The Food Police sue Sparks on your behalf - for the sake of the children

The Food police have come back to the courts, this time suing MillerCoors after winning millions for their settlement against Budweiser in February 2008. The Center for Science in the Public Interest have now predictably turned their sights on Sparks, the original caffeinated malt liquor made by MillerCoors( http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/complaint_millercoors.pdf). CSPI considers itself  a “watchdog” public interest group. this is not a scientific organization, but instead uses political power and press releases rather than scientific theory and peer review.What is the main reason for SCPI to go against alcohol companies?  It has been shown that they are an anti-drinking organization, clearly using baseless facts and consistently using incorrect cause and effect studies to prove how alcohol companies promote drinking to kids by any means necessary.& CSPI co-founder Michael Jacobson even considers caffeine such a terror that he considered banning the office coffee machine—until one-third of his 60 employees threatened to quit. Instead, he suggested that people start hanging out in “carrot juice houses” instead.

 

Sparks has over 3 labels on the can informing the consumer and store owner that this drink contains alcohol. claiming the products are fully compliant with regulatory and labeling guidelines in the country. Sparks has been selling nationwide since 2006, ever since Miller purchased the drink from the McKenzie River Corporation.  Still the CSPI argue that because people who drink caffeinated alcoholic drinks (which includes cans of Joose and Rize, but also mixed drinks such as Red Bull and Vodka, Coffee and Kaluha, baileys and espresso and invariably Smugglers - hot chocolate and peppermint schnapps) are more likely to binge drink, ride with an intoxicated driver, become injured, or be taken advantage of sexually than drinkers of non-caffeinated alcoholic drinks, adults can not drink them either.They base their lawsuit on a 2007 study conducted at Wake Forest University, which used strictly college students as the basis for the paper. But the CSPI is not up in flames just because college students used an alcoholic substance to act immaturely ( beer bongs anyone?) . Sparks is also out to corrupt the youth of America.

 

The suit argues that sparks will be irresistible to kiddies because it is sweet, slightly more alcoholic and orange. "MillerCoors is trying to hook teens and 'tweens on a dangerous drink," said CSPI litigation director Steve Gardner. "This company's behavior is reckless, predatory, and in the final analysis, likely to disgust a judge or a jury." They argue that because their website is well a well written and clever piece of flash, it will appeal to your children and they insist they are marketing  these to kids - because they called a drink mix a "lunchbox" and have copy talking about "house parties" which they equate to pre-teen drunken shenanigans. While they have not quite lowered themselves to "Reefer Madness" levels of ludicrousness, they are getting close.  Wine coolers, lemonades, and alcoholic malt beverages have been sold for years. Although I have yet to hear of an outcry against Apple Ciders ( the alcoholic kind), flavored beers and sparkling wines, using this logic it is just a matter of time before the SCPI goes after them as well

 

The CSPI has been gunning for alcohol litigation for some time, winning settlements before from major food manufacturers, such as Airborne, Kellogg, Frito-Lay and Quaker Oats. This agreement with Anheuser-Busch was the first alcohol-related accomplishment for CSPI's litigation project.