Stephen Crossley

Consumption of energy drinks by children and young people: a rapid review examining evidence of physical effects and consumer attitudes

Objective To examine patterns of energy drink consumption by children and young people, attitudes towards these drinks, and any associations with health or other outcomes. Design Rapid evidence assessment and narrative synthesis. Data sources 9 electronic bibliographic databases, reference lists of relevant studies and searches of the internet. Results A total of 410 studies were located, with 46 meeting the inclusion criteria. The majority employed a cross-sectional design, involved participants aged 11–18 years, and were conducted in North America or Europe. Consumption of energy drinks by children and young people was found to be patterned by gender, with boys consuming more than girls, and also by activity levels, with the highest consumption observed in the most and least sedentary individuals. Several studies identified a strong, positive association between the use of energy drinks and higher odds of health-damaging behaviours, as well as physical health symptoms such as headaches, stomach aches, hyperactivity and insomnia. There was some evidence of a dose–response effect. 2 experimental studies involving small numbers of junior athletes demonstrated a positive impact on limited aspects of sports performance. 3 themes emerged from the qualitative studies: reasons for use; influences on use; and perceived efficacy and impact. Taste and energy-seeking were identified as key drivers, and branding and marketing were highlighted as major influences on young peoples consumption choices. Awareness of possible negative effects was low. Conclusions There is growing evidence that consumption of energy drinks is associated with a range of adverse outcomes and risk behaviours in terms of childrens health and well-being. However, taste, brand loyalty and perceived positive effects combine to ensure their popularity with young consumers. More research is needed to explore the short-term and long-term impacts in all spheres, including health, behaviour and education. Trial registration number CRD42014010192.

In Their Place: The Imagined Geographies of Poverty

The alleged failings of low-income neighborhoods attracts a great deal of academic and political scrutiny and research. However, the realities of localized spaces—such as family home front doors, bedrooms, street corners, and local schools—have not received nearly as much attention. With In Their Place, Stephen Crossley highlights how these spaces are represented from afar by politicians who exaggerate stories for political gain and how these fabrications actively manipulate media coverage of these British individuals and communities. A devastating critique of the Conservative government’s approach to tackling inequality, In Their Place will reorient those interested in human geography away from the large scale transnational policies back to the physical spaces that show the realities of life for Britain’s low-income neighborhoods.

Introduction: ‘Looking for Trouble?’ Critically Examining the UK Government's Troubled Families Programme

The Troubled Families Programme (TFP) was launched by the UK Coalition Government in December 2011. Following the riots that took place in towns and cities across England during that summer, the then Prime Minister David Cameron promised to put ‘rocket boosters’ under plans to ‘turn around’ the lives of the countrys ‘most troubled families’ by the end of the Coalitions term of office in May 2015. In his ‘fightback’ speech, delivered just a week after the riots had ended, Cameron (2011a) stated that the riots were not about poverty or race or government cuts. Instead, he argued that that the riots were ‘about behaviour: people showing indifference to right and wrong; people with a twisted moral code; people with a complete absence of self-restraint’.

The ‘troubled families’ numbers game

The figure of 120 000 was derived from research published by the previous government in 2007 on ‘families with multiple disadvantages’, using data collected in 2004. These disadvantages included housing conditions, material deprivation, and health problems, but the three national criteria for ‘troubled families’ included the behavioural characteristics of crime/antisocial behaviour, educational exclusion, and worklessness. It was claimed that these families cost the government »9 billion per year. Indicative numbers of ‘troubled families’ in each local authority area were identified using government deprivation data from 2007 and ‘child well-being’ data from 2009. The TFP has been subject to a number of criticisms about the (mis)uses of data with Ruth Levitas arguing that ‘‘anyone with any statistical sophistication will recognise it [the figure of 120 000 ‘troubled families’] as spuriously accurate’’ (Levitas, 2012, page 5). Local authority progress reports on the number of families ‘turned around’ by the programme are not official statistics and are therefore outside the remit and scrutiny of the UK Statistics Authority. Some local authorities have struggled to identify the number of ‘troubled families’ they have been allocated (Wiggins, 2012). These concerns and the relative infancy of the programme have not prevented the government from announcing the ‘massive expansion’ of the programme before any evaluation had reported any findings. In August 2014 (following an initial announcement in June 2013) the government published six criteria that were used to identify 400 000 more ‘troubled families’ in England for ‘Phase 2’ of the programme. It also informed local authorities of the five different data sources from three different years that had been used to identify the families.

‘Getting with the (troubled families) programme’: a review

The commitment of the appointed Director General of the Troubled Families Unit, Louise Casey, that the Troubled Families Programme (TFP) was ‘an opportunity not to repeat the failed attempts of the past’ masks several enduring continuities (Casey, 2012: 3). This review article argues that the TFP should be seen as part of a wider spectrum of policies which locates ‘troubles’ or ‘problems’ in the family itself and emphasises behaviour as the target of action without regard to wider social or economic considerations. This policy process must be understood within a wider context of not only historical efforts ‘to constrain the redistributive potential of state welfare’ (Macnicol, 1987: 316) but also of contemporary forms of neoliberal governance of ‘the family’ (Butler, 2014; Crossley, 2016a; Gillies, 2014).

Some Useful Sources

This useful sources section focuses on four key areas related to the Troubled Families Programme: official government documents and sources of information relating to the programme; emerging academic research relating specifically to the implementation of the programme; sources which help to locate the programme in its wider historical context; and international perspectives which provide information on how ‘troubled families’ are viewed in different countries. The sources listed here hopefully add to and complement the bibliographies of the individual articles in this section.

Children and young people’s perceptions of energy drinks: A qualitative study

Background Consumption of soft drinks is declining in many countries, yet energy drink sales continue to increase, particularly amongst young consumers. Little is currently known about the drivers behind these trends. Energy drinks are high in sugar and caffeine, and evidence indicates that regular or heavy use by under 18s is likely to be detrimental to health. This study aimed to explore children and young people’s attitudes and perceptions in relation to energy drinks in a UK context. Methods Eight focus groups were conducted with pupils aged 10–11 years (n = 20) and 13–14 years (n = 17) from four schools in northern England. A sub-sample also took part in a mapping exercise to generate further insights. Data were analysed using the constant comparative approach. Results Energy drinks were reportedly consumed in a variety of public and private places, generally linked to social activities, sports and computer gaming (particularly amongst boys). Participants demonstrated strong brand awareness and preferences that were linked to taste and perceived value for money. The relatively low price of energy drinks and their widespread availability were identified as key factors, along with gendered branding and marketing. Some participants demonstrated a critical approach to manufacturers’ claims and many were keen to become better informed, often through school- or peer-based interventions. Other potential interventions included age restrictions, voluntary schemes involving retailers and improved labelling. Conclusions The lack of a single dominant factor in participants’ consumption choices suggests that there is unlikely to be a ‘silver bullet’ in attempting to address this issue. However, the findings provide support for policy-level interventions that seek to change the behaviours of manufacturers and retailers as well as consumers, and actively involve children and young people where possible.