TheAgitator.com
They’re Coming for Big Java, Ct’d…
Tuesday, October 5th, 2004The Center for Consumer Freedom drops an ice cube in the “caffeine’s like crack” study in yesterday’s headlines:
But that hasn’t stopped anti-caffeine crusader Roland Griffiths from boasting, in more than one hundred newspapers, that his latest study proves caffeine is the most abused stimulant around. What the papers aren’t reporting is that Griffiths has made a career out of unfounded attacks on caffeine. Nor do they mention his potential conflict of interest as a consultant to “the legal profession on issues related to caffeine effects, withdrawal, and dependency.”Griffiths’ crusade against caffeine is long and storied. One of his first anti-caffeine studies examined a total of seven people — himself and six colleagues. A few years later, at the height of the anti-tobacco campaign, Griffiths stepped into the public spotlight with an outrageous comparison between caffeine and nicotine. He announced in a press release: “The marketing parallels between nicotine and caffeine are pretty stunning. Both are psychoactive drugs.”
After he was challenged by industry officials, Griffiths acknowledged that a moderate amount of caffeine intake had “predominantly positive” effects. But no matter. In 2000 he authored a new study with just 25 people, and promptly attacked soda manufacturers for selling soft drinks with caffeine…
His latest work is a “meta-study” — a study of other studies. He gathered 66 previous reports on caffeine, discussed their widely varying findings, and then drew his own broad conclusions. The selection of these 66 studies can hardly be called bias-free. For instance, Griffiths used nine of his own previous studies (including the one with seven subjects), yet failed to mention a 1999 study from the journal Pharmacological Review which demonstrated that one to three cups of coffee per day had no effect on the part of the brain responsible for addiction.
FYI, CCF is an advocate for the restaurant industry.
But I’m going to go ahead and put my chips with them on this one.
It’s funny how studies concluding that “coffee is benign” or “coffee is good for you” don’t make their way into one hundred newspapers. Keep in mind that the underwriters of these studies want return on their investment — that is, they want exposure.
So underwriters want exposure. The media wants scary headlines. Makes for an awfully skewed set of incentives for researchers, doesn’t it?
Probably explains why thoroughly debunked statistics like “400,000 people are killed every year by obesity,” and “obesity costs $117 billion in health care” catch fire in the media, and why the studies devastating those statistics get buried.
does anyone remember seeing pictures of that famous study, where i think nasa gave spiders various narcotics and filmed the results as the spiders spun their webs?
i had a quick look on google but couldn’t find it, other than on some other blog, but the point is that the web the spiders spun on caffeine was probably the most fucked web that got spun, arguably worse than the one on amphetmines or on marijuana.
So why should caffeine be treated any different from any other stimulant/narcotic? Personally, i don’t want to see it banned, but i would like to see an end to the hypocrisy that says that drinking tea and coffee is socially acceptable, but using other narcotics is illegal.
Either let people know the relative dangers of all narcotics, and allow them to choose what level of risk they expose themselves to, or ban them all..
I’d normally be seething about this, but I haven’t had my caffeine kick yet this morning, so I’m barely even alive.
wade…while i agree with you that caffeine is a drug, just like any other drug, don’t ever suggest that banning any more is a good idea.
“…spiders..”
Excuse my ignorance, but I fail to see how spiders have anything to do with human reactions to stimulants. Totally different physiology. That sounds like a cool experiment though.
Let us be honesty here, it’s not a ban they want. It’s not a reduction in public health costs. It’s a new revenue stream to replace cigarette taxes.
Here’s a link BTW:
http://www.missblackwidow.com/drugs.html
wade,
I agree that the War On Some Drugs is hypocritical, but I don’t think banning “all” drugs (is chocolate a “drug” too??) is somehow more fair than banning only some. And don’t worry, everyone already knows the danger they face from caffeine of spinning fucked up webs! :-)
I read once that caffeine can kill you. Buy a bottle of No-Doze and take it all, you’ll be dead in short order. Yet this dangerous substance is available over the counter to any who can pay. Yet THC, which numerous studies have shown to be totally non-toxic, and even beneficial, is unavailable (legally) for any purpose (except to the lucky 7) here in the USA.
Of course, the solution is to get the government out of the business of deciding what drugs are available to the public, or to what purposes the public is allowed to put them. But that won’t happen as long as the Republicrats are in power.
BTW: Wade, caffeine is a narcotic? News to me. Why do you think so? I was under the impression (which could be wrong) that narcotics were generally pain killers and/or depressants, not stimulants like caffeine is.
Wade,
Mike N. gets it right. I agree that it’s all hypocrisy, but you can be sure that the nannystatists will take your advice to heart—on the negative end, of course. You say “if caffeine is legal, then so should other narcotics”, and the nannystatists say “fine, let’s criminalize caffeine too”.
Wade,
That is just the same kind of logic that fuels these kinds of studies. I’m not sure if you are aware of this, but spiders and humans are radically different creatures. Onions kill dogs, does that mean restaurants should be tried for murder ever time they serve them up?
Um, actually, I’d bet that “coffee is benign” or “coffee is good for you” stories *do* get into 100 newspapers.
Probably as wire service-provided filler, which is usually what most papers’ health/science section is anyway.
They just don’t show up at the same time as the anti- stories are showing up.
They can have my caffiene when they pry my cigarette out of my cold nicotine stained fingers…
To be honest – and from what I’m trying to recall from my meta-analysis class – I’m not sure that there’s anything wrong with using one own studies in a proper meta-analytic review of the literature. However, such is review is supposed to be *exhaustive*, because the more studies there are, the more generalizable the results. A meta-analysis of caffeine studies that includes only anti-caffeine papers can’t properly be called a meta-analysis.
i never knew Onions Kill Dogs, sounds like a good name for a band to me..
i agree with the sentiment that it’s not a good idea to go banning things, i would much prefer honest labelling and references to further information for all drugs, medical & recreational, so the enlightened consumer can decide for themselves what level of risk they expose themselves, like choosing which run to go down when ski-ing.. however this will never happen…
sorry mph, i should have said “drug” and not “narcotic”, i stand corrected.
In your free time, visit the sites in the field of downloads free signup code … Thanks!!!