Cocaine Gives You Wings!

About a year ago, the makers of energy drink Red Bull introduced a new cola-flavoured drink, Red Bull Cola, onto the market. Last week, a health institute in North-Rhine Westphalia found traces of cocaine in the drink, which led to authorities in six German states banning the drink. An article in TIME magazine reminds us that, until 1903 Coca Cola contained traces of cocaine, and explains that according to the analysis, the 0.13 micrograms of cocaine per can of the drink does not pose a serious health threat — you'd have to drink 12,000 litres of Red Bull Cola for negative effects to be felt! Indeed, officials confirmed that the cocaine levels were too low to pose a health threat but were not permitted in foodstuffs.
Stories like this come around from time to time, where a new product is found to have a harmful ingredient or effect. What interested me, though, is Red Bull's reaction to the report.
A Red Bull spokesman said "De-cocainized extract of coca leaf is used worldwide in foods as a natural flavoring", and Red Bull said its cola was "harmless and marketable" in both the US and EU.
It is quite easy to see that the authorities in question, while perhaps panicking, are just reacting to concerns that could be raised by the public. Red Bull's answer has two points that interest me. The first is that they seem to completely ignore that the findings are the result of research carried out by Institutes -accepted bodies of wisdom in society. Their statement also ignores the decisions of six German states (and, since the whole affair started, several countries which have called for the drink to be withdrawn), and so suggests that Red Bull are not concerned with what governments think.
I'm not suggesting they reinvent the drink, but often -as is the case in many differences of opinion- it's enough to say "We understand how you feel". Red Bull have shown no empathy whatsoever -a key factor in customer relations. They have decided that they would go ahead and do their own thing.
What is their thing? That is the next point. Red Bull's official statement claimed not that the drink was "harmless and acceptable", not that it was "harmless and drinkable", but that it was "harmless and marketable", not the warmest, kindest, most honourable characteristic of a drink. I can't help wondering if the attitude shown in the company's response didn't lose them some support, as they suggest that a) local governments don't know what they are doing, and b) they are able to market it, so it must be okay.
On the other side, given that Red Bull's website is full of videos and photos of extreme sports, high-energy racing machines and adrenaline-fuelled adventure, it may just be the reaction to what they see as great publicity!