Dysfunctional Beverages

Distancing from the masses.

By Anthony L. Almada, B.Sc., M. Sc.

A munificent benefactor gave three persons each $1 million and asked them to develop a trio of beverages to improve health and performance, exhorting them to make their products as successful and lauded by consumers as possible. The first person set off to quickly develop three drinks, spending as little money as poss­ible on stability testing and exotic in­gredient costs, but relatively large sums on taste and color. The large remainder was directed to marketing, promotions and advertising expenses. He was able to launch the products in seven months. No one knew if these drinks really “worked” or if the ingredients listed on the label truly persisted over shelf life but the two caffeine-containing drinks became very popular in convenience stores and supermarkets around the country.

The second person invested substantial amounts of money in formulation, in­corporating ingredients that were expensive and in amounts that had been previously been equated with efficacy in studies done with solid dosage forms. When the prototypes achieved their final stage, both in taste and subjective “performance,” she subjected each to a controlled clinical study, attempting to prove they “worked.” After 16 months she was successful but had very little cash left to disseminate the good news. One can find her drinks in gyms, spas, natural foods stores and some gourmet markets.

The third person dedicated half the gift money to beverage development and in­novation, working on three drinks that achieved the highest level of taste and user experience attainable, under a certain cost of goods ceiling. She also filed for a patent on the composition of two of the products, while the third was developed under a trade secret agreement with a manufacturer. What she considered her lightning rod product was subjected to a controlled clinical trial. Thirteen months later the results were in: enhanced test-taking performance in college students and reduced stress associated with test-taking. She campaigned this message across as many college campuses and college-age publications as her $500K budget allowed. The two other drinks also gained favor among this demographic and soon began to spill over into stores, al­beit at a slower pace than the firstdrinks.

A mediocre or even ineffective product, lofted by hype and communicated via emotional contagion, can achieve at least temporary category killer status. But the best product, from the vistas of the clinical research scientist—if lacking a strong, frequent or loud message—will become the prime target of the in-store feather duster and “50% off” basket. Where do functional beverages fall?

Arguably, the majority of functional beverages fall into the realm of hype, in­gredient heritage transfer, ingredient quantity non-transfer and black box stability. Add in an occasional pinch of regulatory arrogance or ignorance (labeling beverages, containing ingredients lacking self affirmation of GRAS doss­iers/pa­nels, with NLEA/Nutrition Facts panels ver­sus a Supplement Facts panel or a Sup­­ple­ment Facts panel but representing the product as a food/beverage). Finish it off with a complete lack of knowledge if the product indeed enhances cognitive performance, physical endurance, leanness, or even tolerance to stress. Wave the magic wand and voila! The category of dysfunctional beverages is born.

In the natural products world “functional” is front and center in a semantic tug-of-war. For the food and beverage traditionalist, functional often relates to the enhancement of processing, stability, taste or other organoleptic features. To the nutraceutical (emphasizing the pharmaceutical origins of the word) champion, functional confers a biological effect. This is not the prevention of microbial mutiny in a finished product but a biological effect inside the end user: the consumer experience that is perceptible, visible or even measurable. How many functional beverage SKUs out there can objectively state they produce a biological effect in the end user, reproducibly, with one serving?

In one ring we have El Toro Rojo (Red Bull). The perfect mixer in the hands of a bartender, the perfect “go juice” in the hands of the rapidly fading student or “suit” who doesn’t want to wait in line at Starbuck’s. Few know of the several clinical trials on this silver bullet can, including a September study showing en­hanced physical endurance, mood and cog­nitive function (Amino Acids) and a soon to be published study showing en­hanced attention and reaction times (Psychopharmacology). Even fewer realize that Red Bull has never been compared head to head with a drink containing an equal amount of caffeine, sans the taurine, glucuronolactone, 26 grams of sugars and B vitamins. Sported to millions of TV viewers on a bi­weekly frequency from one of the fastest advertising vehicles on earth: Formula One. Is this just “reddened” caffeine in a small cylinder?

In another ring we have a company like SoBe, now a stepchild of Pepsico. Broad­cast with risque messages, the liquid poster child of the Gen-X demo­graph­ic. No proof of concept science that appears to reside in the public domain. The onus of GRAS/Nutrition Facts panels and a relationship with the regulatory powers of the land. The perception by some of adding “fairy dust” amounts of bio­­actives and healthy amounts of hype and marketing. Unknown stability of in­gredients like creatine and plant extracts. But who can argue with a 2001 run rate exceeding a quarter of a billion dollars?

In the last ring we have the underdog con­tender who has a different mission. Drinks That Work formulates with bo­tani­cals in standardized and solid dosage form quantities (e.g. its “relax and focus” dietary supplement beverage packs in 240 mg of kavalactones per single serving bottle. The most recent kava efficacy study, conducted in persons being weaned off of benzodiazepines (Valium® family of drugs), used 210 mg kavalactones/day [Laitan 50®, Schwabe] (Psychopharmacology, Sept. 2001)). The company’s caffeine beverage packs a similar dose wallop. The U.S. armed forces are doing a field trial on the products. However, funding is limited, distribution is mostly regional and consumer awareness is sparse. The stability issue has yet to be broadcast, both within its own products and in comparison to those of its competitors. How would this company fare with even half the budget of SoBe or Red Bull? Could it live up to its name, and even an addendum: Drinks That Kick Butt in the Marketplace? Could such a product line, in a mature and capitalized form, “dis” the so-called functional beverages?NW