Red Bull Funded Research to Block Energy Drink Rules
Get the Health newsletter
Daily health & science — research, biotech, public health, the studies worth knowing. Free.
- Red Bull paid hundreds of thousands of dollars over more than a decade to fund university research favorable to the energy drink industry, according to a joint investigation by nine outlets including The Examination, Der Spiegel, STAT, and the Toronto Star.
- Suffolk County, Long Island dropped a proposed ban on selling energy drinks to minors in February 2011 after hearing from three researchers — including Utrecht University's Joris Verster and Red Bull's chief scientific officer — all of whom had financial ties to Red Bull.
- The Examination reviewed more than 100 studies on mixing energy drinks and alcohol and found that 95% of Red Bull-funded or conflicted studies concluded the combination carried no extra risk, while roughly 80% of independent studies reached the opposite conclusion.
- A 2015 European food agency report that cited Red Bull-backed studies found no clear evidence mixing was harmful; that report remains the last word in Europe and has been used to block regulation elsewhere.
- Boston University scientists withdrew from a Red Bull-funded study after Verster refused to address what the team believed were problems that would bias the results.
- A Quebec coroner ruled that 21-year-old Zachary Mitchell drowned in August 2016 from an arrhythmia triggered by combining several cans of Red Bull, about six beers (blood alcohol 0.1%), and physical exercise, calling for a youth-targeted awareness campaign.
- The U.S. CDC warns that mixing alcohol and energy drinks can lead to more drinking and higher risk of injury, drunk driving, and unprotected sex — positions at odds with the Red Bull-funded research the European agency relied on.
Why it matters: The 95%-vs-80% split between Red Bull-funded and independent studies is not a coincidence but a documented campaign — and it has had real policy teeth: a Suffolk County age restriction was killed in 2011, and a pivotal 2015 European food agency report continues to anchor the global regulatory stance. Public-health bodies like the CDC and coroners investigating deaths like Zachary Mitchell's in Quebec keep reaching conclusions the industry-funded research consistently contradicts, leaving regulators with manufactured doubt instead of a clear evidence base.
