American Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 155, No. 2 : 140-147
Copyright © 2002 by The Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS |
Belgian Coca-Cola-related Outbreak: Intoxication, Mass Sociogenic Illness, or Both?
1 Unit of Epidemiology, Scientific Institute of Public Health, Brussels, Belgium.
2 European Programme for Intervention Epidemiology Training (EPIET), Brussels, Belgium.
An epidemic of health complaints occurred in five Belgian schools in June 1999. A qualitative investigation described the scenario. The role of soft drinks was assessed by using a case-control study. Cases were students complaining of headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea, or trembling. Controls were students present at school on the day of the outbreak but not taken ill. An analysis was performed separately for school A, where the outbreak started, and was pooled for schools BE. In school A, the attack rate (13.2%) was higher than in schools BE (3.6%, relative risk = 3.6, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.5, 5.3). Exclusive consumption of regular Coca-Cola (school A: odds ratio (OR) = 29.7, 95% CI: 1.32, 663.6; schools BE: OR = 7.3, 95% CI: 2.9, 18.0) and low mental health score (school A: OR = 16.1, 95% CI: 1.3, 201.9; schools BE: OR = 3.1, 95% CI: 1.5, 6.6) were independently associated with the illness. In schools BE, consumption of Fanta, consumption of Coca-Cola light, and female gender were also associated with the illness. It seems reasonable to attribute the first cases of illness in school A to regular Coca-Cola consumption. However, mass sociogenic illness could explain the majority of the other cases.
carbonated beverages; disease outbreaks; hydrogen sulfide; poisoning
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; RR, relative risk
![]()
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
P. Vasterman, C. J. Yzermans, and A. J. E. Dirkzwager The Role of the Media and Media Hypes in the Aftermath of Disasters Epidemiol. Rev., July 1, 2005; 27(1): 107 - 114. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
