Company: BABCO Europe Limited
Breach: Yes
Final Decision: 25 February 2005
Considered under the 3rd Edition of the Code.
Complaint summary
“I wanted to bring to your attention the descriptor statement on the bottle stating ‘Spiked’. In view of responsible drinking this I believe is cause for concern since a spiked drink would imply something added/detrimental. I also believe the alcohol declaration is in very small copy.”
Complainant
Member of the public, Oxfordshire.
Decision
Under Code paragraph 3.1
The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(b)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous or anti-social behaviour.
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(c)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with, acceptance of, or allusion to, illicit drugs.
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.1(f)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption, such as binge-drinking, drunkenness or drink-driving.
NOT UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(g)
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.
UPHELD
The Panel’s assessment
The Panel first considered whether the alcoholic nature of the product was communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity. The Panel noted that the front of the label featured the product descriptors “schnapps” and “natural schnapps” as well as a statement of the product’s alcoholic strength which the producers said was the regulation 2mm high. The Panel considered, however, that greater prominence was given on the front label to the phrases “Real natural fruit juice”, “Spiked” and “Sour Apple and Moonshine” and that overall, the alcoholic nature of the product had not been communicated with absolute clarity. It therefore concluded that the product was in breach of paragraph 3.1 of the Code.
The Panel then considered whether the product suggested any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous or anti-social behaviour. It also considered whether the product suggested any association with, acceptance of, or allusion to, illicit drugs. The Panel noted from dictionary definitions that the phrase ‘to spike’ meant to lace a drink with alcohol or a drug and that the term ‘Mickey Finn’ referred both to a drink secretly adulterated with a narcotic and given to someone to render them unconscious and also to the adulterant itself. The Panel considered that it was both dangerous and anti-social to spike a drink or suggest that a drink had been spiked and considered that the reference ‘spiked’ indirectly associated the product with dangerous or antisocial behaviour as well as illicit drugs, in breach of Code paragraphs 3.2(b) and 3.2(c). It therefore welcomed the fact that the producer had decided to remove the word ‘spiked’ from the product name. The producer argued that ‘Mickey Finn’ was an historical American slang term that had no meaning in a modern day context. The producer also said that it was a reference to an Irish American bar owner and that UK consumers would infer from it only that the product had an Irish heritage. The Panel considered, however, that the reference ‘Mickey Finn’s’ (which it noted formed part of the product name) when read in conjunction with the narrative on the back of the bottle about the history of ‘Mickey Finn’ was also in breach of Code paragraphs 3.2(b) and 3.2(c). The Panel considered, however, that neither of these references would be likely to encourage illegal behaviour in the form of drink spiking and therefore concluded that the product did not breach Code paragraph 3.2(f).
Finally the Panel considered whether the product was likely to have a particular appeal to under 18s. It considered that the combination of the worm/apple cartoon, the word ‘spiked’, together with the colour of the product itself, meant that overall, the product was likely to have a particular appeal to under 18s. The Panel therefore concluded that the product was in breach of Code paragraph 3.2(g) and welcomed the producer’s intention to remove the worm/apple cartoon from the label.
Action by company
The Panel welcomed the fact that the company had agreed to consult the Advisory Service for guidance on new product labelling to ensure that it complied with the Code.