Tag Archives: Communicating Science

Energy Drink Commercial: Minimizing the Bad and Maximizing the Good

There is currently a huge market for energy drinks in which young teens and adults consume them on a regular basis. In particular, the five-hour energy shot, having zero sugar content and only four calories, certainly stand out amongst the crowd. However, does this product really cure tiredness and give us energy and nutrition with no side effects? Are the advertisements conveying all the necessary information for viewers to make an informed decision?

In this commercial, there are some misleading and hidden messages in the claims of the product. For instance, a side effect of caffeine is crashing. Nonetheless, the bottle says “no crash!” To resolve this confusion, users need to pay attention to the flashing fine prints that are significantly less noticeable during the commercial. One of which says, “no crash means no sugar crash.”

a snapshot from the YouTube commercial

The use of fine print and repetition in the commercial might not be enough for a client to make an informed decision. Technically, the company did not lie. During the commercial, they did display and mention all the necessary information. However, the way they aggressively minimized the negative factors, and amplified the positive factors are truly misleading. It is really up to the users to interpret the information given, and use their existing knowledge to be informed about the product.

Furthermore, the nutrients added in the five-hour energy drink such as vitamin B6 and B12 do not have any values in boosting energy. It is the caffeine added in it that is giving the feeling of alertness. Vitamin B6 has functions in neurotransmitter, histamine, and hemoglobin synthesis as well as in metabolism and gene expression. On the other hand, vitamin B12 serves the normal functioning of the brain and nervous system. Although both are essential in the human body, none of them attribute to increasing energy. By associating these nutrients with an energy drink, the advertiser again left an open-ended scenario for the viewers to interpret. Most often, people would assume the causal relationship between vitamins and energy-level improvement.

5

five-hour energy drink via flickr

The commercial and product emphasize the positive effects of the energy drink but fail to point out any risks. Aside from developing tolerance and physical dependence on caffeine, cardiovascular, psychological, digestive and other symptoms can develop with long-term use. Cardiovascular symptoms include: high blood pressure and arrhythmia. Psychological issues include: anxiety and nervousness. It can also lead to increased urination, loss of water-soluble nutrients, and dehydration. Other adverse effects include nausea, restlessness, drowsiness, and insomnia.

Overall, users should take the time to do research on any information given before using a product. We shall always seek for scientific evidence that have been supported by experts in the field, peer-reviewed and supported with raw data before believing anything. We should also use our existing knowledge to interpret information.

-Brigette Wee

Celebrity Advocacy: The “Experts” Weigh-In on the Vaccine Controversy

Have you ever purchased a product because you saw your favorite celebrity on television use it? The idea behind this marketing strategy is called celebrity endorsement. Celebrity   endorsement involves a well-known person using their fame to advertise and promote a product, service or idea. To a certain extent, this is not bad at all. However, it takes a toll in society when a celebrity advocates for their belief on a controversial topic that is beyond their field of expertise.

Jenny McCarthy is an American model, actress, television host and as some may say, an anti-vaccine activist. She claimed, Time magazine’s article on the autism debate reports that the experts are certain ‘vaccines don’t cause autism; they don’t injure children; they are the pillar of modern public health.’ I say, ‘that’s a lie and we’re sick of it.’ ”

Jenny McCarthy via buzzfeed

Jenny McCarthy via buzzfeed

Since Jenny McCarthy is under great public attention in the media, she brought attention and awareness to the vaccine controversy but in all the wrong ways and for all the wrong reasons. She failed to realize that, if we stop vaccination, many diseases would come back. This bad publicity could result in reduced vaccine uptake and the return of many diseases.

dis

Picture from Toronto Public Health Data from the Public Health Agency of Canada

Instead, social media coverage and the public should focus their attention on reliable sources regarding the vaccine controversy and any future scientific topics.

Dr. Gregory A. Poland, a health care professional who holds a MD from Southern Illinois University, claimed that no credible scientific evidence supports the idea that Measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccines cause autism; More than 20 carefully-performed scientific studies supported this claim. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also concluded that there is no relationship between MMR vaccine and autism. The American Academy of Pediatrics made similar conclusions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83Af9rgAL-0

In this video, Dr. Gregory A. Poland talked about the importance of vaccines and the diseases that have been eradicated and controlled by the use of vaccination. He also addressed the dangers of opposing vaccination.

False beliefs and biases have lead to parents deciding not to immunize their children with vaccines because of the fear that autism is associated with Measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccines. This puts children in the likelihood for acquiring measles and other diseases. The health of numerous children is at great risk because of continued misinformation and unscientific beliefs.

The way forward is that public health concerns should be addressed more carefully by the media. Claims that have no credible data must be ignored no matter how passionate an individual is about their belief. Social media should stop giving celebrities who comment on scientific controversies more attention than scientists who are experts in this field.

The public should not misunderstand celebrity status and fame for authority. We shall always seek for scientific claims that have been supported by experts in the field, peer-reviewed and supported with raw data before believing anything. Thus, we should not be quick to believe Jenny McCarthy’s campaign.

Brigette Wee