Producer:
Vault City Brewing
Complainant:
Member of the public
Complaint:
“I am contacting you regarding the packaging of a Scottish brewery called Vault City. I purchased some of their products and left them in the fridge. When I was out my son picked radler out of the fridge thinking it was a soft drink. He opens it and tried it and fortunately didn’t like it. The packaging is immigrating san pelegrino soft drinks and that is what he thought it was”.
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.1
The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity
UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company emphasised its commitment to responsible marketing, compliance with regulations and highlighted that, in its view, the packaging was compliant. The company explained that the product was only sold through independent retailers but stated that it was open to constructive feedback from the Panel.
The company stated that it was confident that the alcoholic nature of Lemon Grapefruit & Pineapple Radler was clearly conveyed through several cues on the packaging. The company argued that the word “beer” appeared prominently on the front of the can, alongside the company name “Vault City Brewing” which reinforced the alcoholic nature of the drink. Additionally, the product’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) of 3.4% was displayed on the front, with the messaging “ALC 3.4% VOL”, unit content information and a pregnancy warning logo also present on the back label. The company stated that these elements adhered to legal labelling requirements and best practice guidelines for responsible alcohol communication, exceeding the standards observed in previous not upheld cases under Code rule 3.1.
The company referenced similar cases where the Panel had determined that the presence of an ABV and other alcohol cues were sufficient enough to avoid a breach, despite the absence of the word “beer” on the front of the pack. The company highlighted that the packaging of Radler Lemon Grapefruit & Pineapple Beer went beyond this by prominently displaying the ABV alongside explicit alcohol descriptors which included the words “beer” and “brewing” on the front of the packaging, ensuring even greater clarity regarding the drink’s alcoholic nature.
The company described itself as a fruit-forward craft brewery that used over 185,000kg of real fruit annually in its beers. The company stated that its packaging was designed to emphasise the real fruit ingredients in a modern and adult-appropriate manner. The design aligned with the broader Radler category, which was characterised by bright, citrus-forward artwork and lower alcoholic strength. The company highlighted that Radler was a well-established beer style, recognised by consumers in both mainstream and craft sectors as a low-strength, fruit-infused beer, citing other examples on the market which featured similarly vibrant, fruit-led packaging.
The company explained that its product was packaged in a 330ml sleek can, a format commonly used in the UK alcohol market for ready-to-drink cocktails and fruit-forward alcoholic beverages. The company highlighted that this packaging style was familiar to UK consumers as a standard choice for alcoholic drinks, not just soft drinks. To prevent consumer confusion, the company had included clear and visible alcohol indicators, such as the word “beer” on the front, multiple ABV statements and responsible drinking messaging.
The company expressed regret that a child had accessed the drink and suggested this may have been because the alcohol had been left unattended in a family fridge instead of in a locked beer fridge. The company stated that the alcoholic nature of the product had been clearly communicated and was consistent with both regulatory standards and previous Panel precedents. The company concluded that it remained committed to upholding best practice standards and would carefully consider any recommendations by the Panel.
The Panel’s assessment
The Panel considered whether the packaging of Radler Lemon Grapefruit & Pineapple Beer communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity as raised by the complainant. The Panel noted that when determining whether the alcoholic nature of a drink had been communicated with absolute clarity, regard would be given to a drink’s compliance with Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers and the UK Food Information Regulations 2014. However, compliance with the law would not be the only determining factor in judging compliance with the Code under rule 3.1. The Panel noted that packaging could still be found in breach of the Code if it had the potential to mislead about its alcoholic nature or was likely to cause consumer confusion.
The Panel assessed the front label of the drink which included the word ‘Radler’ in a prominent large font. The Panel discussed that while the term ‘Radler’ may be recognised by some consumers as a citrus-based beer, this was not a universally recognised term to denote alcohol in the UK. The Panel acknowledged that the term was better known with a younger drinking demographic but noted that it had not been understood by the underage person who had accidentally consumed the drink. Therefore, the Panel considered that ‘Radler’ on its own did not sufficiently communicate the product’s alcoholic nature.
The Panel considered that the front label included the product’s alcoholic strength of 3.4% but noted that this was positioned at the bottom of the label in a relatively small font size which meant that it did not particularly stand out. Juxtaposed above this, there were prominent images of fruits with the words ‘lemon, grapefruit and pineapple’ set on a white background. The Panel noted that the rest of the label was fairly minimalistic with a yellow and blue background which meant that the fruit imagery and flavour references were the dominant theme on the front of the can. The Panel noted that fruit flavours were commonly found in soft drink beverages and that such soft drinks often employed a heavy use of fruit imagery on the front of pack to convey their fruit-based nature. Therefore, due to the label’s strong similarity to a soft drink, the Panel considered that it was incumbent on the packaging to make it absolutely clear that the product was alcoholic to avoid any potential consumer confusion.
The Panel considered the company’s response which highlighted that the words ‘brewing’ and ‘beer’ were included on the front label. However, the Panel considered the presentation of the word ‘beer’, which was written in a dark yellow fine line italicised font on a lighter yellow background, made the text particularly difficult to read. Furthermore, because the word blended into the edges of the line pattern on the label, it was not immediately obvious or clear that the text was there. Therefore, on balance, the Panel considered that while the front label included the word ‘beer’ and the product’s ABV, the word ‘beer’ was not clearly presented, nor was the ABV or beer descriptor given the prominence required on a label which was predominantly focused on fruit-flavours and bore resemblance to a soft drink.
The Panel then considered the side of the can and noted the inclusion of text which described the flavour of the drink. While the text included some references to the brewing process, the majority of the text described the drink’s fruity and floral flavour with no specific mention of beer or alcohol. The Panel assessed the back label and noted that there were some positive alcohol cues such as the drink’s ABV, a pregnancy warning logo, unit content and the word ‘beer’ written in multiple languages. However, these were not particularly prominent and further best practice information such as a responsible drinking message, the Chief Medical Officers’ Low Risk Drinking guidelines and signposting to Drinkaware were absent from the label.
When discussing the company’s response, the Panel noted that the company had highlighted the Yonder Pink Lemonade precedent a few times to emphasise the similarity in a case where a child had mistakenly consumed an alcoholic drink and which it believed the Panel had concluded that the labelling was sufficient regardless. The Panel sought to clarify that while Yonder Pink Lemonade had not been found in breach of Code rule 3.2(h), it had been found in breach of Code rule 3.1 for not communicating its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity.
The Panel discussed accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.1 which stated that where there were multiple negative alcohol cues on a drink’s packaging, such as fruit flavours and imagery, it may need to work harder to communicate its alcoholic nature and to avoid consumer confusion. In this instance, the Panel was also mindful that there was evidence of consumer confusion where an under-age individual had mistakenly consumed the product due to its perceived similarity to a well-known soft drink. The Panel considered the above points and concluded that the emphasis on the drink’s fruit flavour, predominant use of fruit imagery and use of the word ‘Radler’, which also appeared on non-alcoholic drinks, meant that the product needed to work harder to communicate its alcoholic nature. The Panel acknowledged that while it was not the intention of the company to obscure the alcoholic nature of the drink, the positive alcohol cues that had been included needed to be enhanced and made clearer to mitigate the risk of consumer confusion. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.1.
Action by Company:
Working with the Advisory Service.