Summer Savings! Get unlimited digital access for 13 weeks for $13.
Readers Respond
News Opinion Readers Respond

Banning energy drinks for kids isn't the answer [Letter]

Contrary to Laura MacCleery's claim ("Energy drinks can kill," March 5), I never asserted that the FDA gave energy drinks a "green light." Rather, I noted in my op-ed ("No one cards at Starbucks," Feb. 26) that the agency conducted an investigation in 2012 and found no cause to take action against these products. That doesn't mean the products are 100 percent safe for any individual to consume in any quantity, but that's true for most products.

I didn't mention Anais Fournier because one death reportedly connected to energy drinks doesn't prove that energy drinks are dangerous, and it shouldn't be the basis for legislation. However, documents filed in state court in Riverside, Calif., by Monster's lawyers reveal that no meaningful toxicity screening was conducted on Ms. Fournier and the medical examiner admits to failing to perform a blood test at the hospital, which would have shown any caffeine in her system. It seems the reason "caffeine toxicity" is listed on the death certificate is because the family insisted the drinks aggravated Fournier's pre-existing heart ailment. If energy drinks were a true threat to the 10 percent of the population with heart conditions, wouldn't we expect to see many more deaths considering the rapid increase in their use over the last decade?

The best way to protect children isn't to ban products but to teach them about balanced diets and the dangers certain foods or drinks can pose so they can make healthy choices into adulthood.

Michelle Minton, Washington

The writer is a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

To respond to this letter, send an email to Please include your name and contact information.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Energy drinks a threat to kids [Letter]

    Energy drinks a threat to kids [Letter]

    Proposed legislation restricting the sale of energy drinks in Maryland is necessary because the energy drink industry targets their marketing at teenagers and does not warn consumers of the dangers of energy drinks ("No one cards at Starbucks," Feb. 27). There is growing consensus in the medical...

  • Energy drinks can kill [Letter]

    Energy drinks can kill [Letter]

    Michelle Minton's commentary on Maryland's reasonable bill to stop stores from selling energy drinks to minors is misleading on a key point ("No one cards at Starbucks," Feb. 26).

  • No one cards at Starbucks [Commentary]

    No one cards at Starbucks [Commentary]

    Energy drinks aren't the enemy, as state bills would have you believe

  • Baltimore needs BRT

    Baltimore needs BRT

    Recently, Lt. Gov. Boyd Rutherford announced that Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) should be considered as an alternative instead of the now-shelved Red Line light rail system ("Who knew Hogan, Rutherford were such transit geeks," July 15). Why? Costs. Light rail is extremely expensive — to the tune of...

  • Orioles: No gnomes, please

    Orioles: No gnomes, please

    In light of the Orioles recent near-death spiral, many fans have pinned the blame on the Buck Showalter Garden Gnome giveaway ("Buck Showalter garden gnome briefly causes long lines at Camden Yards," June 28). True, their record since the promotion has been dismal and Buck Showalter was warned...

  • Baltimore remains a fiber desert

    Baltimore remains a fiber desert

    Like Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake's Smarter Baltimore draft report, the commentary, "Broadband for Baltimore" (July 27), has solid recommendations for building high speed Internet in Baltimore. But like that report, it ignores the principal reason that Baltimore City doesn't have broadband. Verizon's...

  • The evil of Iran

    The evil of Iran

    We sat 5,000-plus strong in the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in the District of Columbia for three intense days of Christians United For Israel (CUFI) 10th summit on July 12-14. We came from all across the nation (including 95 members from other countries and 500 college students). We...

  • Iran deal — war now or war later

    Iran deal — war now or war later

    In its recent editorial, The Sun adopts President Barack Obama's primary argument in favor of the Iran deal — that the only choice is the deal or war ("A 'good enough' agreement," July 24). No one wants war. But the choice here is not war or no war. It is war now or war later.