Are Your Genetics Making Starbucks Rich?
Similar to the “Cheating Gene” article discussed in class is the following article “New Caffeine, Gene Link: Are Your Genetics Making Starbucks Rich?” which uses limited data to attract media attention.
“Caffeine is highly addictive. Reported to be the most commonly consumed psychoactive substance on earth, 90% of Americans report using caffeine on a daily basis. Now in a new study, it seems that two genes have been potentially identified to contribute to Starbucks' profitability so to speak.”
Critically reviewing this article or researching this new gene, what is the media’s view versus what science has really shown about this gene? How much proof does this article actually provide? Do you believe what is has to say?
Finally I have an explanation for my love of coffee!
ReplyDeleteAlthough, it's very interesting that there may be a gene to explain caffeine addiction, I think it's a bit far fetched. Yes, it is true that some of our genes have a huge impact on our health outcomes and behaviors, but these studies seem to give little credit to the impact of our environment.
Personally, I love coffee. I can drink about 3 cups a day. For me I don't think it has anything to do with caffeine but more for the taste. I don't use it to stay awake, I just enjoy it as a beverage. Growing up, everyone in my household drank coffee, even at a young age, so for me, I think my coffee addiction (if that's what you want to call it) is purely environment based.
A lot of people don't aquire a taste or need for coffee/caffeine until it is everywhere in their environment. It's kind of hard for college students to not get hooked on caffeine when there are about 5+ starbucks and 3 dunkin donuts on campus. Caffeine is everywhere so why not drink it. To me, addictions occur because the supply for this addiction is abundant. In other words, you don't just randomly pick up an addiction for drugs and alcohol without it being around in the first place.
Science explains a lot but I don't believe it's an excuse for our addictions.
We already know that gene expression is influenced by our diets and other external factors. I hate how this article is trying to explain it the other way around. If we look cross-culturally we can see that people from other cultures also drink a lot of caffeine...in Arab culture its coffee, in the Indian subcontinent it's tea, etc. but it's part of their tradition, and its also based on what grows in their geographic area. You can't go to anyone's house in the Middle East without being offered coffee. It's considered rude not to offer and rude to decline. Does that mean they are all addicted to coffee? C'mon, be realistic. Next, we're all going to be genetically addicted to water.
ReplyDeleteAnd the whole idea of inheriting caffeine consumption habits is absurd. My mom is a heavy tea drinker and my dad drinks coffee at least once every day, but I don't like tea at all and I didn't drink coffee until about a year ago, even then I only drink a cup once a week or so. I probably won't drink coffee at all once I'm done with college. Like Elizabeth, I think my coffee drinking inclination is entirely environmental. We need to get over trying to use genetics in a deterministic way. Most of what we do as humans is dependent upon what we are exposed to, not what we are born with. This article is yet another example of how glorified scientists are lazily trying to explain a human behavior in two genes or less.
"C'mon, be realistic. Next, we're all going to be genetically addicted to water. " SO TRUE!!!
DeleteShakeela, you stole the words right out of my mouth! I come from a Lebanese family but, as Shakeela said, coffee is everywhere in the Arab world. Whenever you visit an Arab family, you will be offered coffee and people drink it even if they don't like it. I am not a huge fan of coffee, but I know that I will keep a large supply of Turkish coffee in my cupboard in anticipation for visitors who do drink coffee because it is tradition. At least in the Arab world, everybody grows up drinking coffee and I largely agree with both Shakeela and Elizabeth about the environment's influence on caffeine consumption. Elizabeth makes a great point when stating how it is difficult to avoid the addiction to caffeine when there are so many coffee shops on campus! Coffee has become integrated into American culture, especially college life, and I strongly believe that students drink so much coffee because they feel expected to in college.
DeleteYes, genetics does have a large influence on at least how effective caffeine is on the body (sensitive, hypersensitive, not sensitive at all!) but I definitely think that this article jumps to too many conclusions without real supporting evidence. Caffeine consumption may very well be genetic, but you absolutely cannot ignore psychological, environmental, as well as SOCIAL influences.
Looks like direct-to-consumer genetic testing is jumping on the bandwagon. Here's what 23andMe has to say about caffeine and genetics:
https://www.23andme.com/health/caffeine-consumption/
I completely agree with the lack of environment addressed in this article. The article seems to be about the obvious, without actually addressing the obvious. Of course genetic plays a role in caffeine, but I really believe environment (particularly consumption patterns) effects caffeine behavior more. My dad cannot go a day without a cup of coffee, but my mom is off the walls just from one cup (we secretly give her decaf on occasions). What does that say about me? I drink a cup a day and am fine going a day without it. Additionally, like many have already discussed, caffeine is very cultural thing but that does not mean it is in the culture because it is in the genes. Furthermore, Starbucks has learned the culture of coffee in America. Going to a Starbucks has become a social activity/gathering, and knowing what/how to order is "chic". To me, it seems like Starbucks learned how to effectively market a basic product to all social needs.
DeleteI don't this article showed anything it said that these two genes had some effect that was proven in some other studies but it didn't show what those studies where. I am not sure but it seemed to me that the doctor that they interviewed had nothing really to do with the research that was done before he had just been aware of them. Like the two students before me I agree that the environment has an impact on how people will react to coffee. In the article they were discussing how that one gene would be able to metabolize caffeine faster or slower( not that they went in to detail about the coffee) but it would make sense that some would need more caffeine to feel its effects but I don't know if the genes the mention necessarily are the ones that are causing that effect. I also don't think this article would be best for people who don't really understand genetics this gives people a "free pass" in to behaviors that could not be healthy, maybe not coffee in general but there are other studies about other genes that do "other stuff" that the scientists found that correlates and because of what they found certain people might think that it is there genes that make them do certain things and they will not own responsibility for their actions.
ReplyDeleteThis article was really interesting to read. I had no idea that they actually found the gene that metabolizes caffeine. I'm not sure how accurate it is though. Again, they said there was only one study done on people's "addiction" to caffeine and whenever I see that there's only been one study preformed, I get a bit skeptical. I think more research definitely needs to be done. But I do think that a lot of people (inlcuding myself) use caffeine on a daily basis and coffee is certainly the source that I see the most used on campus. People are constantly walking to and from classes with coffee cups/mugs/thermuses filled with all kinds of flavored mixtures. I do see quite a lot of Starkbucks coffee cups in the hands of students (probably partly due to it's extremely easy access with 2 stores within 3 minutes of each other on campus and one in SMG).
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Veronika in that the environment certainly has MUCH to do with people's concumption of caffeine (hence the previous example of multiple Starbucks shops within a 1 mile radius). I also agree with her in that this study didn't really prove anything, it was more of an observation. I think people already knew that some people need more or less caffeine to make it through their days than others. I don't really think the study added any new information other than the two genes involved in caffeine metabolism. I also believe that the last section that says "feel free to drink your coffee while reading this" is a little misleading. Like Veronika said, it sort of gives people a false sense of respsonsibility in that they don't feel responsible for their actions because it must just be their genes that are making them do this. Again, a lot more research needs to be done in this area and I think many more double blinded studies should be conducted before we conclude anything.
- Caroline Booth
I think Elizabeth's view on the article is very similar to mine. I completely agree that the environment plays a huge part (and more so than science) when dealing with addictions. I also grew up with coffee. From a young age everyone drank coffee in my house in the morning coffee is purely cultural (at least in my family). And to be honest even though my entire family drinks it and I've been drinking it for years, I don't really like coffee and if I do drink it, it will most likely be 99.9% milk. When I used to drink it, it was more out of habit. That was a typical breakfast in my culture and I didn't know of anything else. At this point coffee has no effect on me. It doesn't keep me awake and if I do drink it, its because of the taste or because I want to drink something warm. It has nothing to do with my genetics in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI also think Shakeela brought up a great point that besides tradition it also has to do with what grows in a certain area. And like Elizabeth was saying it doesn't help that we have 50 coffee shops on one street. Coffee is literally everywhere. What do you expect?
I don't believe that these genes are completely responsible for the "inherited differences" in how people drink coffee. Again it's ENVIRONMENT. It's CULTURE. If you weren't brought up with coffee then once you go to college you will be completely surrounded by it so it will hit you at some point. The article doesn't mention any of these factors and that's a little troubling.
I'm sure the researchers put a lot of time and money into this...and maybe someone somewhere will find this useful but I don't see why the media felt the need to publish this without including the environmental issues that I think are extremely relevant. I am all for science but sometimes I feel like we could put our time and money into better use.
I think that although the article is an interesting read the findings are not very trustworthy. The study was conducted on European Americans, and as we have learned, if you only base your survey one one population the results can only be applied to those members. That is not to say that the article is not pointing towards an interesting finding. One thing we must consider is as mentioned earlier some people do consume coffee simply for the taste, as I tend to do at times. The article does not mention if the study questioned whether people consumed caffeinated or decaffeinated coffee. One thing we must consider also is that many people do not consume coffee because they need the "wake up" effect but just simply because they have made it part of their daily routine and it has remained there. The finding that the genes metabolize caffeine at a different rate is interesting and I do believe it is something that should be investigated more in depth. But the media is trying to portray this as if our genes are the reason Starbucks is rich, when the study is investigating caffeine which all coffee companies use, not taste which is what differentiates them. Also nowhere in the article does it mention that the study investigated which company the subjects consumed the most from.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, as Yoal just mentiond, the study has nothing to do with Starbucks. Just to further point out that the authors of the article are skewing what the data actually represents and concluded, the article ends with two statements that are opposite. Authors of the article state the following:
ReplyDelete"The fact is that caffeine consumption causes the lack of mental alertness the habitual drinker is prone to. It is far from normal to have the peaks and sags of attention and energy that is the hallmark of a caffeine addict. Without repeated administration of caffeine, energy drops and mental sharpness flags. Just like other addictive drugs, caffeine creates its own problems, and just like other drugs, the "cure" for those problems is more of the drug."
This quote makes caffeine seem very dangerous and represent its "addictive nature" as a serious health risk or problem. This is just to draw in the reader by making dramatic statements. Then, the article quotes...
"So now, we have some clear genetic markers that we can go and test to see how they might affect a host of metabolic processes. But meanwhile, people should think of caffeine as generally very safe. So enjoy yourself. In fact, go read about this research while sipping a cup of coffee."
Also, the study's findings do not mention anything about caffeine being "addictive." It just talks about how we metabolize caffeine and how that might determine how much caffeine an individual needs to consume in order to feel the same effects. There is no evidence or links to coffee being addictive based on the study. It is true that our genes may influence our behaviors. For example, if someone metabolizes caffeine differently, they might need more to feel the same effect as someone else. But, that has nothing to do with addictive personalities or propensities to addiction - which have been studied in other genes.
I agree with Amanda's input on how the discovery of a gene that metabolizes caffeine does not directly correlate with an addiction to the drug. Along with the other comments above, environmental factors need to be considered. Along with the cultural aspect, caffeine consumption is often a habitual process.
ReplyDeleteI did find it interesting that the gene shows that different people metabolize caffeine at a different rate. This aspect of the article seems true. I know that a cup of coffee affects people differently. Some people may be wired all day, and some may fight falling asleep within a couple hours.
The addition of this quote was slightly confusing:
"It's also the case that these observations actually go beyond caffeine, because one of the genes we identified wasn't put there just to metabolize caffeine. It does a lot of other stuff, like metabolize compounds of cancer and also a whole long list of drugs."
If the author was consistent in his writing, he/she would be saying that this gene is a predictor for addiction to these other drugs.
In general, this article seems to be appealing to the layman. All I see are general statistics of the popularity of coffee, but little information on how the gene could predict addiction.
I agree with many of my classmates' responses to this article. I think like many other diet habits, that drinking coffee is an environmental and preference based habit rather than a genetic disposition. I love iced coffee and could drink probably 4 or 5 large ones a day because I like the taste of coffee and it has become a habit to drink it on my way to class, in class, while I'm driving, basically anywhere or anytime. I work in a coffee shop and some customers strictly drink decaf coffee but will drink upwards of 3 or 4 cups a day. Obviously this has nothing to do with an addiction to caffeine because there isn't any caffeine. I think that drinking lots of coffee could have some correlation with caffeine tolerance but I believe that avid coffee drinkers, like myself, just enjoy a good cup of coffee.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I do not like how this article highlights Starbucks in it's title, as the article serves to show a genetic linkage to drinking caffeine and coffee, not to being addicted to specifically Starbucks.
ReplyDeleteI feel that living a healthy lifestyle is key in gene expression, as we have learned this semester. Like other addictions, drinking coffee is a habit picked up based on environmental conditions and the decision to engage in its usage. Although environment can be very influential, I do not feel that genes themselves can be blamed for coffee addictions - if this were the case, we could attribute almost any addiction to genetic composition when, in reality, negative genes tend to be expressed when one does not lead a healthy lifestyle.
As Amanda Said, the study's findings do not mention anything about caffeine being addictive, instead talking about how we metabolize caffeine and how that might determine how much caffeine an individual needs to consume in order to feel the same effects. There is no evidence provided to show that coffee is addictive. Our genes may influence our behaviors but that has nothing to do with addictive personalities.
As a coffee addict, I do believe that there is a genetic component to caffeine addiction. For example, my mother does not respond to coffee at all when she is tired but I need coffee every morning to function normally and be awake and alert. Something in my genes, although I do not believe it is a single gene but many genes interacting, causes this reaction to the caffeine intake. As the article states, certain people need a sip of coffee to get their fix whereas others need a few cups per day.
ReplyDeleteDo I believe that it is only genes that are responsible for this addiction? Absolutely not. Environment plays a huge role for caffeine addiction. First of all, persons who are around coffee drinkers are much more likely to drink coffee and become addicted. Also, certain age groups drink more coffee than others. For example, college students consume more coffee than any other age group in the US. This could be because they need more to function biologically, are getting less sleep, or are studying more than other groups and need to be more alert for these tasks. Also, our culture feeds the coffee addiction. Wherever you go in the US, there is usually a coffee shop in driving or walking distance. Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts is on every street in Boston as well as smaller, more trendy coffee shops. The specialty drinks, because they taste delicious and sweet, urge people to spend more money on caffeine and intake more than they probably even realize. Soft drinks with caffeine are extremely common in our society and most people do not even think about this when they are consuming unlimited amounts of these drinks.
Overall, I agree with all the comments of my classmates. Caffeine addiction is a combination, as are most traits that are expressed, between environment and biological susceptibility (genes and our DNA).
I agree. I do agree that there is a genetic component associated with coffee addiction, however, I think that this article exaggerated the association. However, as mostly everyone has stated the amount of coffee that individual consumes is largely influenced by one's environment. I grew up hating coffee because my mom hated it. However, once my sister reached the age where her friends were consuming a lot of coffee I started drinking it because she was. We are influenced a lot by the people around us and what's around us as Dana said you can't walk more than 2 blocks without running into a coffee shop in Boston or on BU's campus. So, I agree that there may be a gene that is associated with caffeine addiction and metabolism, but the major source of influence on coffee consumption is environment.
DeleteWhile the environment plays a major role in addiction, I also believe there is something to be said for genetic predispositions to addiction. Of course you can never be addicted to coffee if you never have it, but for some it is easier to become addicted than others. To me, caffeine addiction is similar to alcoholism, you can be genetically predisposed but the major factor is an individual’s environment.
ReplyDeleteNeeding caffeine to function is similar to how many hours an individual needs to sleep at night, it is different for everyone and there are varying degrees. I did not think the article did a great job explaining the results but I do think the study is a start of learning how specific genes affect our body’s metabolism and preferences.
The article seems to be a sort of propaganda for coffee, mentioning Starbucks in the title (as Shannon and Yoal stated above) and then concluding by suggesting readers to drink coffee. It is another example of the news and media stretching a story.
I agree with the above comments that this article is misleading. Like Shannon said, "the article serves to show a genetic linkage to drinking caffeine and coffee, not to being addicted to specifically Starbucks." The sources that the author of this article uses never mentions Starbucks at all. In fact, the author clearly only read a few of the paragraphs of his two sources (which I'm not even sure are reliable), then choppily mashed them together in order to support his article, and claim an association with Starbucks to attract media attention.
ReplyDeleteOne of his sources describes coffee addiction in general, and the other source is a study that identifies a gene expression that could possibly correlate with caffeine metabolism. Even though the author is trying to justify addiction based on genetics and how fast people can metabolize caffeine, addiction is not the same as metabolism. Being able to metabolize a substance faster illustrates that a person can consume more and tolerate that substance better than others, not that the person is addicted. For example, most men are generally known to consume more alcohol than women due to their liver metabolizing the alcohol faster. Does that mean it is in their genes to become alcoholics? As others have commented, "addictions" or the frequency of drinking (caffeine or alcohol) is caused by the environment, not by genes. Even if men were alcoholics, was it because of their genes or does society and peer pressure affect their social drinking?
All in all, I do not trust what this author is saying, especially since his logic and sources are questionable.
After reading this article I also agree with many of my classmates in that drinking multiple cups of coffee a day is purely a preference rather than a genetic predisposition. As a college student I often see others have numerous cups of coffee a day in need of the energy that caffeine supposedly provides but rather than viewing it as a caffeine addiction, I have always thought of it as both a personal choice and just an increased tolerance level for coffee that play the largest roles. One can then argue its genetics that influence one’s ability to metabolize caffeine either faster or slower which results in the need for more or less cups of coffee per day just as researchers do in this article but I don’t think that’s truly the case for it cannot be said for a majority of other drinks and foods that have effects on the body when ultimately a lot of what we eat and drink is all about preference. As for myself, I used to hate the taste of coffee and would never have even one cup a day. But the more I began to try it I now drink at least one to two cups a week and that behavior cannot be explained by saying I am either genetically predisposed to like or to dislike coffee. Furthermore as drinking coffee is so heavily ingrained in our culture and many all over the world I definitely think our ability to consume multiple cups of coffee daily is a social norm that many have adapted to rather than something influenced solely by our genes.
ReplyDeleteThis article is just all over the place for me, for a quite a few reasons. First of all, the article has no supporting evidence whatsoever to even back up the claim that caffeine is highly addictive. So they clearly need to do more research before they can make such a deterministic claim like this. The only "scientific facts" they made was that two genes have bene linked to the process by which caffeine is metabolized. Second of all, what does Starbucks have to do with anything? I feel like they only included it in the title just to attract readers and draw more attention...which I'm sure it did! The fact that they are saying that our genes is the reason why Starbucks earned $241.5 million is a very bold statement. They don't even include environmental or cultural factors for the reason why people drink and enjoy coffee. Thirdly, the authors make very contradictory statements. At first they mention how "just like other addictive drugs, caffeine creates its own problems, and just like other drugs, the "cure" for those problems is more of the drug." And later on they mention that "meanwhile, people should think of caffeine as generally very safe. So enjoy yourself." So is coffee a substitute for a drug or is it okay for people to drink? I'm confused at what this article is getting at. I personally don't drink coffee...never have. And even if I did, I don't think my genes determine whether I prefer to or not.
ReplyDeleteWhile genes can have a significant impact on our health, I have to agree with several of my classmates that much of our health depends on behavior and environment. For most of my life, I never felt the need to drink coffee. It was not common in my home, so before coming to BU, I rarely drank it. Now I drink a cup of coffee almost every morning. I don't believe that my recent affinity for coffee has much to do with my genes. I like the taste of it, and it's easy to drink frequently because it is so readily available on campus. I agree with Elizabeth that science can often explain our health outcomes, but we can't blame genetics for our addictions.
ReplyDeleteThe article also seemed vague and scattered. The authors used unnecessary facts about Starbucks and mentioned the company in the title, which I found was just an attempt to grab readers' attention. Rather than giving simple, straightforward facts, the authors talked about Starbucks earnings which seemed to have no relevance. In my opinion, it just discredited the information. I don't think those facts were necessary in the claim that genetics cause caffeine addiction. Also, the information that the article gave did not give concrete data proving that the two genes directly relate to caffeine addictions. It mentions that CYP1A2 is responsible for metabolizing caffeine, but does not prove that it causes an addiction.
In the future, more research needs to be done before this assumption can be proved fact. This study only looked at 47,000 Americans of similar descent. Researchers should look into studying larger populations of different descents, cultures, and geographic location. The broader the study, the larger the area for comparison. Hopefully more concrete data can be found to determine the exact relationship between genes and caffeine addiction.
Although I found the idea of caffeine addiction in relation to genetics to be interesting, I did not think that the article actually said very much in terms of the science behind the idea. I felt as though the article was very sparse in presenting actual facts, statistics, and details. There just did not seem to be much substance to it. I do agree with Dana that I think there is probably a genetic predisposition or some type of genetic component that makes some people more inclined to have coffee (whether it is the taste, the caffeine, or a combination of both). However, like all the other predispositions and ideas we have studied, it is not purely based on genetics, and as Elizabeth, Shakeela, and other students mentioned, the environment must be taken into account. Although I think that genetics probably do play a role, I am not sure the extent of that role, and its relation to other factors such as environment, stress level, amount of sleep, customs, family life, etc. Some people make choices because they choose something, while others make choices out of a situation. Example: I drink coffee 1-2 times a day, sometimes because I enjoy the taste, and other times because I need a caffeine boost. The situation (me being tired, or not sleeping enough) will impact my decision to drink coffee, making it not genetically based, but rather the result of the situation. Because the intent is not always considered relevant, information pertaining to why people choose to drink coffee may be a confounding factor. If it was not for the lack of sleep students sometimes face, maybe 40% of us would drink less coffee! We really cannot tell because there are so many factors that are contributing to the choices individuals make. For this reason, although I think the article brings some interesting ideas to light, I am still skeptical of the (few) statements the article made.
ReplyDeleteThis article attributes the amount of caffeine someone requires to feel "awake" (i.e. one small cup versus two large ones and a Coke a little later) as a factor of their caffeine metabolism, supposedly determined by the presence of these two genes. In the case of coffee, though, I think it's more a factor of the amount a person drinks per day - the more you habitually drink, the more you require to get the same effect. Caffeine tolerance is related to metabolism but that process is variable depending on how much you've consumed in the past. Caffeine "addiction" can certainly exist (in that you build up a tolerance requiring more of the drug to get the same effect, and that you undergo withdrawal symptoms like headaches and hand trembles when you stop drinking it), but it's related to how much you drink rather than genetic susceptibility.
ReplyDeleteThat said, there is certainly some evidence that people can be genetically predisposed to "addiction" itself. Alcoholism is thought to run in families. However, these genes are different from the caffeine metabolizers identified in this article. Purely pop science!
I agree with Allison and Sarah and many other people who say that this article, while interesting, may lack some conclusive facts about an association between caffeine and genetics. To be fair, I am a fairly avid coffee drinker and I do have a level of caffeine dependence but nothing approximating what they mention in the article. Even though I do consume a relatively significant amount of caffeine, and I do get withdrawals if I do not have coffee for a long time, I do not have the "lack of mental alertness" that the article describes. This, combined with the somewhat questionable evidence provided, suggests that this article may be more about publicity than about the data. While it is likely that there is a genetic component to coffee consumption, like most other habits (especially the bad ones like alcohol dependence), there is also a very strong behavioral component (like how much coffee the parents drink) which is very difficult to separate from genetic influences.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article I found that it was very vague. They proposed that there were two genes associated with coffee consumption although personal preferences and environmental factors also play a large role as many of my fellow classmates have mentioned. Many people drink coffee just because it tastes good. I don't really know if I agree that its something one can inherit. Both my parents drink tea at least 2-3 times a day and coffee occasionally. I for one don't drink tea at all and am not that big on coffee either. I might get some frozen coffee drink every now and then from Starbucks, just because I like the way that one drink tastes but that's about it. I don't deny that genetics plays a role but I don't think it is as significant as they are making it out to seem. Environmental factors can also be a large part of why people drink coffee especially for students on a campus like this one with somewhere that sells coffee on every corner (Starbucks, Dunkin, Espresso Royale, Blue State Coffee,City Co., 7-Eleven, etc.) Some people also come from cultures where coffee is often served as part of tradition like Yara and Shakeela mentioned. I can definitely relate to this as it is a part of my culture as well. Coffee is always served in my home when we have guests and the same is expected when we are guests in someone else's home.
ReplyDeleteI think they should really do more research in the area before they come to any conclusions as they don't really have much evidence supporting their theory. I also found it interesting that their study was conducted in a group of 47,000 Americans of only European descent. Could it be that it is just more prevalent of more dominant in people of European descent? This study may have been more reliable had it been a more diverse group since looking at only one specific group can only give information about those who fit into that group.
I was actually left rather confused after reading this article. For starters, it has nothing to do with Starbucks and doesn't actually use any strong vocabulary that would get me hating the caffeine statistics. They are there and they are huge, but everyone knows caffeine is the most widely used stimulant in the world. So really, the idea of us having genetic links to it isn't all that strange.
ReplyDeleteLooking at the article, I have to wonder if my lack of emotion towards this was caused by the number of quotes the author used. Dr. Neil Caporaso clearly isn't taking a side on the issue, which I have to keep rereading the article to remember. And I'm still not sure if I understand what is the problem is. Is it that Starbucks is making money on something that our genes dictate? If so they don't really talk about it all that much. I would have expected more bashing of Starbucks, but aside from statistics, it's never mentioned.
Okay, putting my confusion aside... I do find it odd that the article doesn't mention the details of the actual research that identified the CYP1A2 and AHR genes. There is no mention of whether the findings were statistically significant or who the authors even were. Interestingly, I thought the article rather contradicted itself in trying to pin caffeine addictions on these two genes. It mentions clearly that "...the genetic underpinnings of coffee consumption stem from a highly complex mapping of specific inherited traits alongside caffeine intake patterns..." That implies that more than just CYP1A2 and AHR are involved.
So do I believe the topic was spruced up for media interest? Yes. Do I think they did a good job of it? ...No? The title is certainly very catchy, but the content of the article was lacking in comparison.
Like Kristely and Yara, I totally agree!
ReplyDeleteI have to wonder if articles like this are why people think they can get away with using genetics as an excuse for their own issues.
Even more apparant is the lack of strong evidence in the article. We don't know who did the research on these genes and what the research study actually concluded. Instead we have an outside source providing quotes. I'm sure he knows what he is talking about, but it doesn't tell us anything about the actual research.
I was even interested in finding out if these genes only get involved with caffeine. Perhaps they work with other psychoactive substances. If such a thing were true, it would completely overthrow the article.
Research has shown that the CYP1A2 gene affects how quickly a person metabolizes caffeine, and that the AHR gene regulates the activity of CYP1A2 gene. Now, a new study, referenced in this article from MNT, has shown that variations in these two genes (CYP1A2 and AHR) affect how much caffeine people consume. Specifically, people with one genotype consume significantly more caffeine per day than people with the other genotype.
ReplyDeleteThe author of this article from MNT makes the leap to say that genetics affect how much money Starbucks makes. Their line of thinking? Science has shown that peoples’ genes affect their caffeine intake habits. 90% of Americans report using caffeine on a daily basis, and more than 8 in 10 adults who consume caffeine are coffee drinkers—in other words, many Americans consume caffeine in the form of coffee. Starbucks (the ubiquitous coffee shop) is a popular place for people to buy their coffee. Thus, genes contribute to Starbucks’ profitability (so to speak).
I do believe that genes influence caffeine metabolism, and in turn, how much caffeine people consume. It would seem that people who metabolize caffeine more quickly would need to consume it more often than people who metabolize caffeine more slowly in order to feel its effects. In addition, I would not argue that genes can affect how much coffee a person drinks, since some people drink coffee for the effects of the caffeine. However, I think that the connection that the author of the MNT article makes between genes and Starbucks’s profitability is a bit of a stretch. For one thing, as Yoal and Amanda noted, the study itself had nothing to do with Starbucks directly. Furthermore, genes are not the only factor affecting how much coffee (and other caffeine-containing products) people consume. As many other students have mentioned, other factors, such as taste and culture, influence peoples’ consumption of coffee. At the same time, I think that more than just the need for caffeine drives people to Starbucks (and in effect boost Starbucks’ sales). Like Dana said, Starbucks sells delicious-tasting specialty coffee drinks (as well as non-coffee/non-caffeine items) that attract consumers to Starbucks. In addition, it is trendy thing to go to a coffee shop like Starbucks to do work or to hang out with friends. Not to mention, Starbucks’ business strategies certainly affect their success.
Overall, I think the author of the MNT article uses Starbucks’ name to grab reader’s attention, given the popularity of Starbucks in America. And he is not the only one to include Starbucks in a headline linking coffee to human health; the LA Times used the coffee chain in its headline about the link between coffee and diabetes: ‘A trip to Starbucks could reduce your risk of diabetes’ (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/06/coffee-and-caffeine-reduce-risk-for-diabetes.html). These kinds of headlines make provocative statements that connect popular brand names to health issues, with the intent of attracting attention. Science, however, doesn’t necessarily say the same thing that the headlines say.
I agree. If American's addiction to caffeine was the main reason for Starbucks profitability, the same could be said for every coffee serving establishment. I think the near ubiquity of Starbucks in major traffic areas with people with disposable income could also explain a lot.
DeleteI think that the title of this article is funny because the article itself does not go into how this gene is making Starbucks rich. The media is trying to grab the readers attention by implying that your genes cause you to become addicted to Starbucks coffee when the science is just explaining that different genes cause people to react differently to caffeine intake. This is the case with most nutrients and chemicals and through nutrigenomics/nutrigenetics we have been able to study this for many years. However, the author of this article obviously wanted to get more people interested in nutrigenomics/nutrigenetics by adding drama to the subject. And I'm sure it worked!
ReplyDelete