More details required

A story that I just read on CBC's website really left me wanting more details and a little clarification and again reminded me that much media content should be consumed with a critical eye.

First of all, while the story is primarily dealing with the appearance of caffeine in non-cola carbonated beverages it does not mention the precise dates on which changes were made to allow caffeine in non-cola beverages (according to Health Canada it was March 2010), nor does it even address all relevant changes to policies relating to caffeine in non-cola beverages. All that the article mentioned is that "Health Canada extended the use of caffeine to non-cola soft drinks last year." Part of the problem I have with this lack of information is that this date doesn't jive with my memory of their availability. In particular, they make reference to IRN-BRU being unavailable until this change, though I am sure that I purchased I purchased IRN-BRU in Canada before March 2010. If I had to guess I would have said that my impression was that it has been regularly available in specialty food shops/sections for the past five or six years.

Additionally, in their discussion of this change they completely neglected to mention the regulatory changes a few years ago that allowed for the sale of energy drinks, a type of product that for some time had been unavailable in Canada even while they were widely available in Europe and the US. When did this change happen and isn't it relevant in a discussion of the increased availability of caffeinated carbonated beverages? Why would they later mention the sale of energy drinks and their availability to children if the changes are unrelated to those relating to the sale of non-cola carbonated beverages?

The CBC story also does not mention the fact that while caffeine may not be added to non-cola soft drinks these drinks have a lower maximum level of caffeine.

It should also be noted that even though the CBC story suggests that only colas could have caffeine before this change I am pretty sure that the rule was a little less precise (at times Health Canada uses the term 'cola-type' while in other instances they use the term 'cola'). My understanding of the rule was that it had to do with the brownness of the beverage, which is why your Dr. Pepper's and Barq's of the world were allowed to be sold as caffeinated beverages in Canada before this rule change. The more I think about it, this confusion is likely due to the unclear terminology used by Health Canada in their discussion of caffeinated carbonated beverages.

Maybe what surprised me the most about this story was that the general angle that they took was to confront the potential negative health impacts increased availability of caffeinated carbonated beverages might have on children. What these impacts might be weren't discussed. And of course figures suggesting increases in caffeine consumption among children as a result of the rule change were not provided, nor was the discussion separated from the energy drink issue, which actually seems to be the core of the issue.

I also thought that it was funny that non-cola beverages were being presented as some now kind of non-caffeinated safe haven, now long gone, for parents who don't want their kids to over-consume caffeine. I couldn't help but wondering if a relatively easy way to avoid accidentally providing a kid with a caffeinated beverage would be to either provide a non-pop drink or read the ingredients.

Oh, and maybe the most egregious aspect of the whole story was that it was suggested that the regulatory change came about "because it was good for trade." Of course no evidence other than the fact that some foreign soft-drink manufacturers wanted such a change was provided to support this claim. How this position made its way from the international trade types to the Food and Drug Regulations people is not explained. More importantly, they even note that the official Health Canada position is that "Health Canada's decision to permit the addition of caffeine to non-cola soft drinks was based solely on health and safety considerations."

While it is possible that the change occurred for the reasons they suggested, a little more evidence should have been provided for the story to have real credibility. As the story currently stands it is nothing more than an incoherent mish-mash of decontextualized comments about caffeine in beverages in Canada.