Two beers produced by the brewer Northern Monk – Rocket Lolly IPA and Wasted Hot Cross Bun Pale Ale – have been discontinued after complaints by members of the public were upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (Panel). A copy of the full decision for Rocket Lolly IPA is available here and a copy of the full decision for Wasted Hot Cross Bun Pale Ale is available here.

Rocket Lolly IPA

The Panel ruled that ‘Rocket Lolly IPA’, had a particular appeal to under-18s (Code rule 3.2h) and didn’t communicate the alcoholic nature of the drink with absolute clarity (Code rule 3.1)

One complainant said: “We have raised our 4-year-old to understand what alcohol is and why he is not permitted to try it. However, when he saw his dad drinking this beer and heard that it was called Rocket Lolly, he became very upset that he wasn’t allowed to try it, even after we made clear it was beer. Of the dozens of different can designs he’s seen, this is the only one that has ever held appeal to him.”

The Panel noted that frozen rocket lollies are primarily marketed at young children, and that the label included bright contrasting colours and cartoons. It therefore concluded that the product packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s and upheld the complaints under Code rule 3.2(h).

The Panel also found that the alcoholic descriptor ‘IPA’ and the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) of 4.7% were not easily visible on the packaging because they were presented in a comparatively small black font which was not easily visible against a dark purple background.  The Panel considered that in the context of a well-known frozen ice lolly which made a virtue of its fruit flavours in design, and was not a product typically associated with alcohol, the packaging should work harder to ensure that it communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity.  Therefore, the Panel also upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.1.

Wasted Hot Cross Bun Pale Ale

A complaint was also made against a second Northern Monk beer, Wasted Hot Cross Bun Pale Ale, under Code rule 3.2(f) which states that a drink, its packaging or any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way encourage illegal, irresponsible, or immoderate consumption, such as drink-driving, binge-drinking, or drunkenness.

The complainant said: “The word wasted is common slang for being very, very drunk […and] the most prominent word on the packaging.”

The Panel acknowledged that the beer was intended to generate discussion about food waste in the UK and that some of its proceeds went to charity. However, the Panel expressed concern about the prominence of the word ‘wasted’ on pack and considered that most consumers would be familiar with the slang interpretation of the word and, when included on an alcoholic drink, it would be more readily associated with a style of consumption rather than food wastage.

On this basis, the Panel concluded that the packaging indirectly encouraged immoderate consumption and drunkenness. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(f).

Northern Monk have now discontinued both products.

Commenting on the decision, the interim Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “I welcome that Northern Monk has decided to discontinue both beers which in this instance have fallen foul of the Code. Producers of alcoholic drinks should take care to ensure their products are marketed responsibly, without a particular appeal to children and that they do not encourage, even indirectly, immoderate consumption. I would encourage all producers who are unsure of the requirements under the Code to contact the Portman Group’s free and confidential Advisory Service.”

The Portman Group has amended a rule in its Naming and Packaging Code of Practice to bolster protection for under-18s following a public consultation.

The Portman Group ran a narrow three month long public consultation between May and July of this year to clarify the application of Code Rule 3.2(h) relating to particular appeal to under-18s. The consultation received written submissions from a range of stakeholders, including trade associations, the charity sector and alcohol producers all of which were supportive of the proposed changes to the Code.

After consultation, the revised Code of Practice, the Sixth Edition (Amended) has now been published. The amended rule now explicitly prohibits brand names, logos and trademarks on merchandise which has particular appeal to under-18s or is intended for use primarily by under-18s.

The new rule reads in full: “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. A producer must not allow the placement of brand names, logos or trademarks on merchandise which has a particular appeal to under-18s or is intended for use primarily by under-18s.

The amendment to the Code ensures consistency between the Portman Group’s Naming, Packaging, and Promotion of Alcoholic Drinks Code and its Alcohol Sponsorship Code, with the intention of preventing any link between alcohol and childhood.

Following publication there will now be a three-month grace period during which time producers and marketers are expected to familiarise themselves with the change to the Code and arrange training for staff, including from the Portman Group, on the newly amended Code Rule 3.2(h). The existing Code will continue to apply during this time.

During the consultation, the Portman Group also reviewed whether any process efficiencies could be made to the complaints system. Amendments have been made to the Informal Resolution Process and the formal investigation process intended to streamline the process without affecting the rights of those complaining or of producers.  The changes can be found in full here.

Commenting on the revised Code, Matt Lambert, CEO of the Portman Group, said: “The Portman Group’s primary purpose as a self-regulator is to protect consumers from harm, particularly those who may be vulnerable, so a fundamental priority is protecting those who are under 18.

“We know that the industry already has a strong record of compliance in this area, with 76% of complaints not upheld in 2022 but it remains a core area of concern that we deal with in our complaints system and free, confidential Advisory Service. It’s therefore vital that the Code constantly evolves in in a way that reflects the creative and dynamic industry it regulates, in order to maintain its effectiveness.

“This change further prevents any link between alcohol and childhood.”

Breaking Down Barriers by CFE Research

Breaking Down Barriers – International and UK approaches to help dependent drinkers access treatment by CFE Research.

This literature review reviews and presents in one place the existing evidence in the UK and internationally around barriers to accessing treatment and effectiveness of intervention pathways.

While it is important to note that the vast majority of the population in the UK do not exceed the Chief Medical Officers recommended lower risk guideline of 14 units or less of alcohol per week, there is a small minority of people who drink more than 35 (female) or 50 (male) units + a week, with some of these becoming dependent. This is an important addition to the bank of research that summarises the research into the existing barriers that high harm drinkers face when accessing support. It presents potential options for policymakers to consider when reviewing the support in place to help.

Key findings

Existing data demonstrates that nearly half of dependent drinkers successfully complete treatment. However, of those who would be eligible to access treatment, just 1 in 5 (18%) of dependent drinkers are in treatment.

The literature review points to five significant barriers to people accessing treatment, including:

• stigma around alcohol misuse;
• this cohort face interrelated complexities;
• existing services are hard to navigate;
• some services do not meet the needs of this cohort;
• and potential limitations of professional capacity and resources.

Cost analysis has determined the potential that for every £1 spent on treatments for alcohol dependency there is an immediate £3 benefit, demonstrating some potential options that can support existing government funding allocation for this group.

It can be concluded from the existing research that there is no one silver bullet that will address all barriers to treatment, but a combination of the following five approaches could help to break down some of the barriers this cohort face, including:

• digital interventions;
• assertive outreach;
• collocated and integrated services with multi-disciplinary teams;
• building capacity among professionals;
• and community, family and peer support.

CFE Research

CFE are hugely respected researchers and specialise in health and wellbeing. They have worked extensively with the public sector and other not for profit bodies including the evaluation of the Fulfilling Lives programme that explored ways to better support people experiencing multiple forms of disadvantage. They also published the evaluation of Active Ageing and Tackling Inactivity and Economic Disadvantage for Sport England and an Evaluation of the Primary Science Campaign for the Wellcome Trust.

In their own words they are: ‘Passionate about effective research and evaluation, we take a rigorous, robust approach to a range of projects. Applying our unrivalled knowhow, we deliver fast, accurate results that help you to evaluate policies and programmes and understand what works and why.”

Read the report here.

29 September 2023, London: After a successful term as the Independent Complaints Panel Chair, Nicola Williams, stands down (effective 30 September 2023) from the role to focus on her wider portfolio of work as a part-time Crown Court Judge and Penguin published author. Deputy Chair Rachel Childs will take over as interim Chair until a new Chair is formally appointed.

Nicola joined the Panel in 2020 shortly after the Sixth Edition of the Code of Practice on the Naming, Packaging and Promotion of Alcoholic came into force.  She has overseen the introduction and application of the amendments in the Code, including the setting of precedents with the new serious or widespread offence rule.  These cases included Quickie Wine, Original Nuttah, Fok Hing Gin, Unshaven Maiden and King William – which were upheld across a range of offences due to the sexualisation of women, presentation of mental health, use of profanity and overt reference to sectarianism.

Nicola has championed the development of the Panel and has overseen the hiring of five new lay Panel members. With their inclusion they now represent the most diverse Panel in its history reflecting a broad cross-section of society including experience in marketing, licensing, public health, intellectual property and youth culture.

Nicola Williams said: “I am proud of the work of the Panel which during my time has carefully and fairly made decisions on alcohol products ensuring the proper regulation of the industry. It has been important to me to ensure that there is a broad diversity of thought, and background represented on the Panel, and I leave behind a very strong Panel with wide expertise to deal with complaints. This breadth of experience has been especially important in our discussions about serious offence and has ensured that an appropriate balance has been struck in setting clear and consistent precedents. I wish the Panel and the interim Chair Rachel Childs well and I will now watch the decisions with interest.” 

In response to the announcement, Matt Lambert, CEO of the Portman Group said: “We sincerely thank Nicola Williams for her service and work with the Independent Complaints Panel over her term as Chair. During her time, she has overseen a number of landmark, precedent setting decisions and also recruited several new members to strengthen the experience and effectiveness of the Panel.

“We have very much benefited from her insight, and we wish her continued success in her varied and impressive legal and writing career. It has been a pleasure to work with Nicola and on behalf of the Panel and Portman Group we wish her well for the future.”

ENDS

Notes to editors

1. A spokesperson is available for interviews upon request.
2. The Portman Group was formed in 1989. It is the alcohol industry regulator and social responsibility body. It has over 160 Code signatories from producers, retailers and membership bodies.
3. The Portman Group is funded by 19 member and associate member companies: Asahi UK Ltd; Aston Manor Cider; Bacardi; Beam Suntory; Brown-Forman; Budweiser Brewing Group UK&I; Campari; C&C; Diageo GB; Edrington UK; Heineken UK; Mark Anthony Brands International; Mast-JäegermeisterUK; Molson Coors Beverage Company; Pernod Ricard UK; Punch Pubs & Co; SHS Drinks; Thatchers’; and Treasury Wine Estates.
4. The Code of Practice for the Naming, Packaging and Promotion of Alcoholic Drinks was first published in 1996. In 2021, we celebrated the 25th anniversary of the Code. The Code seeks to ensure that alcohol is promoted in a socially responsible way, only to those aged 18 and over, and in a way that does not appeal particularly to those who are vulnerable. The Code has helped create an industry that works effectively within the context of a self-regulatory model, while encouraging design, innovation and creativity. This has been done in an effective, responsive and inexpensive way.

• Effectively – over 170 products have been amended or removed from the market. Many hundreds more have been helped to adhere to the Code before appearing on shelves through the support of the Advisory Service;
• Responsively – there have been five updates to the Code over 25 years responding to changes in public attitudes and expanding its reach; all without recourse to Government or Parliamentary time;
• Inexpensively – the leading members of the industry are currently funding the model for all to be protected at no cost to the public purse.

As quoted by the Department for Health and Social Care today, in response to the launch of its consultation on updating labelling guidance for no and low-alcohol alternatives, Matt Lambert, CEO of The Portman Group said:

“We welcome the new consultation, which we hope will help result in greater clarity on labels and encourage further uptake of low and no alcohol alternatives.

“Our annual polling repeatedly shows that these products are already helping UK consumers moderate their drinking and avoid harms such as drink driving.  It is also an important opportunity to highlight the continued commitment of producers to market and sell these products responsibly to adult consumers.”

The full press release can be viewed here and copied below for reference:

Action taken to help promote no and low-alcohol drinks

• Government consults on encouraging more people to choose no and low-alcohol drinks to help those looking to live healthier lives while supporting businesses
• Drinks containing 0.5% alcohol by volume (ABV) could be labelled alcohol free, in line with countries like the USA, New Zealand, Germany and Australia
• Potential changes will make no and low-alcohol drinks more popular and easier to buy, helping shift the market to healthier alternatives

More people could be encouraged to purchase alcohol-free drinks in pubs, restaurants, shops, and venues, under government proposals to make alternatives to alcoholic drinks more popular and widely available.

The public consultation launched today will seek views on whether to raise the threshold for describing a drink as “alcohol free” to 0.5% alcohol by volume (ABV). This is in line with other countries around the world including the USA, Denmark, Germany, Australia, Sweden, Portugal, and Belgium. The threshold in the UK is currently 0.05%.

A higher threshold could see more no and low-alcohol products on the market – increasing availability in retail and hospitality and expanding product ranges, giving consumers more options. This could encourage thousands more people to choose an alcohol-free or low alcohol drink to make healthier choices, moderate alcohol intake, and normalise alternatives to alcohol.

The potential changes could drive the productivity of businesses, help remove red tape, and allow them to more easily manufacture these drinks to benefit from the multi-billion-pound alcohol-free drinks market.

Public Health Minister Neil O’Brien said:

“No and low alcohol drinks are getting more and more popular, and we are looking to further support their growth. Many other countries around the world already allow more freedom over this. Liberalising labelling guidelines could also help people make more informed choices about the drinks they buy.

“We want to encourage the growth of no and low alcohol alternatives for those looking to moderate their alcohol intake.”

The government is clear these products should not be marketed to children or consumed by them. Through the consultation, the government is seeking views on measures it can take with industry to prevent children and young people from accessing and consuming these products, including potential age restriction warnings on products.

Views are also being sought on whether to update labelling guidelines, so that manufacturers display the alcohol percentage on any no or low- alcohol product clearly on the bottle.

‘Low alcohol’ refers to any product 1.2% ABV or below. Currently, alcohol-free is 0.05% ABV but the government is seeking views on whether to raise this to 0.5% ABV.

Marcos Salazar, CEO of the Adult Non-Alcoholic Beverage Association said:

“As the no and low-alcohol category continues to grow and provide greater choice for consumers looking to reduce their alcohol consumption, it is essential that there is consistency between the UK, European, and other international markets in terms of labelling.

“The Adult Non-Alcoholic Beverage Association (ANBA) welcomes the Department of Health and Social Care’s decision to launch this consultation today, and will continue to work closely with the government to help support its aims of increasing the availability of alcohol-free products for consumers.”

Matt Lambert, CEO of The Portman Group said:

“We welcome the new consultation, which we hope will help result in greater clarity on labels and encourage further uptake of low and no alcohol alternatives.  

“Our annual polling repeatedly shows that these products are already helping UK consumers moderate their drinking and avoid harms such as drink driving.  It is also an important opportunity to highlight the continued commitment of producers to market and sell these products responsibly to adult consumers.” 

Emma McClarkin OBE, CEO of the British Beer and Pub Association said:

“The BBPA has been calling on Government to review low alcohol descriptors for many years. We welcome proposals to align the low alcohol descriptors with those of nearly all other global markets. This will create a fairer trading environment for British brewers and pub operators, stimulate innovation and growth in the low and no alcohol category and provide much needed clarity for British consumers. Labelling of low alcohol drinks must be relevant and clear, and not risk confusing consumers.”

“British brewers are leading the charge in the development of low and no alcohol beer, with over 85% of pubs already offering at least one alcohol free beer. I am proud to have been able to take this even further by working with our members and Government on a series of voluntary commitments that I hope will drive even greater awareness of the category and promote availability of low and no alcohol options in pubs across the UK, cementing their vital role in supporting the health and wellbeing of the communities they serve.”

A fifth of adults in England currently drink above the low-risk guidelines of 14 units per week – significantly increasing their risk of ill-health, poorer quality of life, and even premature death. Views are being sought on how to support those looking to moderate their alcohol consumption and provide them with greater choice when looking for alternatives to alcohol.

The multi-billion-pound alcohol-free drinks market has increased rapidly in recent years, predominantly driven by alcohol-free beer, which has been described as one of the fastest-growing drinks trends in the UK.

Minister for Regulatory Reform, the Earl of Minto said:

“We want the public to know exactly what they are drinking which is why the potential changes are so important. This consultation will help bring about smarter regulations to ensure that businesses aren’t over-burdened, allowing firms to focus on growth and innovation.”

Today’s consultation forms part of the government’s wider plans to introduce smarter regulation to grow the economy.

Smarter regulation is about improving regulation and guidance for businesses across the board, ensuring it is as clear, proportionate and does not unnecessarily impose burdens on businesses which restrict innovation and growth. The government will be considering the impacts on businesses of any potential changes to guidance alongside our primary aim of delivering improvements to public health.

This supports a strong programme of work under way to reduce alcohol-related health harms and their impact on life chances.

As part of the NHS Long Term Plan, the government has invested £27 million to establish specialist Alcohol Care Teams in the 25% of hospitals with the highest rates of alcohol-related mortality and deprivation. This is estimated to prevent 50,000 admissions over five years and will reduce demand on the NHS.

The government also published a 10-year strategy for tackling drug and alcohol-related harms in 2021, backed by £532 million of new funding over three years (to 2024/25) to rebuild drug and alcohol misuse treatment and recovery services in England, as well as increase the availability of inpatient detoxification beds.

ENDS

Notes to editors:

• To keep health risks from alcohol consumption to a minimum, the UK chief medical officers’ (CMOs’) low risk drinking guidelines recommend:
  • not to drink more than 14 units of alcohol a week on a regular basis (equivalent to roughly 6 pints of average-strength (4% ABV) beer or 6 medium (175ml) glasses of standard-strength (13% ABV) wine)
  • to spread your drinking over 3 or more days if you regularly drink as much as 14 units a week
  • to limit the amount of alcohol you drink on any single occasion
  • not to drink alcohol at all if you are pregnant or think you could become pregnant to keep risks to your baby to a minimum
• The Health Survey for England 2021 found that 1 in 5 adults (about 10 million people) drink above the UK CMOs’ recommended weekly limit of 14 units, significantly increasing their risk of harm. Of these adults, 1.7 million are drinking at levels already likely to be negatively affecting their health, which is 35 units a week or more for women and 50 units a more or more for men

London, 21 September 2023: Complaints against four Tiny Rebel products – Hywl, Monstar, TinyFast and Primed – were upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP). Copies of the full decisions are available here, here, here and here.

The products were launched as part of a January series, a month that in recent years has become linked to health goals and giving up certain types of food and drink,  with text on the company’s website including the line ‘Cos Jan’s Bad Enough Beers are all made with love and fun to help chase away the January blues’. All products were upheld as having breached Code rule 3.2(f) for encouraging irresponsible consumption, and Code rule 3.2(j) in varying degrees for suggesting that the products had therapeutic qualities, could enhance mental or physical capabilities, and change mood or behaviour.

Monstar, TinyFast and Primed were also upheld under Code rule 3.2(h) for having a particular appeal to under-18s. As part of its consideration under the rule, the Panel considered that the appearance of Tiny Rebel’s logo could sometimes be a compounding factor when determining a product’s overall appeal to children depending on its size, presentation and contextual appearance. The Primed, TinyFast and Monstar decisions clarify this application in context, while the more mature adult design such of Hywl reflects how the logo may be appropriately used.

TinyFast also fell foul of Code rule 3.2(g) which states that a product should not urge a consumer to drink rapidly.

Hywl

A complaint was made about Hywl under three Code rules which raised concerns that the product encouraged irresponsible consumption, had a particular appeal to under-18s, and suggested the drink had therapeutic qualities (Code rules 3.2(f), 3.2(h), 3.2(j)).

The Panel considered that the product’s packaging indirectly suggested it had nutritional properties and mimicked a meal replacement drink and, as such could encourage a consumer to drink it to excess to gain the inferred health benefits of the product. The Panel considered that a consumer may then base their alcohol consumption on the purported health benefits of the product, as opposed to making an informed consumption choice based on the amount of alcohol in the product and this, the Panel concluded, could reasonably lead to irresponsible consumption as a consumer might consume more than they otherwise would have done.

The Panel also noted that Hwyl was a facsimile of Huel, a popular meal replacement drink, and indirectly suggested that it could fulfil the same purpose, thus inferring the therapeutic effect that it would make a consumer healthier.

Regarding particular appeal to under-18s, the Panel concluded that the product was clearly targeted at an adult audience, and did not have a particular appeal to under-18s.

For these reasons, and as laid out in the full decision, the Panel upheld the complaint under Code rules 3.2(f) and 3.2(j) but did not uphold under 3.2(h).

Monstar

Two complaints were made about Monstar under four Code rules which raised concerns that the product had an association with bravado and aggression, encouraged irresponsible consumption, had a particular appeal to under-18s, and suggested the drink had therapeutic qualities (Code rules 3.2(b), 3.2(f), 3.2(h), 3.2(j)).

The Panel noted the branding of Monstar closely resembled Monster Energy, a well-known, non-alcoholic energy drink brand marketed on the premise of enhancing physical and mental capabilities. The Panel concluded this indirectly suggested Monstar could enhance performance and could encourage a consumer to base their alcohol consumption on the purported health benefits which could lead to irresponsible consumption.

In terms of particular appeal to under-18s, the Panel considered that in the context of an energy drink brand which was popular with under-18s, the contrasting bright colours, the ‘doodle’ design images of decorated skulls, guitars, stars and hearts, the playful font and the prominence of the corporate bear logo all contributed to a particular appeal to under-18s,

The Panel found no evidence the product had an association with bravado, aggressive or dangerous behaviour.

For these reasons, and as laid out in the full decision, the Panel upheld the complaints under Code rules 3.2(f), 3.2(h)and 3.2(j) but did not uphold under 3.2(b).

TinyFast

Two complaints were made about TinyFast which was considered under six Code rules, these included whether the product clearly communicated its alcoholic nature, suggested that consumption of the drink could lead to social success, encouraged irresponsible consumption, urged the consumer to drink rapidly, had a particular appeal to under-18s, and suggested the drink had therapeutic qualities (Code rules 3.1, 3.2(e), 3.2(f), 3.2(g), 3.2(h), 3.2(j)).

In conjunction with the January marketing campaign the Panel noted that TinyFast had a significant resemblance to SlimFast Strawberry Meal Shake, a meal replacement and weight loss product. The Panel assessed the packaging in its entirety and considered that it was socially irresponsible for an alcoholic drink to create an association with a health product known for being a meal replacement. The Panel considered a consumer may then base their alcohol consumption on the purported health benefits of the product which could lead to irresponsible consumption and concluded that the product also suggested it had a therapeutic effect.

The Panel also noted the word ‘fast’ in the product name which linked to a style of consumption and could encourage a consumer to drink the product rapidly.

The Panel noted numerous aspects about the product that would have a particular appeal to under-18s including the choice of strawberry milkshake, a non-alcoholic sweet beverage, the image of a milkshake with dripping sides and strawberry fruit depicted in an illustrated style, alongside the corporate bear logo.

However, the Panel found the product clearly communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity and there was no evidence it linked consumption with social success.

For these reasons, and as laid out in the full decision, the Panel upheld the complaints under 3.2(f), 3.2(g), 3.2(h) and 3.2(j) but not did not uphold under 3.1 and 3.2(e).

Primed

A complaint was made about Primed under three Code rules which raised concerns that the product had an association with social success, had a particular appeal to under-18s, and suggested the drink had therapeutic qualities (Code rules 3.2(e), 3.2(h) 3.2(j)). The Panel also raised whether the product could encourage irresponsible consumption (Code rule 3.2(f)).

The Panel noted that the branding of ‘Primed’ was a facsimile of ‘Prime’, a well-known hydration drink. The Panel noted the popular cultural phenomenon surrounding the drink which was primarily driven by those under-18 and was particularly popular with teenagers and school aged children.  The Panel concluded that this similarity, alongside with the corporate bear  logo meant the product did have a particular appeal to under-18s.

The Panel also noted the product intentionally mirrored a non-alcoholic drink known for its hydrating and performance enhancing effect and this indirectly suggested it could fulfil the same purpose of the original brand, and thus inferred the same therapeutic effect . The Panel also considered that if a consumer believed that it had these qualities they could base their alcohol consumption on these purported health benefits which could lead to irresponsible consumption.

The Panel concluded that the packaging in its entirety was socially irresponsible and stated that an alcoholic drink, which had a dehydrating effect, should not mimic branding of a non-alcoholic drink known for its hydrating and performance enhancing effect.

Finally, the Panel found no evidence which suggested consumption of the drink could lead to social success or popularity.

For these reasons, and as laid out in the full decision, the Panel upheld the complaint under Code rules 3.2(f), 3.2(h)and 3.2(j), but did not uphold under 3.2(e).

Rule summary

All products have now been discontinued.

Commenting on the decisions, the Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Nicola Williams, said: “It is socially irresponsible for a producer to mimic well-known non-alcoholic drink brands that are marketed on the grounds of weight loss, meal replacement and performance enhancing properties on alcoholic drinks packaging in such a flagrant manner. These cases set new, clear, precedents that all producers should take note of when using well-known non-alcoholic drink brands in alcohol marketing. All brands work hard to ensure that certain connotations are linked with their products and alcohol producers must remember that stricter rules apply in this space.”

Matt Lambert, CEO of the Portman Group, said: “These precedent setting decisions draw a clear line to let alcohol producers know that there can be serious pitfalls when mimicking well-known non-alcoholic drinks brands. The Independent Complaints Panel do not consider producer intentions when reviewing product packaging, but these cases represent a continuation of concerning behaviour by Tiny Rebel. We have had constructive conversations with them and I sincerely hope the producer learns from this and ensures its products are compliant in the future by working with the Portman Group’s Advisory Service”.

Tiny Rebel was invited to comment and said “We are proud to have raised a significant amount of money from the sale of each of these beers which went directly into our Tiny Rebel Community Fund. The money raised has already started to be awarded to community projects around the UK. As code signatories and an alcohol producer we take our responsibilities very seriously and have now started to use the Portman Group’s advisory service to sense check our marketing campaigns as well as can designs.”

-ENDS-

For more information contact:

Joseph Meaden

Mobile: 07730 525 971

In response to Australian National University’s study on alcohol-related A&E admissions, Matt Lambert, CEO of the Portman Group – the alcohol social responsibility body and marketing regulator said:

“We share the concerns this study raises, namely that those drinking at the heaviest and most harmful levels are not getting the targeted support and help they need.

“When these individuals visit hospitals it too often does not solve the wider, complex and long-term causes and effects of high harm drinking.

“Instead, and as we have long called for, this cohort requires tailored medical and social support, as demonstrated by the ‘assertive outreach’ model for more joined up care across services, which trials have shown to be effective.”

ENDS

London, 1 September 2023: A complaint made against Docks Beers’ Carbon Crush has been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (Panel). A copy of the full decision is available here.

A complaint was made under two Code rules which raised concerns that the packaging did not clearly communicate the drinks alcoholic nature (Code rule 3.1), which was not upheld and that it had a particular appeal to under-18s (Code rule3.2(h)) which was upheld .

The predominant theme of the product’s label was a comic book strip style story which featured a caped crusader. Whilst comic books were popular across all ages, in some contexts including this case, they could have particular appeal to under-18s.  In coming to this view the Panel considered the packaging as a whole, and noted the contrasting primary colours, a fantastical narrative and the depiction of a superhero style figure, which all collectively enhanced the level of appeal to under-18s.

Regarding Code rule 3.1 which was not upheld, despite a busy design. This was due to the number of positive cues on the front and back of the label which includes the descriptor ‘low carbon IPA’ and the product’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) of 5%, unit content and a pregnancy warning logo.

The company said Carbon Crush was intended as a limited-edition product designed to spread awareness of Carbon Capture and Storage and is no longer in production.

Commenting on the decision, the Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Nicola Williams, said: “Comic books in some forms can be a popular source of entertainment for children. Producers need to take care when, in including such elements in marketing, that they do not particularly appeal to under-18s. Overall, in this case the packaging was found to have a particular appeal to children and I welcome the company’s response that the product is no longer in production.”

Will Douglas Director of Docks Beers & Docks Academy said:

“This beer was all about helping spread the message about carbon capture and storage.  We even used low carbon hops in the brew.  We felt a graphic novel character simplified a complex narrative and helped people understand the importance of this renewables endeavour in our area. The story told in the sequence of images on the can label is one that is eye catching and helped convey the message.  We certainly did not mean to create a product that appeals to children, but we can appreciate how the complainant and subsequently the Independent Complaints Panel might have reached that conclusion.”

In response to National Records of Scotland alcohol-specific deaths figures Matt Lambert, CEO of the Portman Group said:

“Today’s figures from National Records of Scotland showing a slight increase in alcohol-specific deaths are a reminder that every death is an absolute tragedy for the people concerned and their family and friends. Concerningly this is the third yearly increase in a row, yet the latest data shows a significant slowing since the post pandemic dramatic increase. We believe this reinforces the pressing need for targeting tailored medical and social support for those drinking at the heaviest and most harmful level as a key step to help reverse this worrying trend.”

National Records of Scotland figures 

London, 24 August 2023: A complaint made by the Wine and Spirit Trade Association against AU Vodka Gold Gang Money Gun has been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (Panel). A copy of the full decision is available here.

A complaint was made under one Code rule which raised concerns that the branded merchandise had a direct association with violent, aggressive, dangerous and illegal behaviour (Code rule 3.2b). During discussion, the Panel also discussed whether the Gold Gang Money Gun caused serious or widespread offence (Code rule 3.3).

The Panel noted that the gun had a handle and trigger mechanism which were consistent with the design of a firearm. The Panel also found that the shape of the gun appeared to be based on a firearm weapon, including how it would be held by a consumer and that it ‘fired’ money from where bullets would typically be fired. Despite the company changing the name of the product to ‘money sprayer’, the Panel considered that this did not address its concern with the fundamental design of the merchandise or the link it created to a real-life firearm. All these features of the branded merchandise created an indirect association with violent and aggressive behaviour because of the inherent similarities between the design of the money gun and a real-life firearm. Therefore, the Panel upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(b).

Regarding Code rule 3.3, the Panel noted that while the design and function of the AU Vodka Gold Gang Money Gun created an indirect association with dangerous and violent behaviour, it did not directly promote gun crime or criminal activity and considered that most consumers would recognise it was a novelty item designed to spray money. Therefore, the Panel did not uphold the complaint under Code rule 3.3.

Commenting on the decision, the Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Nicola Williams, said: “Alcohol and guns do not mix, and producers must always avoid such scenarios. Whilst the Panel noted that not all ‘guns’ are intrinsically linked to firearms, there were numerous aspects about this product which, combined, displayed similarities with a real-life firearm and any association between a firearm and an alcoholic drink is wholly inappropriate.”

-ENDS-

For more information contact: jmeaden@portmangroup.org.uk / 07709 525971