Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FDA To Review Inhalable Caffeine

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the jittery-breathing dept.

United States 172

First time accepted submitter RenderSeven writes "Manufacturing.net reports that U.S. Food and Drug Administration officials plan to investigate whether inhalable caffeine sold in lipstick-sized canisters is safe for consumers and if its manufacturer was right to brand it as a dietary supplement. AeroShot went on the market late last month in Massachusetts and New York, and it's also available in France. Consumers put one end of the canister in their mouths and breathe in, releasing a fine powder that dissolves almost instantly."

cancel ×

172 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Great (3, Insightful)

Soporific (595477) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128539)

Instant jitters and an easy way to dose higher than you'd expect.

~S

Re:Great (3, Interesting)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128639)

not to mention it's incredibly expensive. i computed it once, iirc it's about 100x as expensive as no-name caffeine pills, and 200x more expensive than bulk anhydrous powder. about its only upside would be that it's maybe harder to overdose, if the effects are actually immediate (which i'm not sure about).

i can only imagine that this is due to some drug war-stigma against pills. maybe it's for women; studies have shown that women prefer to insufflate their drugs.

Re:Great (2)

frosty_tsm (933163) | more than 2 years ago | (#39130467)

i can only imagine that this is due to some drug war-stigma against pills.

Because inhaling something has never been mixed with the drug war.

Manufacturing .NET reports that U.S. Food and D... (0)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128643)

So Microsoft [wikipedia.org] is now trying to mess up the food busyness as well?

Re:Manufacturing .NET reports that U.S. Food and D (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39129115)

I wish I could find a clip of "Kif" from Futurama sighing in response to your comment.

Re:Great (4, Interesting)

Matheus (586080) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128685)

WCPGW

I used to have a chemlab-grade bottle of pure caffeine. It had no less than 8 different warning labels on it telling you how it could (and most likely would) kill you. Most people don't understand how small a 'real' amount of Caffeine they are consuming. In amounts the equivalent of say, snorting a line of cocaine, you would cause *serious damage. What's to keep your average marker-sniffing high school student from cracking these open and going to town (and then to the hospital)?

Re:Great (4, Insightful)

Russ1642 (1087959) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128773)

All chemicals destined for the lab have insane warning labels. Buy some cleaned sand from a chemical supply company (used for filtration). It's off a beach somewhere but you'd think it was a bottle of plague-infested death shards. They just slap the same FUD warning label on everything just because it's going in a lab. You never know when something is contaminated by the reagent next to it on the shelf but it's still pretty over-the-top.

Re:Great (4, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128783)

What's to keep your average marker-sniffing high school student from cracking these open and going to town (and then to the hospital)?

A fatal dose would cost about "three hundred" or so dollars and ripping all the canisters apart would take hours, I suppose. And probably more mechanical skill that your average stimulant addict.

Probably a "easier" way to poison someone, since foul play is expected if they find your blood full of rat poison, but if there's so much caffeine in your blood that its crystallized (slight exaggeration) then they'll just shrug their shoulders and say "I saw this on Oprah; kids these days; too bad"

Re:Great (2)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128809)

or they could crush caffeine pills, which is even easier and hasn't been a problem.

Re:Great (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39128957)

Considering the LD50 is usually less than 5 grams ingested (a few among the more rotund of us, and those who have slowly built up very high tolerances will be outliers), but each canister only holds about 100mg of caffeine (according to their site), injecting a few canisters still won't get to the intravenous LD50 (something closer to 2grams IIRC). Snorting will probably be somewhere in between the ingested LD50 and the intravenous LD50, so I'd guess snorting a full canister is roughly equal to downing a double-grande something something overpriced coffe beverage in one chug.

Re:Great (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#39129315)

Yes, I highly recommend setting safe levels of substances to the LD50. Because a Lethal Dose for 50% of the population is safe.

It would be amusing for kids to think taking lots of these Aeroshots is cool, and after taking a bunch of them get the shits from the overdose of B vitamins

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39129525)

Obligatory reference [youtube.com]

Re:Great (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#39130301)

Except the double double mocha lacha chaka rakka mocacinno is about a 10th of the price of the inhailer.

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39129077)

What's to keep them from doing it? Nothing at all! In fact your average marker sniffing "anyone" generally ends up in hospital sooner or later, not just overdosing but with other general stupid self inflicted injuries.

Re:Great (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39129887)

Eh, you can say that about a lot of chemicals though. Frankly, I put the kids who snort it like cocaine into the same category ad the ones who decide to drink the "alcohol" in the labs for kicks, not knowing it's actually methanol... Almost all deaths are tragic, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over people who mess up like that.

I'm wondering what the FDA's recent kick with caffeine is though - including the thing with Four Loko... Yeah, a lot of people use far more stimulants than is healthy but I feel like there's probably more serious stuff going on than an over dependance on caffeine. Speaking of stimulants, I'd put the shortage of Adderall into that "more serious" category. ADHD ain't cancer but medication shortages of any kind still outrank "hey, you kids - stop being stupid! Now get off my lawn!"

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39130149)

They don't have a problem with Four Loko because of overuse of stimulants, they have a problem because the purpose of Four Loko is to enable or encourage overuse of alcohol. A drunk who should be passed out, but thanks to that wonderful product is able to keep drinking, is well on his way to being a statistic. And a wide-awake drunk is every bit as impaired as a drowsy drunk, they just think they aren't. Four Loko has a problem because it is not "generally recognized as safe".

Re:Great (1)

Renraku (518261) | more than 2 years ago | (#39130225)

Four Loko isn't actually a bad drink in my opinion, but they're so big and full of alcohol that I really don't want to drink more than one. However, there's the occasional idiot that will drink six and then die to it, but they're just as likely to snort pure caffeine powder if they had it and die anyway.

Re:Great (-1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | more than 2 years ago | (#39130401)

What is to keep him/her from eating razors or drinking detergents? If the kid is stupid enough to do it, I say let him/her.

Re:Great (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#39129963)

All the more reason to scale back your Caffeine intake and find your actual threshold. I'm on green tea now and feeling a lot better, less antsy and hyperactive.

Can't imagine what some people are doing with all the caffeine they are ingesting, which isn't actually doing them much good, past the initial pick-me-up.

let's not even get into the hazards of inhaleable sugar and cream

Snorting coffee? (5, Funny)

Barbara, not Barbie (721478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128553)

Next thing you know, they'll be snorting coke!

Re:Snorting coffee? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39128605)

Or worse, Mountain Dew!

Re:Snorting coffee? (2)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#39130395)

Last time I tried, I damned near drowned.

It was that 'New Coke'. Didn't have a tenth the flavor or kick of the Classic.

Re:Snorting coffee? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39128623)

Been there, done that. The problem is that it keeps running back out of my nose and the fizzies make me sneeze.

Re:Snorting coffee? (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128793)

Next thing you know, they'll be snorting coke!

I'm sure they'll be banned for that reason. Cops/security guard/schoolteachers can't tell at a glance what has been reloaded into the canisters.

Amyl Nitrite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39128849)

Anybody care for a popper?

-- Ethanol-fueled

Snorting alcohol (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128947)

I've heard of teens putting vodka in vaporizers for faster highs. Its rather corrosive to sinus tissues.

Re:Snorting alcohol (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#39130037)

I've heard of teens putting vodka in vaporizers for faster highs. Its rather corrosive to sinus tissues.

Just stick your foot in a bucket of 100 pf Vodka - not only will you get intoxicated, it could clear up any foot fungus you have.

Re:Snorting alcohol (2)

jones_supa (887896) | more than 2 years ago | (#39130241)

Confirmed also by MythBusters that vodka will remove bad odor from your feet. :)

Re:Snorting alcohol (1)

Walt Dismal (534799) | more than 2 years ago | (#39130425)

...although it will taste just awful afterward unless drunk off Salma Hayek's foot (obligatory From Dusk Til Dawn reference).

Re:Snorting alcohol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39130101)

Snorting Vodka was even listed in a Maxim Mag as a type of shot to do back a couple years ago.

Tony Montana.... (2)

dgrover13 (2550090) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128555)

If only Tony Montana could have found a legal subsitute for his miami business... -"Have you guys seen my straw?"

5 months (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39128613)

I give it 5 months before some stupid kid dies chain huffing these until his heart goes.

Re:5 months (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39128693)

I give it 5 months before some stupid kid dies chain huffing these until his heart goes.

That's called natural selection.

Re:5 months (1)

AZURERAZOR (472031) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128919)

And the Darwin award goes to...

www.darwinawards.com

Caffeine Coccaine (1)

realsilly (186931) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128615)

Next you'll break open the canisters to get at the powder and snort line of Caffeine.

Re:Caffeine Coccaine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39128777)

Next you'll break open the canisters to get at the powder and snort line of Caffeine.

Isn't pure caffeine powder deadly? I'm guessing this product doesn't actually contain "caffeine" powder or we'll hear about how some kid killed him/herself with a pack of these canisters.

Re:Caffeine Coccaine (2)

LoP_XTC (312463) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128889)

Isn't pure caffeine powder deadly? I'm guessing this product doesn't actually contain "caffeine" powder or we'll hear about how some kid killed him/herself with a pack of these canisters.

Even worse ... its odorless, tasteless, and dissolves instantly in water. Thankfully most of us from the 80's generation have built up an immunity to it.

-LoPXTC

Re:Caffeine Coccaine (4, Funny)

Pope (17780) | more than 2 years ago | (#39129117)

Sounds more like Iocane powder!

Re:Caffeine Coccaine (1)

electron sponge (1758814) | more than 2 years ago | (#39130017)

Inconceivable!

Re:Caffeine Coccaine (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#39129729)

Caffeine is quite bitter (it is an alkaloid) and moderately soluble in water.

FDA review means little (4, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128621)

The FDA is a gimp government department. The only thing it can review in depth is approval for new drugs, and that's only because the corporations submitting the drugs have to pay for that. Funding for everything else, from food and cosmetics inspection to even chasing down advertisers that use the phrase 'FDA approved' illegally, is so hamstrung as to be useless. The only time the FDA gets involved is when there's press coverage on people getting sick and/or dying. Only a very, very small fraction of meat is ever inspected... and there are holes in the system so big you could fly a 737 through it and still have ample room to fit at least a dozen Rush Limbaughs lengthwise through them. Take honey, for example: Honey is mixed and remixed with many other suppliers, such that the expiration date is never known. Should a particular batch of honey be close to expiring or would otherwise fail inspection, it is shipped across the border, mixed in with good honey, and then imported back. This is legal. There's so many examples of this it's not even funny.

Bottom line here: Don't trust the FDA when it comes to food safety. It may be their responsibility to ensure food is safe, but they're so horribly underfunded and compromised by corporate interests that they cannot realistically be expected to succeed.

Re:FDA review means little (4, Interesting)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128729)

The FDA is a gimp government department. The only thing it can review in depth is approval for new drugs, and that's only because the corporations submitting the drugs have to pay for that. Funding for everything else, from food and cosmetics inspection to even chasing down advertisers that use the phrase 'FDA approved' illegally, is so hamstrung as to be useless. The only time the FDA gets involved is when there's press coverage on people getting sick and/or dying. Only a very, very small fraction of meat is ever inspected... and there are holes in the system so big you could fly a 737 through it and still have ample room to fit at least a dozen Rush Limbaughs lengthwise through them. Take honey, for example: Honey is mixed and remixed with many other suppliers, such that the expiration date is never known. Should a particular batch of honey be close to expiring or would otherwise fail inspection, it is shipped across the border, mixed in with good honey, and then imported back. This is legal. There's so many examples of this it's not even funny.

Bottom line here: Don't trust the FDA when it comes to food safety. It may be their responsibility to ensure food is safe, but they're so horribly underfunded and compromised by corporate interests that they cannot realistically be expected to succeed.

Are you aware that ancient Egyptian tombs have been unsealed and were found to contain honey thousands of years old that was still edible? It's an excellent preservative.

I'm no fan of the FDA either but this isn't your strongest example.

Re:FDA review means little (1)

gnick (1211984) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128837)

Bottled water and/or meat are probably stronger examples here than honey.

If only because Penn & Teller did Bullshit episodes on the topics that slashdotters will be familiar with...

Re:FDA review means little (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128845)

Are you aware that ancient Egyptian tombs have been unsealed and were found to contain honey thousands of years old that was still edible? It's an excellent preservative.

I'm aware that this fact is repeated often on the internet but nobody's ever been able to provide a citation that doesn't cite another, that cites another, that leads on in a circle forever. Regardless, such practices are unregulated and there is no tracking or auditing, so if something that wasn't honey made it into production, or if it contained botulism (yes, honey can indeed become infected with pathogens, le gasp)... there would be no way to trace it back to its source. That was my point. If the Egyptians happened to be really good at preserving things, you know, like people and honey, well all the more power to them. However, this is not Egypt during the time of the Parohs.

Re:FDA review means little (4, Informative)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#39129029)

Are you aware that ancient Egyptian tombs have been unsealed and were found to contain honey thousands of years old that was still edible? It's an excellent preservative.

I'm aware that this fact is repeated often on the internet but nobody's ever been able to provide a citation that doesn't cite another, that cites another, that leads on in a circle forever. Regardless, such practices are unregulated and there is no tracking or auditing, so if something that wasn't honey made it into production, or if it contained botulism (yes, honey can indeed become infected with pathogens, le gasp)... there would be no way to trace it back to its source. That was my point. If the Egyptians happened to be really good at preserving things, you know, like people and honey, well all the more power to them. However, this is not Egypt during the time of the Parohs.

The statements of the obvious ("this isn't ancient Egypt" etc.) reveal a slight impatient hostility on your part. It's not my fault you chose a weak example.

The principle here is that honey has such a high concentration of varous sugars and such a low concentration of water relative to those, that it provides an environment quite hostile for microbes. Osmosis across their cell membranes would tend to dehydrate them. It's similar to what happens when food (or whatever) is packed in salt. For this reason honey was once used to dress wounds in order to help prevent infection.

Knowing something about its nature is an alternative to dealing with any circular citations you might encounter. At least if your sole concern is whether you are likely to be harmed by eating "expired" honey. I for one am not worried about this at all, but as I am not a doctor, nutritionist, or other such practitioner I'm not telling anyone else what they should do. I simply consider it more than coincidence that such a widespread practice of selling expired honey (assuming I accept that at face value) hasn't resulted in reported cases of food poisoning like we saw with tainted spinach, cantaloupe, et al in recent years.

Re:FDA review means little (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39129085)

I spent approximately 110 seconds and found this:

http://www.beekmanandbeekman.com/honeytidbits.html

which lead me to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_M._Davis

not quite the infinite circle, but then again you're still in training.

Re:FDA review means little (2)

elfprince13 (1521333) | more than 2 years ago | (#39129285)

Parent doesn't know wth they're talking about. In this case, the honey is the preservative. Back in the day, honey-glazed hams weren't just honey-glazed because it tasted good, they were honey glazed because it was a way to preserve the ham. As one of the other responders to this post mentioned, high concentrations of sugar make for a really hostile environment for bacteria.

Re:FDA review means little (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39128745)

[Citation Needed]

Re:FDA review means little (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128915)

Turn on the TV and witness all the ads for snake oil and sugar pills with the disclaimer "these claims have not been reviewed by the FDA". Basically, you can sell anything now. The FDA has little enforcement power anymore.

Re:FDA review means little (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39129097)

You know what's funny, all those bullshit products say things like "proven by science" while the real stuff doesn't. So "proven by science" is a phrase that should now cause alarm bells to go off in your head.

Re:FDA review means little (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#39129543)

Or take the more recent example of Walnuts where the actual verified health benefits are illegal to be represented in packaging and marketing material because that makes them a "drug"

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/8294-walnuts-are-drugs-says-fda [thenewamerican.com]

It is also why you can't actually get natural Red Rice Yeast in any form unless it has been deneutered of any helpful benefits because it competes with STATIN cholesterol drugs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_yeast_rice#Regulatory_restrictions [wikipedia.org]

The FDA is in criminal conspiracy to make the only available healthy choices "processed foods" of some sort or another. It no longer serves the purposes of its founding, but is now a gross caricature of its former self. I'm glad it is not funded well, because if it was, it would be even worse. It is also on my list of reasons why government regulations are evil, because they can't do what they are supposed to do, and therefore do things that they can do but shouldn't.

Look, I'm not against regulation, I'm against OVER regulation. We don't need "more" we need "better" and more isn't better.

Re:FDA review means little (1)

St.Creed (853824) | more than 2 years ago | (#39130193)

The "red yeast rice" has a number of published cases where serious health damage (liver, kidneys) occurred. That's not a good case if you want to highlight the "evil intentions" of the FDA. Especially as the content of the red yeast rice you can buy in supplement form is suspected to contain quite unnatural ingredients.

The walnuts are plain silly though and more of a knee-jerk reflex with respect to making "medical claims".

Re:FDA review means little (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39128859)

Honey, as long as it is not stored in direct sunlight, has no expiration date. Its been used throughout history as a preservative.

Re:FDA review means little (1)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128921)

Honey doesn't expire or go bad, so I don't know what you are going on about there. The only thing that can happen to honey is if it is exposed to air it can solidify, but you can always just re-heat it and use it again.

Re:FDA review means little (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128981)

Honey doesn't expire or go bad

Citation needed.

Re:FDA review means little (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39129065)

You haven't provided a citation showing that honey does expire.

Re:FDA review means little (4, Insightful)

Fned (43219) | more than 2 years ago | (#39130211)

Citation needed.

Every civilization that has had access to bees since before there was writing?

Re:FDA review means little (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39129101)

Informative? A non sourced rant with a single speculative example is informative?

How about some anecdote?
My gf works food safety\quality for a large food manufacturer in our area and the FDA audits regularly for compliance. They keep super tight ship out there specifically because of the clout the FDA wields. I know it from all the middle-of-the-night calls to release or hold various materials\approve shipments etc to ensure compliance. Maybe it varies by region or industry but people do not do anything for fear of fucking up the FDA compliance and losing their jobs as a result. There was a drop-in inspection last week, in fact. In the not too distant past the organization has been fined upwards of $1mil for the methods used to clean up an ingredient spill in-house.

There are recalls all the time coordinated by FDA findings. Hit their twitter, see what I mean: http://twitter.com/fdarecalls

Not that more teeth aren't needed or that there's clearly some problems in some industries but I wouldn't consider them untrustworthy. It's astounding how safe\clean all the shit on grocery shelves is.

Re:FDA review means little (1)

izomiac (815208) | more than 2 years ago | (#39129575)

Bottom line here: Don't trust the FDA when it comes to food safety. It may be their responsibility to ensure food is safe, but they're so horribly underfunded and compromised by corporate interests that they cannot realistically be expected to succeed.

It's not just corporate interests. Originally, they wanted to put dietary/herbal supplements through the same requirements as medications, i.e. that they aren't harmful and they actually do something. Public outcry stopped that measure. Apparently there's a very sizable number of people who do not believe their favorite supplement both works and isn't toxic, but want to take it anyway.

Or at least they don't want to risk it being taken off the market for being either a waste of money or toxic (perhaps both)... Do people encourage their enemies to take these things, or what? "Try all-natural Coniine [wikipedia.org] supplements, that'll help you stop smoking!"

Re:FDA review means little (1)

Artagel (114272) | more than 2 years ago | (#39130027)

Please don't confuse FDA with other organizations. FDA is part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) generally handles inspections of food. I think fish are actually inspected by the Fish and Wildlife Service which is part of the Department of the Interior. Regarding food, FDA deals with approvals, labeling and definitions. (Definitions such as: evaporated milk: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/aprqtr/21cfr131.130.htm [gpo.gov] ), not inspections.

We're all going to be thinner (1)

concealment (2447304) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128625)

The average soft drink contains something like 2 oz of sugar. This pseudo-cocaine...er....inhalable caffeine seems like a great solution for nerds. Now we can stay up all night, without the sugar (and without whatever flavored toxic waste they use in sugar-free drinks).

Re:We're all going to be thinner (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39128655)

You could learn to drink black coffee and get the same thing.

Re:We're all going to be thinner (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39128929)

I went from from an even 100 kg (220 lbs) to just under 72 kg (158 lbs) by switching to "venti americano, extra shot".

All the weight loss was in my wallet, but I lost it.

Re:We're all going to be thinner (4, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128831)

Caffeine pills. nodoz and friends. I used them to wean myself off caffeinated energy drinks without a headache. Its been awhile but I used a spreadsheet and I distinctly remember how much of a PITA it was to chop nodoz smaller than 1/4 size so I went for 1/2 pill intervals. I recall the process took a couple days.

Psychological addiction was unaffected of course. Sit at computer, sip energy drink, right?

What? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39128647)

Manufacturing .NET? Is that a Microsoft-owned manufacturing company?

No? Then Microsoft should SUE THEM. It's the AMERICAN WAY!

Re:What? (1)

eternaldoctorwho (2563923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39129363)

It's the AMERICAN WAY!

So is snorting caffeine, apparently.

not inhaled (4, Informative)

greghodg (1453715) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128657)

It's not "inhaled." You puff the powder into your mouth, it dissolves in the saliva in your mouth, then you essentially swallow the saliva+caffeine and it's absorbed in your digestive system. No better or faster than any other caffeine that you swallow, and I guarantee a bottle of Vivarin is going to cost a HELL of a lot less than this gimmick.

Re:not inhaled (1)

WillgasM (1646719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128739)

apparently you're not using the optional intubation kit.

Re:not inhaled (4, Insightful)

IcyHando'Death (239387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39129165)

Yeah, well that's what their marketing stuff says, but that's just their end-run around the FDA. When used as directed: i.e. puffed into the mouth and swallowed, it can pass as a dietary supplement. But it's pretty clear that the fastest hit will come from inhaling and everybody knows it. The French manufacturer is named "Breathable Foods" for god's sake. Pretty transparent

Re:not inhaled (1)

jriskin (132491) | more than 2 years ago | (#39129695)

Agreed, if it looks like an inhaler and works like an inhaler... users are going to inhale...

Not that I have anything against people inhaling anything they want, but lets be realistic here.

.NET (3, Insightful)

zigurat667 (1380959) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128663)

had to read that three times until I realized that this Manufacturing.net is a website and has nothing to do with .NET reporting

This needs to stop (0)

cshark (673578) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128697)

The fda needs to stop trying to take things off the market when there has been no harm to the consumer. If there's a case that the product has hurt consumers, it's one thing. But there's no such thing in this case, or the last three that they've done this with.

Re:This needs to stop (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39128815)

Dontcha think it's better to test and remove BEFORE the problems crop up rather than after?

Re:This needs to stop (1)

cshark (673578) | more than 2 years ago | (#39129331)

Assuming there are problems. Their track record on this is awful. The overwhelming majority of the products that succeed in challenging the FDA on this policy never have issues.

Re:This needs to stop (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#39130397)

That's kind of a useless metric, isn't it? Ideally ALL of the products that succeed in challenging the FDA should never have issues. Now, what about all the products that FAILED at challenging the FDA, or never even bothered to challenge?

"inhalable"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39128719)

Wait, so I wasn't supposed to be railing those pills? What the hell are they for then?

Most dangerous object in the office (1)

IllogicalStudent (561279) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128731)

Saw this on Wired [google.ca] a few weeks ago. Looks dangerous indeed. I prefer my caffeine in liquid [starbucks.com] or solid [thinkgeek.com] , not gaseous, form, TYVM.

(Yes, I'm aware that an inhalant powder is technically solid; don't get pendantic).

Re:Most dangerous object in the office (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39128853)

If you'd bothered to RTFA, you'd know that this caffeine is in solid form, not gaseous form.

Re:Most dangerous object in the office (1)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128953)

Moreover, the FDA has already been regulating what's available in liquid form (once the tea is brewed) --- Celestial Seasonings' Morning Thunder used to have much more caffeine than expresso coffee, the original packaging even included a ``caffeine-o-meter'' showing graphically how much, but apparently the FDA demanded that the formulation be changed.

How dare they!!! (3, Funny)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128733)

The FDA checking the safety of a Food/Drug for general public consumption.
Just because it is legal elsewhere it doesn't mean it is safe for public consumption.
When the FDA lets a dangerous food and drug go free, they will get people yelling at them for not doing their job.
If the FDA bans a food or drug that isn't as dangerous, it is the strong arm of the mighty big brother keeping us poor folk who use this stuff as a cheap replacement for a 50' Boat, and 3 Vacation homes, from having any joy in our lives at all.

Can someone... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39128761)

... flag this as "TFA is popover-css-block-infested"?

Re:Can someone... (1)

InvisiBill (706958) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128925)

You'll find that "pages.mail.advantagebusinessmedia.com" is the source of most of your problems.

behind the counter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39128787)

I wonder how long it will be before they are behind the counter and you have to show your id to buy it.

Re:behind the counter (1)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39129061)

To answer your question, right after some tween snorts about 30 of these things on a dare and his heart explodes at the dinner table.

I have mixed feelings about this product, I feel bad that people keep coming up with new ways to get each other addicted for profit. The upside is that this will almost certainly help flush out some of the shallow end of the gene pool. The problem of course is collateral damage. The downside is that I'll have to share the road with the already impatient, attention deficit type A, folks who will now be peaking on a caffeine, adrenaline and nicotine trifecta. Hell, just add poppers to this mix, and we could simply televise our freeways as some kind of reality TV demolition derby on a cultural scale. See! this is a golden argument for nationalized telecommuting!

LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39128841)

Just how bad can it be to drink a nice coffee?

Another retarded Slashdot story.

Re:LOL (1)

khr (708262) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128973)

Just how bad can it be to drink a nice coffee?

Sounds like an improvement. If you drink a nice cup of coffee you seen need to pee a cup of coffee... This eliminates half of that inconvenience...

Re:LOL (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 2 years ago | (#39129169)

Caffeine is still a diuretic.

I've heard of... (1)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128865)

Inhaling your food, but this is ridiculous! Garcon, I'd to huff a nice Columbian Supremo, please!

tastes like cr@p (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39128901)

Don't forget "tastes like crap" as a feature...nasty.

why so small in scope? (3, Funny)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128967)

It seems the natural outcome of this would be giant fire-extinguisher sized containers in each corner of the building regularly spritzing caffeine into the air to generally improve employee output. You could even hide the canister behind ceiling tiles. Just another service provided by your company.

Re:why so small in scope? (2)

Rhacman (1528815) | more than 2 years ago | (#39129823)

But why hide it? It was listed in the benefits package.

Inhaling powder? (1)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128987)

Inhaling powder? Rarely a good idea- common sense says it can't be good for the lungs.

Also, I think many people over-estimate how much caffeine really does for them. There have been studies that show that people get more of a "caffeine high" if they are given a decaf and told it has caffeine in it- than they are if they are given a caffinated coffee and told it is decaf.

Sure, caffeine does help- and does things to the brain; but 50% of the effect of caffeine is pure placebo effect.

Re:Inhaling powder? (2)

greghodg (1453715) | more than 2 years ago | (#39129563)

You're right, although it's left pretty ambiguous, it is definitely NOT inhaled. It's a fine powder that dissolves in the mouth, absorbed through digestive system. Just like every other orally consumed caffeine. Also, it costs roughly 100 times more than the exact same thing in a pill ($3/100mg aeroshot vs. 200 count 100mg caffeine pills for ~$6).

Bonghits for Breakfast! (1)

Ellis D. Tripp (755736) | more than 2 years ago | (#39129155)

What's next, snorting No-Doz?

Re:Bonghits for Breakfast! (1)

omi5cron (1455851) | more than 2 years ago | (#39129805)

thats old news....i used to snort nodoz back in the early 80s. was not a coffee drinker then, but had been used to snorting cocaine. so when i wanted caffeine, break out the old coke prep setup. however, was NOT that effective, and was actually a real pain chopping it up fine enough to snort. no mortar/pestle available. youth and stupidity....

more legal bribery (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#39129237)

"...and paid them enough money to brand it as a dietary supplement."

FTFY

Re:more legal bribery (1)

will_die (586523) | more than 2 years ago | (#39129497)

Not you did not fix it, you just showed you where are major idiot, and could not learn why they choose to label it as a dietary supplement.
There FTFY.

so lets get this straight (1)

nimbius (983462) | more than 2 years ago | (#39129541)

if we wanted inhalable instantaneous stimulants, cocaine has been around a long time. but if we legalized cocaine that might allow for new markets and businesses to operate where historically monopolies have presided unchallenged.

but if we want inhalable caffeine, thats okay, because the monopoly powers in place have developed tested and stand poised to maket the product accordingly.

and if you dont believe me, check out the wiki article on Stevia, because this is exactly how this works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia [wikipedia.org]
first there was sugar, then came aspartame as an alternative, then stevia manufacturers wanted a piece of the market, afterwards the FDA was basically handed an anonymous document from major industry members that implied stevia was a horrorshow poison, which in turn killed off market competition from stevia producers by effectively making the US the only country to outlaw stevia as a food additive. 25 years later both coca cola and pepsi offer versions of their product sweetened with stevia (cokes product is called rebiana.)

me personally? ill keep my cup of coffee black, fresh ground, free trade, organic and locally owned.

Good news for those with IBS that still want caffi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39129739)

Good news for those with IBS that still want a caffeine hit

packaging innovation (1)

greghodg (1453715) | more than 2 years ago | (#39130457)

We could all learn from this company. Take an existing product, put it in a new container, make it look "sexy" and sell it at an exorbitant price. Every time I see something like this, it's obvious that its a useless gimmick and I dismiss it, because of course everyone else will see through it as well. And nearly every time, I'm wrong. Another one in the insanely-expensive caffeine area is "Five Hour Energy." Just another horribly overpriced caffeinated liquid that provides the user with exactly the same drug as a pill that you can get for 1/200th the cost. WHY would anyone ever buy this? So what's next? Where can I score millions from stupid people? How about a little spring loaded canister with mini cookies that ejects one into your mouth with the push of a button? Bingo. Now I can sell $.10 worth of cookies for $3!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?