Government plans to ban the sale of energy drinks to children are ‘unscientific’ and ‘discriminatory’, a report claims.
Ministers have proposed making it illegal to sell the ultra-caffeinated products to under-18s amid fears they are damaging to health.
Campaigners say the ‘dangerous’ combination of high levels of caffeine and sugar help fuel obesity, bad behaviour and sleep problems in young people.
Supermarkets have already jumped the gun and barred under-16s from purchasing the drinks.
But there is a lack of scientific evidence they warp children’s mood or cause them ill health, according to the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA).
A 500ml can of Monster Energy is crammed with 55g of sugar, just one gram less than a 500ml bottle of Pepsi
A 250ml can of Red Bull contains 27.5g of sugar, whereas a 330ml can of Coca Cola has 35g
The think-tank argues that many fizzy beverages like Coca Cola, Pepsi and Fanta have just as much sugar as the maligned energy drinks.
For example, a 250ml can of Red Bull contains 27.5g of sugar, whereas a 330ml can of Coca Cola has 35g.
Similarly, a 500ml can of Monster Energy is crammed with 55g of sugar, one gram less than a 500ml bottle of Pepsi.
The IEA says, from an obesity preventative perspective, the proposed ban ‘makes no sense’.
It also highlighted the caffeine content in beverages from high street coffee chains were significantly higher than that of energy drinks.
A Starbucks Americano Venti, the largest size, contains 320mg of caffeine compared to 80mg in a 250ml can of Red Bull.
Analysis shows young people get more than 80 per cent of their caffeine from tea and coffee, and just 10.5 per cent get it from energy drinks, the body claims.
It comes a year after the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee found last year ‘the current scientific evidence alone is not sufficient to justify a measure as prohibitive as a statutory ban on the sale of energy drinks to children’.
A Relentless 500ml can contains 24g of sugar, the same as a 500ml bottle of Fanta Orange, which would not be banned under current proposals
Christopher Snowdon, author of the Vox Pop report and IEA head of lifestyle economics, said: ‘Banning the sale of energy drinks to minors is not justified by scientific evidence and would be discriminatory and disproportionate.
‘The vast majority of caffeine and sugar consumed by teenagers comes from other products.
‘The government is not proposing a ban on the sale of drinks which have a higher caffeine or sugar content – and nor should it – so it is hard to see how a ban on one particular type of beverage can be justified.’
‘Placing an age restriction on energy drinks would put them in the same category as alcohol and fireworks, products which pose a demonstrable risk to users and those around them.
A Starbucks Americano Venti, the largest cup size, contains 320mg of caffeine compared to 80mg in a 250ml can of Red Bull
‘As the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee confirmed last year, the evidence of similar risks from energy drinks is sorely lacking.’
Ian Hamilton, an addictions lecturer at the University of York, told MailOnline he believes sugary drinks are just as harmful as heavily caffeinated ones.
And he speculated that banning energy drinks might even entice young people to want them more.
Mr Hamilton said: ‘I agree that the evidence is weak so far, that’s not to say evidence might emerge over time of a negative behavioural effect.
‘Teenagers do a range of things that can effect behaviour so trying to isolate one action such as high energy drinks as a cause of problem behaviour is very difficult.
‘For example it might be that those attracted to using these drinks are more likely to have an existing behavioural problem or a problem that is merely amplified when using these type of drinks, however you’d likely see the same effect with some drinks available from high street coffee chains that contain equally high amounts of sugar and caffeine.
‘Perhaps the greatest risk of this ban is it draws the attention of teenagers who might otherwise not have been interested in them, or are curious about the effect they will have, we know teenage boys are particularly prone to taking risks, so this ban could have the opposite effect of the intended one.’
Food labelling laws already mean that any soft drink with more than 150mg of caffeine per litre must carry a warning about its high caffeine content.
Packaging must also state the products are not recommended for children or pregnant or breastfeeding women.
But the ban proposed by ministers last year would prevent under-18s from purchasing these drinks entirely.
A Red Bull containing 80mg of caffeine in a 250ml can would fall foul of the rules as it is the equivalent of 320mg per litre
Shops that flout a ban could be hit with punishments similar to those for selling cigarettes – a £2,500 fine.
A February 2018 study from the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, found half of Canadian teenagers who consumed energy drinks reported negative side effects including a rapid heartbeat, nausea, and in rare cases, seizures.
More recently, a November 2018 study from the University of Texas at Houston found that just one energy drink narrows blood vessels, which restricts blood flow to vital organs, and increases the risk of stroke and heart attacks.