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.”
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
A number of independent sources are quoted in the story.
Aside from caffeine, we’re not sure that there are any other legal means of increasing alertness. We’ll rate this as not applicable.
The availability of energy drinks is not in question.
The story traces the history of energy drinks in considerable detail.
This story was clearly not based on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning 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.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like