Retailers have been asked by the Portman Group to stop placing orders for Sip N Drip’s Bubble Yum after 14 April 2026. This comes after the Independent Complaints Panel (Panel) found that the product had a particular appeal to under-18s and that the alcoholic nature of the product was not communicated with absolute clarity.
The complaint, made by Zenith Global Commercial Ltd, as part of the Portman Group’s independent proactive audit of the UK market[1], raised concerns under Code Rule 3.2(h), which states that a drink, its packaging and promotional activity should not have a particular appeal to under-18s. During the Panel’s consideration of the case it also raised Code Rule 3.1 which requires the alcoholic nature of a drink to be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.
A copy of the full decision is available here.
The Panel considered the imagery on the label, which included the Sip n Drip brand logo which featured brightly coloured lips, a bubble font with drip effect and a thick black outline, all design elements that can be used in marketing to appeal to under-18s as highlighted by research from the children’s marketing agency, Kids Industries[2] . This, alongside the overall impression of the packaging; a bright, colourful background, fruit imagery, fruit language and confectionary flavour, Bubble Yum, led the Panel to conclude that the product was in breach of Code Rule 3.2(h).
When considering Code Rule 3.1, the Panel concluded that the predominant fruit imagery and brightly coloured, high contrast artwork on the packaging detracted from the alcoholic nature of the product, particularly when combined with the packaging style, which was reminiscent of well-known soft drinks. While the Panel noted that there were some positive alcohol cues on the packaging, these were presented in a relatively small font size and not given the prominence required on a product which generally resembled a soft drink. Therefore, the Panel also found the product in breach of Code Rule 3.1.
As the producer, Sip n Drip, did not agree to make the required changes to the product to bring it in line with the Code, a Retailer Alert Bulletin (RAB) has been issued requesting that retailers do not place further orders for stock after 14 April 2026.
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “This product has real potential to cause confusion as to its alcoholic nature. This, combined with its particular appeal to under-18s means it is essential this product is redesigned. We welcomed the company’s initial commitment to make changes to its product design; however, the Panel can only base its decision on the original packaging, which was very much in breach of the Code of Practice. The subsequent lack of engagement from the producer since is deeply disappointing and inevitably led to a RAB being issued.”
Matt Lambert, Chief Executive of the Portman Group, said: “It is especially disappointing that the producer has failed to reach a satisfactory agreement with us regarding amends to the product after sharing a redesigned label with the Panel. Every company has access to free advice to assist in complying with the Code and in this case the company did not agree to make the required changes to the product, leaving us with no choice but to issue a Retailer Alert Bulletin, only the second one since 2023. We now request that all responsible retailers across the UK stop placing orders for Sip N Drip’s Bubble Yum after 14 April 2026. If any retailer is unsure about the RAB’s application, please contact the Complaints Team for further information.”
A Retailer Alert Bulletin is only issued by the Portman Group following an upheld complaint by the Panel where the producer chooses not to comply with the decision. A RAB requests that retailers cease placing orders for the product three months after the publication date, in this case after the 14 April 2026. For further information please contact complaints@portmangroup.org.uk.
Sip N Drip Retailer Alert Bulletin
[1] Part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended
[2] Marketing that appeals to under-18s, Kids Industries, 2023
- Nearly a quarter (24%) of alcohol drinkers who have tried low and no alcohol alternatives said that these products have reduced their alcohol consumption.
- More than a third (35%) of UK adults consume up to 5 units of alcohol per week.
- UK adults are more worried about British teenagers vaping, use of illicit drugs and social media than about alcohol and alcohol alternatives.
The Portman Group’s eighth annual survey on low and no alcohol in partnership with YouGov shows that 86% of UK adults either abstain from alcohol or drink within Chief Medical Officer low risk drinking guidelines (up to 14 units per week), with a significant portion of the population embracing low and no alcohol alternatives.
The survey found that 53% of UK adults consume 14 units of alcohol or less per week which includes 35% of adults who are drinking 5 units or less per week. A third of adults (33%) do not drink alcohol at all. Only 11% of adults exceed the Chief Medical Officer’s low risk guidelines.
Among UK adults who drink alcohol, 36% consume low and no alcohol products either regularly or occasionally (i.e. ‘semi-regularly’ which encompasses both regular and occasional drinkers). Alcohol alternatives continue to be more popular with younger adults, with 43% of 18-24 year olds and 40% of 35-44 year olds consuming them semi-regularly, but there is an upward trend in those aged 55+, with 35% also drinking alcohol alternatives semi-regularly, compared to 25% in 2022*
The results tell us that – for the eighth year in a row – driving home safely from social events remains the top reason for choosing low and no alcohol products (35%), followed by taking part in social activities without drinking excessively (24%) – highlighting how these products support responsible drinking behaviours and help avoid harms such as drink driving and binge drinking.
Nearly a quarter (24%) ** of current alcohol drinkers who have tried low/no alcohol alternatives report that these products have helped reduce their alcohol consumption – once again highlighting how consumers are actively using alcohol alternatives as tools for moderation.
For the first time, the survey asked UK adults at what age they first tried a low or no alcohol alternative. The results showed that only 7% of adults who have tried low and no alcohol alternatives first tried them before the age of 18 – 4% between 16-17 and 3% aged 15 and under. Whilst the Government is considering a ban on the sale of alcohol alternatives to under-18s, the industry has been proactive in ensuring the Challenge 25 is implemented across shops and bars to prevent sales to minors. Portman Group guidance also ensures these products are marketed responsibly and only to adults.
The results also show that concerns around teenage alcohol drinking (40%) are much lower compared to concern about teenage use of illicit drugs or vaping (64%), social media use (62%), self-harm (49%), energy drinks (46%), whilst just 9% of adults are concerned about teenagers drinking low and no alcohol alternatives.
This year’s findings underscore a continued shift towards moderate drinking and positive attitudes to low and no alcohol alternatives across all age groups.
Matt Lambert, CEO of the Portman Group, said: “These results serve to demonstrate that a large proportion of UK consumers continue to drink moderately and that low and no products help them to do this. It is for this reason we at the Portman Group continue to champion and support this important and growing sector.
“These figures also help us to understand underage drinking of low and no alcohol products and demonstrate that the industry is proactive in ensuring these products are marketed and sold as alcohol alternatives for adults only.
“It’s good news that UK adults are embracing moderate drinking and low and no alcohol options like never before, showing these products are now a mainstream choice helping people to drink responsibly while still enjoying social occasions.”
* Wording in the survey has changed since 2022, previously worded as ‘often’ and ‘sometimes’ rather than ‘regularly’ and ‘occasionally’.
** Based on removing those who did not drink alcohol before first trying a low/no alternative.
All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 2138 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 24th – 25th November 2025. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all UK adults (aged 18+).
A complaint against Lervig’s House Party IPA has not been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP), the full decision can be read here.
The complaint, made by Zenith Global Commercial Ltd, as part of the Portman Group’s independent proactive audit of the UK market[1], raised concerns under Code Rule 3.2(h), whereby a drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s.
After a provisional decision by the Panel to uphold the complaint, the producer appealed on the grounds that the name House Party did not create an automatic association with under-18s, that the packaging did not include the normal touchstones of youth marketing, and that the phrase ‘house party’ appeared in countless adult contexts. The design was intentionally abstract and did not include any of the fonts or imagery that would normally appeal to under-18s.
The Panel acknowledged that the name ‘House Party’, alongside an abstract depiction of a chaotic and wild house party, would have a certain amount of appeal to a teenage age group but agreed that the concept would also strongly resonate with a younger adult demographic. This, alongside an abstract, stylised design with a limited colour palette with a simplistic font, meant the Panel concluded that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the complaint under Code rule 3.2(h).
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “It is very unusual that the Panel overturn a provisional decision, however, this case shows the benefits of producers engaging with the complaints process and with the Panel. This also shows the importance of our two-step process in ensuring we have considered and fully discussed all factors before making a full and final decision.”
[1] Part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended
Retailers have been asked by The Portman Group to stop placing orders for Liquor Zaar’s O.J Premium Strong Beer after the 15 December 2025, after the Independent Complaints Panel (Panel) found that the product placed undue emphasis on its higher alcoholic strength, and that that the packaging, which contained more than 4 units of alcohol, indirectly encouraged immoderate consumption.
The complaint, made by Zenith Global Commercial Ltd, as part of the Portman Group’s independent proactive audit of the UK market[1], raised concerns about potential Code breaches of Code Rule 3.2 (a), which states that a drink should not give higher alcoholic strength, or intoxicating effect, undue emphasis, and Code Rule 3.2 (f), whereby a drink should not encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption.
In addition the Panel considered whether the cartoon image of an athletically built man with large muscular biceps could suggest that the drink could enhance physical capabilities, which would have been a breach of Code Rule 3.2 (j) but concluded there was nothing on the packaging to sufficiently link the image to consumption of the drink and this part of the complaint was not upheld.
A copy of the full decision is available here.
The Panel noted that whilst it was important to ensure a drink’s strength was communicated factually, the higher strength should not be unduly emphasised. The Panel considered that the combination of multiple strength cues, including disproportionately large fonts and repeated overt presentation of the drink’s ABV, alongside imagery representing physical strength, placed undue emphasis on the drink’s higher alcoholic strength. In this case, the Panel noted that some consumers would be particularly vulnerable to marketing where the higher alcoholic strength of a drink was presented as a virtue and expressed significant concern regarding its presentation. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code Rule 3.2(a).
Looking at whether the drink encouraged irresponsible or immoderate consumption, the Panel noted that as the product contained 4.4 units of alcohol in a single serve, non-resealable container, mitigating factors such as a ‘share’ message or per serve information should have been included on the packaging. In the absence of this information, the Panel considered that the packaging indirectly encouraged immoderate consumption, as such, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(f).
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “Despite being given several opportunities to submit a response to the Panel about this complaint, the company did not respond to any correspondence relating to this matter. It is unacceptable for an alcoholic product to market its higher alcoholic strength as the primary reason for purchase, particularly when it was also found to encourage immoderate consumption. The Code is explicitly clear that alcohol marketing should not particularly appeal to those who are vulnerable. During consideration, the Panel expressed significant concern about the packaging of O.J Premium Strong Beer and concluded that it had not been marketed in a socially responsible manner.”
Matt Lambert, Chief Executive of the Portman Group, said: “This is the first Retailer Alert Bulletin (RAB) the Portman Group has issued since 2023. It is particularly disappointing that the producer refused to engage with the process or take advice from our free advisory service. The Portman Group will not hesitate to enforce the Panel’s decision and request that all responsible retailers across the UK stop placing orders for O.J Premium Strong Beer after the 15 December 2025. If any retailer is unsure about the RAB’s application, please contact the Complaints Team for further information.”
A Retailer Alert Bulletin is only issued by the Portman Group following an upheld complaint by the Panel where the producer chooses not to comply with the decision. A RAB requests that retailers cease placing orders for the product three months after the publication date, in this case after the 15 December 2025. For further information please contact complaints@portmangroup.org.uk.
You can see the Retailer Alert Bulletin here: OJ RAB pdf.
[1] Part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended
A complaint against Aldi’s The Reprobates Sparkling Wine has been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP). A complaint against The Reprobates California Red has not been upheld, the full decisions can be read here. Both complaints were made by Zenith Global Commercial Ltd, as part of the Portman Group’s independent proactive audit of the UK market[1].
The complaints against both products raised concerns under Code Rule 3.2 (b) that the name and imagery on the labels glamourised illegal or anti-social behaviour. The complaint against The Reprobates Sparkling Wine also concerned Code Rule 3.2 (i), questioning if the adult male on the label on was over the age of 25.
First, the Panel considered the name of the product range, The Reprobates, after hearing from the producer and considering the name in isolation, they concluded that on its own the name, ‘The Reprobates’, did not pose a problem.
The Panel then considered the name in relation to the imagery on both products. The Sparkling Wine included an image of a man holding a blackboard that included the name of the product and on the neck of the bottle was a label with tally marks on. Looking at all these elements in conjunction, the Panel concluded that the overall impression conveyed by the drink’s name, the mugshot style image on the label and the prison-style number tally on the bottle neck, all inferred that a serious enough crime had been committed to warrant a custodial sentence, creating the impression of an association with illegal behaviour. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(b). Aldi no longer sells this product.
When considering the name ‘The Reprobates’ alongside the imagery of the California Red, which included the image of a dog wearing a hoodie set against a dark background, the Panel concluded that whilst the image was dark and edgy there was nothing that inherently suggested an association with aggressive or anti-social behaviour. The tally marks were also not present on the California Red. As such the complaint was not upheld for this product.
The Panel also considered whether the label on the Sparkling Wine featured the image of a person who was, or looked as if they were, under 25 years of age. Noting that while his age was indeterminate, the historical clothing did mean he was presented in a mature manner. The Panel considered that there was nothing else on the packaging that referenced modern youth culture and further determined that the man was not presented in a way that would be particularly aspirational to under-18s. The Panel therefore did not uphold the complaint under 3.2(i).
The producer is working with the Portman Group’s Advisory Service to ensure the range is now compliant with the Code.
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “We considered both of these products in the round to decide if the overall impression was one that was in breach of the Code. The decisions in both cases demonstrate how some features are acceptable in isolation but can become problematic when combined with other design elements.”
[1] Part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended
A complaint against Hooch Lemon’s 1995 Limited Edition Can has not been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP), the full decision can be read here.
The complaint, which was self-referred by the producer, Global Brands, asked the Panel to review the limited-edition version of Hooch Lemon under Code rule 3.2(h) which ensures a product cannot have a particular appeal to under-18s. In a first for the regulator, Global Brands self-referred the complaint to the Panel, in agreement with the Portman Group, when concerns were raised on the basis of a 1996 upheld decision by the Portman Group under the First Edition of the Code.
The producer planned to release the limited-edition can that emulated the original 1995 design which featured a cartoon lemon. The company explained that the design was a special 30th Anniversary edition and that slight changes had been made, especially to the prominent character on the product, the Lemon Man, to comply with the Code. The company also argued that consumer attitudes and regulatory standards had evolved over the years to the point where the packaging would not have a particular appeal to under-18s today.
Whilst the Panel would not normally revisit previous decisions, it was agreed that an exception could be made as the 1996 ruling was made by the Portman Group executive in the few months before the Independent Complaints Panel was set up in January 1997.
While the Panel was mindful that an upheld decision had been made in 1996, this had been based on the lemon’s similarity to motifs popular in the ‘90s and therefore resonated with under-18s at the time. The Panel noted that in the 30 years that had passed since, contemporary marketing styles, societal standards and more developed regulatory guidance had evolved, changing what particularly appealed to children today.
After consideration, the Panel considered that while the packaging did incorporate a personified lemon, it did not feature characteristics that would have a particular appeal to under-18s. In addition to this, the Panel concluded that the mature straight-lined fonts, limited use of colour and clear nostalgic appeal to adults meant that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs said: “This was a unique case and there was a good argument for the Panel revisiting this issue, given the exceptional circumstances of the previous ruling. After nearly 30 years of Panel decisions, developed regulatory guidance and inevitable changes in consumer attitudes, as well as the changes that were made to the design of the product in question, it was determined that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s today. It is important to note that this unique set of circumstances does not apply to other decisions made by the Panel but I was pleased to see that, when an anomaly was discovered, the producer voluntarily pursued a responsible resolution in agreement with the Portman Group.”
Matt Bulcroft, Marketing Director Global Brands Ltd said: “We are grateful to have had the opportunity to work alongside the Portman Group throughout this process. As a responsible drinks producer, we value the important role they play in upholding high standards across the industry, and ensuring consumers can have confidence in the brands they buy from, which is why we made the decision to self-refer to the Panel.
“We welcome their careful review of Hooch’s fun and nostalgic lemon character, and are pleased with the outcome of the ruling, which has allowed our original Hooch fans to relive their memories from when it first landed on shelves 30 years ago.
“Our commitment to producing and promoting our drinks responsibly remains central to Global Brands, and we appreciate the Portman Group’s continued partnership in supporting best practice across the sector.”
A complaint against Lervig’s Passion Tang Sour Ale has been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP), the full decision can be read here.
The complaint, made by Zenith Global Commercial Ltd, as part of the Portman Group’s independent proactive audit of the UK market[1], raised concerns under Code Rule 3.1, that the product did not communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity.
The Panel heard from the producer that the can was designed ‘in the round’ with no specific front or back and that the term ‘Sour Ale’ and the ABV (alcohol by volume) were present on the can. On examining the can the Panel noted that the design was fairly busy with an overt emphasis on passionfruit and that the positive alcohol cues were presented in relatively small font size on one side of the can.
The Panel also discussed the can size and the name and noted that the 330ml can and the name ‘Passion Tang’ are both associated with non-alcoholic soft drinks. They noted the inclusion of the descriptor and ABV as well as the pregnancy warning label but that these were in a small font size and were hard to read amongst the design of the can as a whole.
On considering all these elements, the Panel found that they detracted from the product’s alcoholic nature and could cause consumer confusion and so the Panel found that the packaging did not communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity and accordingly upheld the complaint under Code Rule 3.1.
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “It is not always enough simply to include positive alcohol cues. Producers must ensure that they are clear and sufficiently obvious to counter a significant emphasis on fruit imagery flavours, as was seen in this case.”
[1] Part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended
The alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel has upheld a complaint against Skinny Brands’ Skinny Lager 4 pack 330ml bottles. The complaint was made by Zenith Global Commercial Ltd, as part of the Portman Group’s independent proactive audit of the UK market[1]. Read the full decision here.
The complainant was concerned that the product name and fitness illustrations on the secondary packaging of the pack of four 330ml bottles suggested that the product supported a healthy lifestyle and weight loss.
The Panel considered the complaint under Code Rule 3.2(j), whereby a drink and its packaging should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that the product has therapeutic qualities, can enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour.
The Panel considered the name ‘Skinny’ and concluded that the name on its own did not breach the Code as it was being used to refer to the drink’s reduced energy content and did not make an implied health claim. However, when considering the product’s overall impression, the Panel considered that the name, combined with the sporting imagery, went beyond factually communicating a reduced energy claim. This interpretation was compounded by the clear and direct link to consumption of the drink, which created a clear relationship between physical exercise, weight maintenance and consumption of the beer.
Therefore, the Panel concluded that the name ‘Skinny’, when presented alongside multiple depictions of fitness activities, reinforced the perception that the drink could support and aid a healthier lifestyle. Taking the above points into account, the Panel upheld the complaint.
The producer is working with the Portman Group’s Advisory Service to amend the packaging.
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “Creating an association between sport and alcohol is not inherently problematic but there must be no suggestion that alcohol can enhance a consumer’s physical capabilities or aid weight loss.”
CEO of SkinnyBrands, Adrian Hirst said: “We accept the panel’s viewpoint on our sporting illustrations and will update our packaging to reflect the decision. We are pleased that the panel considered the name ‘Skinny’ and concluded that the name on its own did not breach the Code as it was being used to refer to Skinny Lager’s reduced energy content which is an allowable nutrition claim.”
[1] Part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended
A complaint against Radler Lemon, Grapefruit and Pineapple Beer has been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP), the full decision can be read here.
The complaint, made by a member of the public raised concerns under Code Rule 3.1, that the product did not communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity.
The Panel considered the representations made by the Producer, Vault City Brewing, that there were several positive alcohol cues on the packaging, including the use of the term ‘Radler’ as a well-known type of citrus-based beer, however, the Panel disagreed that this term was well known enough on its own. The Panel considered that the label did include the ABV, and the word beer, but they were not clear enough to counter the rest of the label which included references to fruity flavours and imagery that were given prominence and therefore bore a resemblance to a soft drink.
The side of the can also heavily referenced the fruit flavours over the references to beer and alcohol and while the back label did include the drink’s ABV and a pregnancy warning label, other best practice labels such as the Chief Medical Officers’ Low Risk Drinking guidelines and signposting to Drinkaware were absent.
The Panel heard that there was evidence of consumer confusion where an under-age individual had mistakenly consumed the product and so concluded that the positive alcohol cues that had been included needed to be enhanced and made clearer to mitigate the emphasis on the drink’s fruit flavour, fruit imagery and use of the word ‘Radler’. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.1.
The producer has since changed the packaging to be in line with the Code.
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “The guidance for Code rule 3.1 states that where there are multiple negative alcohol cues on a drink’s packaging, such as fruit flavours and imagery, a product may then need to work harder to communicate its alcoholic nature and to avoid consumer confusion, which is what we saw in the case against Radler Lemon, Grapefruit and Pineapple Beer.”
A spokesperson for Vault City said: “We take responsible marketing extremely seriously and have never intended to mislead consumers about the alcoholic nature of our products. Radler Lemon, Grapefruit and Pineapple Beer was clearly labelled with its ABV, the word ‘beer’ and other alcohol cues. However, we recognise the importance of making labelling as clear as possible and respect the Panel’s decision. We have updated the packaging in line with their guidance, boldening and emphasising the word ‘beer’. Alcohol should always be stored responsibly and out of the reach of under-18s, and we remain fully committed to meeting the industry’s Code and ensuring our products are enjoyed safely by those legally allowed to do so.”
The alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel has upheld a complaint against Sainsbury’s Tiramisu Rum Liqueur. The complaint was made by Zenith Global Commercial Ltd, as part of the Portman Group’s independent proactive audit of the UK market[1]. Read the full decision here.
The complaint stated that the product had no clear alcohol labelling on the primary packaging and raised concerns that if the swing tag with the product’s alcohol information was removed, it further reduced transparency regarding the product’s alcoholic nature.
The Panel considered that if the swing tag was removed the overall impression conveyed was not one of any specific drink and therefore the drink’s packaging did have the capacity to mislead as to its alcoholic nature. The Panel discussed that it was not sufficient to include the only clearly presented, positive alcohol cues on a removable swing tag that was likely to be removed after purchase or could be accidentally removed even prior to purchase. The Panel noted that the mandatory information that had been embossed in gold lettering, on a gold-cork lid was not particularly distinguishable or visible. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the product did not communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity and accordingly upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.1.
The producer has taken proactive steps to mitigate the risk of consumer confusion regarding the product’s alcoholic nature when selling through the remaining stock and will no longer be producing the drink in its current form.
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “Ensuring all important information is clear, visible and not easily removed is vital to make sure the consumer is informed as to the alcoholic nature of a product. If there is any room for confusion or ambiguity then the Panel have little choice but to uphold a complaint, such as they did in this case.”
[1] Part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended