Selective enforcement

Cocaine (the energy drink) has been deemed 'illegal' by the FDA. The problem seems to be that the company is making drug-like claims without having approval from the FDA from a drug-like product rather than simply a food product. But I think the real problem is that the FDA is uncomfortable with the marketing. It has the same name as an illegal drug, unlike 'red bull,' 'enviga,' or 'go girl.' And a suggestive font (read on).

This Cocaine is an energy drink produced by a Las Vegas company. It contains no actual cocaine but is being marketed as "The Legal Alternative" to the illegal drug, according to its website. Its logo appears to be spelled out in a white powder that resembles the drug.

The Food and Drug Administration said Redux Beverages was illegally marketing the drink as a street drug alternative and a dietary supplement, according to a warning letter dated April 4 that was released Wednesday. The FDA cites as evidence the drink's labeling and website, which include the statements "Speed in a
Can," "Liquid Cocaine" and "Cocaine — Instant Rush," according to the letter.

I've tried a lot of energy drinks and I don't know of many that don't make drug-like claims, take enviga which will boost your metabolism, and is "proven to help you burn calories." If this isn't a medical claim, I don't know what is. Plus it "provides 20% of the daily value for calcuim." How is this not marketing the drink as a dietary supplement? Note that milk makes a similar claim about calcium. And I think you could qualify just about anything we consume "street drug alternatives?"

In addition, dietary supplements cannot carry claims to prevent or treat a disease — something only drugs can do, according to the letter. The Cocaine website lists an ingredient called inositol and says it reduces cholesterol and helps prevent hardening of the arteries, among other health claims, the FDA said.

While we're at it, lets reclassify honey nut cherrios and quaker oatmeal.

"Your product, Cocaine, is a drug," the three-page letter reads in part. It's also a new drug and as such cannot be sold without FDA approval. In addition, the FDA said, the product is mislabeled because it doesn't include "adequate directions for its intended uses."

Drug yes. More of a drug than coffee or alcohol? No. Warnings I'll buy, I don't want kids to be having panic attacks or being rushed to the hospital in the middle of school and god knows the marketing poses a danger that the stuff will be over-used, but this is not the kind of thing anyone expects to find in the "No-Doze" or Vitamin section. If the FDA has a problem w/ the marketing and lack of warnings, that's fine, but by classifying the drink as a drug for the reasons in the letter, their regulations become unconstitutionally vague and overbroad (thank you PMBR). A better option would be getting the AG to prosecute for 'time place manner' violations in advertizing. Oh, the AG is tied up right now? My bad. Cheers.