing or disabled smoke alarms

Careless disposal of smoking materials

Impaired judgment from alcohol consumption 

  To reduce the risk of campus fires, check out our dorm-safety tips. Among the valuable tips: If you're living in an older building, check out the wiring and make sure it's been upgraded to handle all your electrical gear. Use a power strip with an overcurrent protector; it automatically shuts off power when too much current is being drawn. Install a smoke detector if your room doesn't have one and take all fire drills and alarms seriously. 

The Center for Campus Fire Safety also has some valuable advice as Comeau strives to reduce the number of fires, not just on campus but everywhere in the U.S.  At the same time, it lists a number of pertinent questions parents should ask about fire-safety programs in the schools their children are thinking about attending. For these efforts -- and because September is Campus Fire Safety Month -- Comeau becomes the first of this blog’s “safety crusaders.”  Have a suggestion for other safety pioneers you’d like to see featured here? Let us know!

Bike helmets - not wigs - save lives

British traffic psychologist Ian Walker is pedaling against other recent findings in suggesting that bicyclists who wear helmets are at greater accident risk. In fact, the day after Walker issued a press release about his study -- which said helmet-headed bicyclists are more likely to be struck by passing vehicles – four New York City agencies published a joint report that found that in almost all recorded bike fatalities in the city, riders were not wearing helmets. 

Walker, from the University of Bath, England, rode a bicycle fitted with a computer and an ultrasonic distance sensor to see how more than 2,500 passing motorists responded to him when he wore a helmet -- and when he did not. The results: “Drivers were as much as twice as likely to get particularly close to the bicycle when he was wearing the helmet.” Across the board, drivers passed an average 3.3 inches closer to Walker when he was wearing a helmet than when he wasn’t. What’s more, Walker was struck twice during the experiment -- once by a bus, another time by a truck -- and each time he was wearing a helmet.

Walker also donned a long wig, in order to gauge driver response to what appeared to be a female cyclist. And motorists gave him more passing room (5.5 more inches to be exact) when he wore the wig.

“This study shows that when drivers overtake a cyclist, the margin for error they leave is affected by the cyclist’s appearance,” Walker said in his press release. “By leaving the cyclist less room, drivers reduce the safety margin that cyclists need to deal with obstacles in the road, such as drain covers and potholes, as well as the margin for error in their own judgments.”

Walker theorized that drivers give helmeted cyclists less leeway because they believe the cyclists to be “more serious, experienced and predictable than those without.” However, he added, “in reality, there is no real reason to believe someone with a helmet is any more experienced than someone without.”

Randy Swart, director of the U.S.-based Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute (a nonprofit helmet advocacy group funded by consumers), said Walker may have a point about driver psychology. How a rider looks “does affect how close you’re going to pass. If you see an errant child riding in the road in front of you, swerving, you’re going to give that child extra room. If you see a competent cyclist moving straight along who seems steady, you might not give him extra room,” Swart said. But, he added, “the important thing to note was that cars were giving riders excellent clearance in all cases,” even when the cyclists were wearing helmets. The average car passed 4.4 feet away from the bicycle; the average truck, 3.8 feet away. As a result, that 3.3-inch difference “fades to insignificance,” Swart said.

Not insignificant, however, are the findings about helmet use in New York City’s recent survey of bike fatalities between 1996 and 2005. In cases where it was known whether the cyclist was wearing a helmet at the time of the crash, 97 percent of the fatalities occurred when the bicyclist was not wearing a helmet. Only 4 bicyclists who died (3 percent) were wearing a helmet. All child or teen bicyclists who died were not wearing helmets.

Given those statistics, Swart noted the trade-off for not wearing a helmet -- 3.3 more inches of the road -- may not be worth it.  In fact, properly fitting bike helmets can prevent 88 percent of bike-related brain injuries, according to one study.  Click here for complete Ratings of bike helmets recently tested by Consumer Reports, along with tips on getting the right fit from your helmet.

On the path to safer ATVs

 

Four years ago, consumer groups petitioned the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ban the sale of adult-size all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) to children under 16.

In July, the commission finally acted on the petition; it rejected it, saying a ban was unenforceable. Still, the agency said it is concerned about the mounting number of ATV deaths and injuries—more than 700 people are estimated to have died on ATVs in 2005 alone. So the CPSC announced a number of steps it was considering to improve ATV safety, including banning 3-wheel ATVs, making the current voluntary safety standards mandatory for 4-wheel models and requiring retailers to offer free training to all ATV purchasers and immediate family members.

It will be a while before the commission acts on these proposals, which Consumers Union (the non-profit publisher of Consumer Reports) believes are inadequate; more on that later. 

In the meantime, the commission has stepped up its educational efforts, teaming up with NASCAR racing legend Richard Petty to promote ATV safety.  It may seem like an odd — even extreme — combination, given Petty’s career in the fast lane, but that may be precisely the point. After all, the campaign’s slogan is “Take knowledge to the extreme.”

The campaign, including a new Web site, was announced at a press conference on Sept. 21 where Petty, wearing his trademark sunglasses and cowboy hat, noted, “my business was not the safest business in the world.” Still, he added, he took a lot of precautions — and so should ATV riders. You can’t expect to jump in a racecar without training; the same is true of ATVs, Petty said. And just as you don’t take shortcuts on safety gear on the race course, you shouldn’t do so when you ride ATVs.  “You got one head," Petty said. "Don’t buy a cheap helmet.”

“Protective gear and proper training could make the difference between the ride of your life and the ride that ends your life,” said CPSC acting chairman Nancy Nord, citing a list of sobering statistics: Use of 4-wheel ATVs has climbed from less than 400,000 to more than 6.9 million over the past two decades. With that increase has come a rise in injuries and deaths. From 1982 through 2004, there were nearly 6,500 deaths; more than 11 percent of those occurred in 2003.

“The Web site alone will not make the difference but it is the starting place for information, key information for improved ATV safety,” Nord said.

Consumers Union certainly agrees with that. It also believes far more needs to be done to reduce ATV deaths and injuries, particularly among children under 16 who accounted for nearly a third of the 125,000 people seriously injured in 2003 alone. Consumers Union thinks the CPSC should ban not just 3-wheel ATVs, but also all those designed for children as well as two-person vehicles. It also wants the agency to evaluate the dynamics of ATV crashes, develop comprehensive mandatory safety standards and require the vehicles to be redesigned to improve safety, especially to prevent rollovers.

Consumers Union believes Congress and the states also have to take action. States should ban ATV use on paved roads, implement educational and training campaigns, create and enforce licensing requirements and require appropriate protective gear, including helmets, to operate ATVs. Congress needs to step up and give states the funds to do all this.

“Recreation should not be life-threatening,” said Janell Mayo Duncan, senior counsel for Consumers Union, in a statement.

Playskool recalls 255K toy tool benches

Move follows two deaths

In cooperation with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Playskool is recalling about 255,000 Team Talkin’ Tool Bench toys following the deaths of two young children who suffocated when oversized plastic toy nails sold with the tool bench toys became forcefully lodged in their throats, according to a statement released by the CPSC. The Team Talkin’ Tool Bench is a 20-inch tall plastic toy tool bench with an animated red toy saw, a yellow toy drill and a blue toy vice. The product also includes a toy hammer, screwdriver, two 2¼-inch plastic screws, two 3-inch plastic nails and pieces to build a small toy plane. The red Playskool logo is on the front of the brown surface of the tool bench. The toy was sold at Toys R Us, Wal-Mart, Target, KB Toys stores and various other stores nationwide from October 2005 through September 2006 for about $35. Consumers should immediately take the two toy nails away from children and contact Playskool to get information on returning the nails for a $50 certificate.  For additional information, call Playskool at (800) 509-9554 anytime, or go to their Web site at www.playskool.com.

We'll have an update on this next week, along with some tips for parents on choosing safe toys. For more details about this and other recent recalls, go to recalls.gov, a web site maintained by the CPSC, FDA and other government agencies.

E. Coli update: don't cook raw spinach

Doctors from the FDA, CDC and  Washington University School of Medicine held a conference call earlier today to update the medical community on the E. coli outbreak. In addition to providing an update on cases and recalls, the scientists also offered this advice: Don't cook raw spinach in an attempt to kill E. coli. While cooking raw spinach to a temperature of 160°F for 15 seconds can kill the bacteria, the scientists pointed out that few consumers have the ability to precisely gauge the temperature at which their food is being cooked; consumers who handle raw spinach also run the risk of cross-contaminating other foods. Consumer Reports concurs. While you should still be able to cook and consume frozen and canned spinach, you should avoid all raw spinach and raw spinach-containing foods, and should not attempt to cook raw spinach. You can listen to the full conference call from now through October 5th at 888-566-0619.
This ongoing issue highlights glaring problems in the way food is tested and regulated in the United States. Consumers Union, the non-profit publisher of Consumer Reports, has long recommended establishing a single federal agency to set up-to-date food-safety standards, enforce them, and carry out safety research. This week, we sent a letter to Congress, expressing concern about the E. coli outbreak, and urging that Congress pass S. 729/H.R. 1517, the “Safe Food Act,” which would create a single federal food safety agency, the Food Safety Administration. You can read the full letter here, and can also learn more about CU's position on this issue in this 2001 column by CU president Jim Guest.