Alcoholic Energy Drink Producers to Remove Stimulants: Good News?

Although at first glance the FDA's decision today reported by CNN (http://bit.ly/buH8Ep ) may appear a victory and  “good news,” we need to realize this is also akin to what social psychologists like to call “the foot in the door” phenomenon (see http://bit.ly/cYW6Ut ). Literally, this is when I ask you to do something or give me something small in order to give me/do something larger that I was not likely to have done/granted right away. In other words, by asking for something one does not need to think much about and is likely to grant, when I ask for what I really want, the ice has already been broken and you will give me what I want. The argument goes that if you have already provided something you are more likely to provide more.

When I say that Four-Loko’s manufacturer’s offer is “akin” to the foot in the door, I mean that “we”—those who are protesting four-loco and other alcoholic energy drinks—are not likely to object to this offer and may even applaud the proffered change as we saw the added stimulants in these beverages as a major—although not the only—concern regarding these drinks. However, is the wind is then taken out of the protest movement’s sails? Is the momentum we have amassed lessened? Do sweet-tasting, high-sugar drinks equal to 4.7 standard servings/container drinks continue to be sold?

Another variation on this theme is that the producers of alcoholic energy drinks respond to our continued protests about alcohol content, calories, and potential for overdose by suggesting that we are “zealots” who are “neo-prohibitionists” because they removed the stimulants we said were so harmful yet we still are not satisfied. In short, can they spin their efforts and our response them to their advantage?

I do not have the answers to the questions I ask, but we nonetheless, as a field, need to be very careful how we proceed here. On the one hand, the removal of stimulants is a good thing; on the other, do we risk losing momentum and/or being cast as a group of “fundamentalist neo-prohibitionists”?

What do you think?

Dr. Robert