Health News Review

We found no glaring problems with the reporting of this valid story, so it gets a top 5-star score.  But we question whether the subject matter warranted front-page attention in a 2,000-word article. (An earlier comment about a BMJ/BBC report has been deleted.  We erroneously connected that report with the subject of this story.  They concerned different product types.)

Our Review Summary

We’re not in the habit of criticizing news organizations for devoting too much space to stories that debunk dubious health claims. But with so many important health stories screaming for attention, we think it’s legitimate to question the Times’s investment of resources in this particular issue. Since there’s almost no human research on the health effects of energy drinks, the question of whether or not they work shouldn’t take very long to address. And we think there was room to discuss the serious health hazards that have been increasingly linked to these products in greater detail.

We’re not taking issue with the substance of the story, which was generally excellent as our score indicates. And we realize that there’s a counter-argument to be made about the significance of this coverage. (Because these drinks are so popular, and some people obviously perceive that they work, it’s an important public service to examine the claims more thoroughly.) We just think there were better, more consequential health stories to put on the front page of one of the nation’s leading newspapers.

Note: as discussed below in our review, Paul Raeburn at the Knight Science Journalism Tracker also had concerns about this story. His post is worth a read. Excerpt:

“In a story of this length, he and his editors could have done a more thorough job of reminding offline readers why these drinks have provoked concern.

The revelation that energy drinks don’t seem to do anything beyond delivering a caffeine jolt is not the kind of news that should earn a place on the front page. I doubt many readers will be surprised by this, and Meier can’t say much with certainty about the drinks because they haven’t been studied.

In my view, the story deserved about half the space it got. Meier’s editors might have done better to put this one on page B7, and the November story about deaths and injuries on page one. Maybe they were atoning today for underplaying the first piece.”


Why This Matters

What to cover is arguably as important as how to cover it. There are countless products and treatments that lack strong supporting evidence for health claims. We applaud the Times’s impulse to look skeptically at one of these categories in substantial detail, but is anyone really surprised at the main conclusions here? Couldn’t this prime real estate have been used to highlight more important issues?


Criteria

Satisfactory

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Satisfactory

The story notes that energy drinks are expensive compared with other sources of caffeine, such as coffee or caffeine tablets. A 16-oz can of monster sells for $2.99.

Satisfactory

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

The story explains that the caffeine contained in energy drinks increases alertness, awareness and athletic performance, but that other energy drink ingredients have no proven effects. Although no absolute risk or benefit is given, this story covers a variety of small studies and evidence types.

 

Satisfactory

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Satisfactory

The story briefly acknowledges that energy drinks have been linked to reports of deaths and injuries that may be related to their high caffeine content, and there was an online link in the text to a previous story about these concerns. We’ll call this good enough for a satisfactory. However, considering that FDA reports suggest that 18 deaths and more than 150 injuries may be related to energy drinks, we don’t think the story captures the full scope of the potential problem. This deficiency was nicely described by Paul Raeburn at the Knight Science Journalism Tracker, who noted that in a 2,000-word piece, there was ample room to do “a more thorough job of reminding offline readers why these drinks have provoked concern.”

Additional comment about kids and teens and use of these drinks along with alcohol would have strengthened the article.

Satisfactory

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Satisfactory

The story reviews the evidence purported to show benefits for certain energy drink ingredients. It emphasizes that there is little proof that these ingredients provide a benefit to energy drink consumers.

Satisfactory

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

No disease mongering.

Satisfactory

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

A number of independent sources are quoted in the story.

Not Applicable

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Applicable

Aside from caffeine, we’re not sure that there are any other legal means of increasing alertness. We’ll rate this as not applicable.

Not Applicable

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Applicable

The availability of energy drinks is not in question.

Satisfactory

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The story traces the history of energy drinks in considerable detail.

Satisfactory

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Satisfactory

This story was clearly not based on a press release.

Total Score: 8 of 8 Satisfactory


We Welcome Comments

But please note: We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who doesn't list what appears to be an actual email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don't give medical advice so we won't respond to questions asking for it. Please see more on our comments policy.