We read a couple of pieces of news recently that we thought were worth sharing.
Yesterday, the Chicago Tribune ran an editorial that took issue with a recent call by city officials to limit the sale of energy drinks. The editorial states:
“Some aldermen apparently think it would be an abdication of responsibility to let people ingest certain legal products, even if the people really want them.”
The members of the City Council took an oath, the editorial continues, to support the Constitution and the duties of the office of aldermen when they were sworn in, but:
“This part wasn’t included: ‘We, the elected officials, in order to form a more perfect-looking Union, do ordain and establish our rights to ban products containing sugar or caffeine, including but not limited to, glazed doughnuts and cheeseburgers with a diameter exceeding 4 inches, soft drinks in big cups and beverages with too much of a jolt.’”
Another piece appeared on Reason blog, written by Keep Food Legal Executive Director Baylen J. Linnekin. He raises more concerns about the proposed ban – namely its discriminatory nature – targeting one type of product, when in reality:
“On an ounce for ounce basis, popular energy drinks often contain much less caffeine than coffee and other, more genteel beverages. An 8.5 ounce can of Red Bull, for example, contains 80 mg of caffeine. That’s 100 mg less than a comparable (short) cup of Starbucks coffee, which boasts 180 mg of caffeine.”
Linnekin continues, “So why didn't Burke propose to ban coffee? Here's one hint: Burke apparently likes coffee.”