In response to the release of the Alcohol-Specific Deaths, Northern Ireland report for 2021, Matt Lambert, CEO of the Portman Group – the alcohol social responsibility body and marketing regulator, said:

“Today’s figures show a continuation of the pandemic effect on alcohol-specific deaths among those who already drank higher levels of alcohol. Every life lost is a tragedy, and emphasises the need for targeted patient centred support for the small group of people who are drinking at the highest harm level.”

Complaints against 11 Dragon Soop products were not upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP). A copy of the full decisions are available here and here.

A complaint by the Northern Ireland Alcohol and Drugs Alliance (NIADA) was not upheld against 10 Dragon Soop products including: Dragon Soop Dark Fruit Punch, Dragon Soop Blue Raspberry, Dragon Soop Mango Pink Lemonade, Dragon Soop Passion Fruit & Orange, Dragon Soop Peach & Raspberry, Dragon Soop Red Kola, Dragon Soop Rhubarb & Custard, Dragon Soop Sour Apple, Dragon Soop Tropical Fruit Punch and Dragon Soop Apple & Blackcurrant.

NIADA also complained about Dragon Soop Wicked Watermelon, as well as a member of the public, who raised a concern around reports of the product being mistaken for an energy drink.

NIADA raised concerns about the aforementioned products citing the following Code rules:

• The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated with absolute clarity – 3.1;
• There must be no undue emphasis on the drink’s higher alcoholic strength, or intoxicating effect – 3.2(a);
• A drink should not suggest any association with bravado, violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour – 3.2(b);
• A drink should not encourage irresponsible or immoderate consumption – 3.2(f);
• Should not have a particular appeal to under-18s – 3.2(h);
• And a drink must not suggest any link with therapeutic qualities, mood altering or enhanced mental or physical capabilities – 3.2(j).

The Panel considered each of the rules in relation to the products. In terms of the rules, they noted:

• Every product repeated the 7.5% alcoholic strength by volume on its front, base and back, and all the products had a drink responsibly message and a link to the Drinkaware website (3.1 – nature of alcoholic drink)
• The communication of the products’ alcoholic strength had been conveyed in a factual and proportionate way and there was nothing on the cans that placed undue emphasis on the products’ higher alcoholic strength or intoxicating effect(3.2(a) – emphasis of higher alcoholic strength).
• The use of a dragon on all product artwork, along with the claw marks did not look aggressive and did not create an association with aggressive behaviour (3.2(b) – aggressive behaviour)
• There was nothing on any of the products that encouraged consumers to drink irresponsibly or immoderately (3.2 (f) – encouragement of immoderate, irresponsible, illegal consumption).
• None of the illustrations on the products were childlike and would be unlikely to have a particular appeal to under-18s. For Dragon Soop Wicked Watermelon it was also noted that the news article referenced by the member of the public involved a 22-year-old man, as opposed to an individual under-18, whose lunchbox had been packed by his mother and that she had packed a can of Dragon Soop Wicked Watermelon in it. The Panel noted that while the product may have a broad appeal, it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. (3.2(h) – particular appeal to under-18s).
• The caffeine content of the products was clearly stated and there was no indication the products were linked to potential therapeutic qualities, mood or behaviour changing capabilities or benefits (3.2(j) – link with therapeutic qualities).

For all these reasons, and as fully detailed in the decisions, the Panel concluded that Dragon Soop Dark Fruit Punch, Dragon Soop Blue Raspberry, Dragon Soop Mango Pink Lemonade,  Dragon Soop Passion Fruit & Orange, Dragon Soop Peach & Raspberry, Dragon Soop Red Kola, Dragon Soop Rhubarb & Custard, Dragon Soop Sour Apple, Dragon Soop Tropical Fruit Punch, Dragon Soop Apple & Blackcurrant and Dragon Soop Wicked Watermelon did not breach the Code rules in question or any other part of the Code.

Commenting on the decision, the Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Nicola Williams, said: “When alcohol is combined with supplements such as caffeine it is incumbent on producers to ensure that consumers understand what they are drinking and there isn’t a suggestion that these additions are enhancements. It is important that references on packaging are factual and the Panel were satisfied that these Dragon Soop products adhered to the Code.”

To help producers of caffeinated alcohol beverages ensure their marketing is on the right side of the Code, the Advisory Service has pulled together its top tips in its latest blog here.

-ENDS-

In response to the release of the National Records of Scotland statistics on alcohol specific deaths, Nicola Bates, Strategy Director of the Portman Group – the alcohol social responsibility body and marketing regulator, said:

“Today’s figures show a small increase in alcohol-specific deaths on top of last year’s sharp increase, every death is a tragedy for the people concerned and their family and friends. The longer term impact of pandemic drinking for a small group of drinkers continues and there is increasing evidence that targeted, health focussed action is needed for those drinking at the highest harm level.”

Nicola Bates, Strategy Director at the Portman Group – the alcohol social responsibility body and marketing regulator said:

“Total alcohol consumption has gone down consistently over the past 10 years, and Britons now drink around 15% less alcohol than they did 10 years ago. During the lockdowns the vast majority of people continued to drink moderately and this research shows some lighter drinkers cut their consumption.

“However there is a small minority who were already drinking at high harm levels when the lockdowns began and evidence suggests some went on to drink more. The models presented in this research are stark but they presume no interventions are made. This small minority of drinkers are the ones who need the most support with targeted action and a focused policy response.”

Responding to the University of Stirling’s packaging focus group, Matt Lambert, CEO of the Portman Group, the alcohol social responsibility body and marketing regulator, said:

“This study demonstrates that the packaging of a product is designed to appeal to different audiences something that would ring true across all forms of marketing and is not in itself a surprise. The key thing is that the naming, packaging and promotion of products must respect the Portman Group Code of Practice which protects consumers from inappropriate marketing and ensures that alcohol is promoted in a responsible way. The Code ensures that alcohol marketing does not target under 18s in particular. It has contributed to over a decade of declines in underage drinking rates in Scotland”.

A complaint by a member of the public against Dead Man’s Fingers Super Spiced Rum and Dead Man’s Fingers Tequila Reposado was not upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP). Both products were considered under the rule regarding association with dangerous behaviour, whilst the rum product was also reviewed as to whether it gave undue emphasis to its higher alcoholic strength. A copy of the full decisions is available here and here.

Produced by Halewood Artisanal Spirits plc the complaint for both products was made in relation to rule 3.2(b), that 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, anti-social or illegal behaviour. Additionally, the ICP considered Dead Man’s Fingers Super Spiced Rum under rule 3.2(a), that a drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way give the higher alcoholic strength, or intoxicating effect, undue emphasis.

The complaint related to the colour contrast in the letters of the name Dead Man’s Fingers Tequila Reposado to show the word DANGER. Regarding the Spiced Rum, the complainant pointed to the depiction of a skull on fire which they felt linked the product with danger.

The producer stated that the Dead Man’s Fingers range was generally edgy and bold and that the name of the brand related to the inedible part of a crab, which in folklore would lead to the death of someone who consumed them. The producer said that neither the design nor brand name was threatening, violent, aggressive or dangerous or encouraged such behaviour.

The Panel considered that the word ‘danger’ in and of itself did not go far enough to create an association with a type of dangerous behaviour and noted the distinct difference between ‘danger’ in principle and an association with behaviour that would be considered dangerous before or after alcohol consumption.

The Panel considered whether the highlighted danger in the name was supported by other cues, given that both products had a singular image of different types of skulls. In reviewing both bottles, the Panel considered that the skulls were used to create an edgy brand feel to appeal to its target market of young adults. The Panel concluded that the overall impression of the bottles did not create an association, either directly or indirectly, with dangerous behaviour, and therefore did not breach Code rule 3.2(b).

Regarding the spiced rum product, which incorporated the product’s 43% ABV in red font on the front label, the Panel considered whether this, in combination with the word ‘super’, placed undue emphasis on the product’s higher alcoholic strength. The Panel noted that the supporting information on the pack sought to emphasise that ‘super’ related to the spices in the rum, rather than the strength of the ABV. Given that there were no visual or written cues that placed undue emphasis on the product’s higher alcoholic strength, the Panel concluded that the product did not breach Code rule 3.2(a).

Commenting on the decision, the Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Nicola Williams, said: “We are supportive of producers being creative and using this in all aspects of a product and design, including naming. This case shows that producers can be edgy to appeal to their customers as there was no association with dangerous behaviour.”

Halewood Artisanal Spirits was invited to comment and said “We agree with the panel’s finding and in our opinion this was never a breach of the code. DMF’s edgy design is integral to the success of the brand and often these good intentioned processes are open to abuse, by less successful competitors under a disguise of a consumer.” – comment provided at the discretion of PG to retain and publish.

-ENDS-

Matt Lambert, CEO of the Portman Group, the alcohol social responsibility body and marketing regulator, said:

“The recommendation for variable guidance by age without context would be counterproductive, people will turn off from what they see is unrealistic and complex advice and stop engaging with moderate drinking messages. All the evidence shows that effective alcohol messages and labelling must be easily understandable and actionable.

“The recommendation that those under 40 should not drink at all is totally unrealistic – especially considering trends in the UK show that this age group is already drinking at lower and more moderate levels compared to older generations.

“It is interesting that the study backs up previous evidence of some health benefits of moderate drinking for people above 40, but we reiterate our view that people should not drink to improve their health.

“In the UK our best practice ensures that consumers are empowered to understand low risk drinking and are able to make informed choices. Our Code of Practice ensures responsible marketing in the UK which does not allege any therapeutic benefits from drinking alcohol.”

ENDS

Background

There has been over a decade of falls on many measures of alcohol-related harm in the UK, with persistent and sustained declines in overall population alcohol consumption and harmful drinking behaviours:

• Since 2004, annual alcohol consumption in the UK has fallen by 15%^[1].
• In England, there has been a 25% drop in reported binge drinking over the last decade^[2].
• The proportion of drinkers who drank on five or more days in a week decreased by 16%, with the average number of drinking occasions now 2.8 days a week^[3].
• The moderate majority of UK adults (77%) either do not drink alcohol or stay below the UK Government’s lower-risk guidelines of 14 units per week^[4].
• Average weekly alcohol consumption amongst English drinkers is estimated to be around 11 units, well below the Chief Medical Officer weekly guidelines^[5].

^[1] WHO, May 2021

² From 20% of English drinkers drinking in excess of defined as exceeding 8 (men)/6 (women) units on the heaviest day of drinking in 2009 to 15% in 2019. NHS England, December 2020

³ Decreased from 12% in 2014 to 10% in 2019, NHS England, November 2019

⁴ NHS England, December 2020 / Scottish Health Survey, September 2020/ National Survey for Wales, September 2020 / Health Survey Northern Ireland, December 2020

⁵ OHID: Wider impacts of COVID-19 on health monitoring tool, March 2022

Complaints against Mango and Black Pepper Gin, Clementine Light Up Snow Globe Gin Liqueur, and Spiced Sugar Plum Light Up Snow Globe Gin Liqueur have been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (Panel). All three products were considered to have a particular appeal to under-18s, whilst the two Snow Globe Gins also did not clearly communicate the alcoholic nature of the drinks on the packaging. A copy of the full decisions are available here, here and here.

Produced by JG Drinks Ltd t/a Copper in the Clouds, the Panel found Mango and Black Pepper Gin breached Code rule 3.2(h), that 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.

The complainant stated: “Copper in the Clouds has a range of gin which feature cartoon like imagery such as a tiger in suit with glasses grating pepper onto a mango, as featured on their ”Mango & Black Pepper” gin bottle. The images are colourful and the characters are all anthropomorphic…I believe these images will appeal to children under the age of 18. These characters are not adult in nature”.

The Panel considered that the artistic representation of the tiger and parrot with large eyes prominently displayed on the front of the bottle would have a particular appeal to under-18s. Furthermore, being coupled with a paper wrap around and ribbon was considered to be indicative of a gift and therefore contributed to the particular appeal to under-18s in this particular instance. The Panel therefore upheld the complaint. The company has since agreed to work with the Advisory Service towards amending its product.

The two Snow Globe Gin Liqueurs, produced by Marks & Spencer, were also considered to have breached Code rule 3.2(h), as well as Code rule 3.1 that the alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.

The complainant, a member of the public, stated: “I believe the light-up bottles of gin and other drinks being sold and prominently displayed by Marks and Spencer are in breach of Portman’s rules regarding appeal to children. The lights operate only for a limited time then need switched on again. One can imagine the “Do it again!” cry from children, just as happens with a toy or Christmas decoration with a similar mechanism. These alcoholic drinks are being sold as a novelty which is against the principle of the Portman rules and are encouraging children to see them as a fun item.”

The Panel considered the overall impression of the Clementine Light Up Snow Globe Gin Liqueur which given the depiction of a children’s toy soldier, an interactive light-up feature and gold flakes that created a strong association with a snow globe, the Panel considered that the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. Similarly, the Panel noted that the overall impression conveyed by the Spiced Sugar Plum Light Up Snow Globe Gin Liqueur had the same result with the depiction of a ballerina, interactive light-up feature, contrasting colour scheme and silver flakes to depict snow. The Panel concluded that all these elements meant the product had a particular appeal to under-18s and accordingly upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(h).

On communicating the alcoholic nature for both products, certain information had been placed in small font on the underside of the bottles. The Panel noted that the average consumer would not typically look on the underside of a product for key information to convey the product’s alcoholic nature. Alcohol information also appeared on a swing tag label which was attached with an elasticated string, however the tag was not securely fastened. The Panel also noted that the swing tag was designed as a gift tag with the words ‘to’ and ‘from’ inside which meant that if the product was given as a gift the recipient may be inclined to remove the gift tag as was normal after receiving a gift. The Panel noted that if the tag were removed, either by accident or deliberately, then there would be no clear alcoholic signifiers on the visible sides of the bottle which is where such information would typically be found. The Panel therefore concluded that the products also breached Code rule 3.1.

Since the decision, Marks & Spencer has agreed to work co-operatively with the Portman Group’s Advisory Service to make amends to the products.

Commenting on the decisions, the Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Nicola Williams, said: “I encourage all producers to think carefully about the overall impression conveyed when designing a product that could inadvertently appeal to under-18s. All three products in question had multiple contributing factors in this regard, including their use of  child-friendly images and illustrations. Also, alcoholic drinks must always convey their alcoholic nature very clearly to ensure consumers are fully informed when purchasing. The two gin liqueurs lacked clear indications of this and were thus upheld.”

Marks and Spencer was invited to comment and said “We do not agree with the Panel’s interpretation under the Code but, given their view, we will work with the Portman Group to make some changes to our gin globes in future.” – comment provided at the discretion of PG to retain and publish.

-ENDS-

For more information contact:

Joseph Meaden

Mobile: 07730 525 701

A complaint against premium spirits brand Jatt Life has been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel after it sponsored the luxury driving event The Cannon Run.

Jatt Life’s sponsorship of The Cannon Run, was considered to breach six Code rules. These included linking alcohol consumption with social success and enhancement of athletic performance, as well as using under-25s in promotional activity.

The Panel noted videos of The Cannon Run were present on the company’s social media channels and that there was no evidence of promotion of responsible drinking during the event, or appropriate due diligence to ensure responsible and age-appropriate drinking. The Panel found this particularly concerning for a sponsorship that was linked to driving.

As detailed in the full decision here, the Panel upheld the complaint under six Sponsorship Code rules namely:

• Sponsorship must promote responsible drinking – 3.1;
• There must be no implication that bravado, aggressive, violent, dangerous or anti-social behaviour is advocated or condoned by a drinks company or brand – 3.7;
• The sponsorship must not encourage irresponsible or immoderate drinking – 3.9;
• Sampling must comply with current licensing legislation – 3.10;
• No use of images of people who are or look under-25– 3.12;
• No implication alcohol enhances sporting or social success – 3.13.

The Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Nicola Williams, said: “Alcohol producers must take care when conducting sponsorships, and in this case it was clear from the promotional material that the sponsorship activity contravened the Sponsorship Code on several counts.”

Jatt Life was also considered under the Naming, Packaging and Promotion Code, however the complaint was not upheld. The full decision is here.

Merchandise for under-18s with Jatt Life branding were reviewed, but the Panel considered the items were designed to appeal to an adult purchaser so the complaint was not upheld. Although there was not a breach of the Code, the Portman Group will publicly review the wording of Code rule 3.2(h) to ensure no alcohol-branded merchandising can be placed on any product designed for under-18’s.

The complainant was also concerned the ‘Jatt’ referenced caste in the Sikh religion and that the branding could be disrespectful. The Panel sought advice from a series of authorities in the Sikh community, but no evidence could be found of serious offence to the Sikh community or to the average consumer.

Matt Lambert, CEO of the Portman Group, the alcohol responsibility body and regulator said: “We are committed to ensuring that people can enjoy alcohol responsibly, and we take our role in reducing harmful drinking seriously. As an integral part of alcohol sponsorship agreements drinks companies must ensure there is a recognisable commitment to promoting responsible drinking and the Code rules are rigorously applied.  This sponsorship of The Cannon Run was both at odds with the spirit of the Code of Practice and in breach of the rules designed to protect consumers. It is important that the Code remains flexible to change and we will be updating the Naming, Packaging and Promotion of Alcoholic Drinks Code to ensure that the appropriate rules apply across the board.”

-ENDS-