Nanny Censors

Complaint:

I would like to express deep concerns about the name, branding and pump clip design of Twickenham Brewery's ale Naked Ladies. In itself, the school-child sniggering tone of the name is offensive, representing outmoded and sexist attitudes to women which should have no place in public life, and certainly not in any industry that wishes to survive in the 21st century.

Moreover, from my recent experience of ordering a pint in a London pub in which this was the only available real ale, the name of the beer and pump clip imagery present real problems of offence and embarrassment. As a middle-aged man, the experience of saying the name of the beer to the young woman serving at the bar was awkward and unsettling for all concerned. As a pub-goer, I would obviously prefer not to be made uncomfortable by the simple act of ordering a pint. More importantly, bar staff should be able to go to work without being subjected to sexist and sexualised language and imagery which, given age/power differentials with customers, could well be interpreted as harassment or abuse.

Company statement:

The company stated that Naked Ladies was a best-selling beer and had been available for over 19 years. The company explained that it was one of a range of beers which were all named after local landmarks, with the name Naked Ladies relating to statues at York House, the home of Richmond and Twickenham Council. While the statues had no official name, locally they had become known as the Naked Ladies and usage of the local name had transferred more formally with the statues also listed as an entity with Historic England. The company explained that in addition to this, the name was also used to refer to the statues in several other sources, including The York House Society, reflecting that the name was well known by the general public.

The company explained that the pump clip included a graphical representation of the largest statue and it had used such branding for approximately 10 years. The company explained that at all stages, it endeavored to ensure the link between the name and the statue was obvious and clear. This included a description of where the name derived on the company's website and on the packaging of the bottles which referenced the local landmark.

The Panel's assessment

The Panel discussed the product name Naked Ladies and its historical context as explained by the producer. The Panel noted that the name was a colloquial one used to refer to a group of statues at York House in Twickenham which was a fairly well-known landmark as an entity listed with Historic England. The Panel discussed the company's response and noted that the name had not been used gratuitously as the packaging and company website incorporated descriptive language designed to explain the historical context of the statue. The Panel noted that due to its smaller size and limited space the pump clip did not include the same information but considered that the reference to Twickenham in the company's name did provide some context between the name of the beer and the local landmark. The Panel determined that the name may be distasteful to some but that the overall impression, as opposed to the name in isolation, would determine whether the pump clip caused serious or widespread offence under Code rule 3.3.

The Panel discussed the artwork presented on the pump clip which depicted one of the referenced local statues, a naked woman, at York House. The Panel considered the Portman Group's accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.3 and noted that to breach the rule in relation to sexual objectification the packaging or marketing would need to incorporate elements that were demeaning, derogatory, gratuitous or overly sexualised. The Panel considered that the design was artistically stylised and akin to art deco in style with no identifying detail added to any of the statue's features. The Panel noted that the naked statue was modestly presented with its pubic area covered by hops and considered that nudity in and of itself would not inherently cause serious or widespread offence, particularly nudity depicted by an art deco statue. The Panel noted that there was no undue focus on the statue's breasts which were low definition and portrayed through a shadowing technique in keeping with the depiction of the rest of the statue. The Panel discussed the pose of the statue and noted that it was not positioned in a sexualised manner which meant that it did not objectify the statue based on its gender or sexuality. The Panel considered the artwork in its historical context alongside the name Naked Ladies and considered that the pump clip was not demeaning, discriminatory or derogatory in its portrayal of women more broadly.

The Panel considered that the depiction of the statue and the name Naked Ladies did not cause serious or widespread offence. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.3.

Pirate's Grog Love Potion No.9 Gift Pack and Love Potion No.9 Spiced Rum

Tthe Pirate's Grog Love Potion No.9 Gift Pack included a copy of the Kama Sutra, a Durex Intense Vibe Ring and a bottle of rum.

Complaint:

'This can't be allowed? Sex Toys with alcohol'

Decision: Complaint upheld

Code paragraph 3.2(d): A drink, it's packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with sexual activity or sexual success.

Code paragraph 3.2(j): A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity 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 company stated that the Love Potion No 9 Gift Pack had been removed from sale and it was this item which had been subject to complaint rather than the packaging of Love Potion No.9 Spiced Rum.

Pirate's Grog Love Potion No.9 Spiced Rum 3.2(d)

The Panel discussed the packaging of Pirate's Grog Love Potion No.9 Spiced Rum to determine whether it created any association with sexual success or sexual activity. The Panel considered the product name Love Potion No.9 and noted that love potions were typically depicted in popular culture as creating feelings of love but that this element alone did not necessarily create an association with sexual activity.

When assessing the back label, the Panel noted that it included text which read 'Love Potion No.9 entice your pirate lover with shimmering lust dust' and 'a proven aphrodisiac... let the fireworks begin!'.

The Panel considered that referring to the drink as a means to entice a romantic partner, or as a substance alleged to increase sexual desire, created a direct association between the drink and sexual activity as well as sexual success. Accordingly, the Panel found the packaging in breach of Code rule 3.2(d).

In light of the decision under Code rule 3.2(d), the Panel considered whether there was merit in discussing whether there was anything on the packaging which suggested the drink had therapeutic qualities, could enhance physical or mental capabilities, or change mood or behaviour.

The Panel discussed the product name Love Potion No. 9 and considered that love potions were generally understood by the average consumer to be potions which invoked intense feelings of love, attraction, and sometimes obsession in the recipient. The Panel therefore considered that the name alone suggested that consumption of the drink could change a person's mood and behaviour by creating feelings of love and romance.

The Panel assessed the overall impression of the packaging and noted that the front label included a heart and cross image in the style of a skull and crossbones, thereby combining the association of a warning and recognised medicinal logo.

The Panel also noted that the back label text included the line 'a proven aphrodisiac' which suggested that the drink could create sexual feelings and therefore change an individual's mood and behaviour. Taking all of these elements into account, in the context of a 'love potion', the Panel concluded that the name and packaging of Love Potion No.9 Spiced Rum directly suggested the drink could provide therapeutic qualities and change mood or behaviour. Accordingly, the Panel found the name and packaging in breach of Code rule 3.2(j).

Pirate's Grog Love Potion No.9 Gift Pack 3.2(d)

The Panel then assessed the Pirate's Grog Love Potion No.9 Gift Pack which had been the original subject of complaint and included a copy of the Kama Sutra and a Durex Intense Vibe Ring. The Panel considered that the inclusion of the Kama Sutra, a well-known book related to the depiction of sexual positions, and a sex toy in a gift pack with alcohol was wholly inappropriate under the Code. The Panel concluded that the combination of items in the gift pack, including the product packaging of Love Potion No.9 Spiced Rum, created a direct association with sexual success and sexual activity. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(d).

As the Love Potion No.9 Spiced Rum bottle was also included in the gift pack, the Panel considered whether the concerns raised regarding the name packaging of Love Potion No. 9 Spiced Rum under Code rule 3.2(j) would apply to the gift pack, as the drink formed part of it. The Panel concluded that the same rationale would apply to the gift pack as its overall impression included the drinks packaging which directly suggested it could provide therapeutic qualities and change mood or behaviour for the reasons stated above. Accordingly, the gift pack was also found in breach of Code rule 3.2(j).

Action by Company:

The company has now agreed to change the name and packaging of Love Potion No.9 rum.

Tiny Rebel is a brewery specialising in fruit flavoured IPA beer.

A limited edition IPA called TinyFast was the target of 2 complaints.

1. ... Tinyfast is questionable as well in its use of SlimFast's branding to associate itself, even subconsciously, with health benefits, violating rule 3.2(j).
2. The branding of these products is designed to mislead, they are clear facsimiles of popular other products that are very obviously not alcoholic, the risk to the public is high (underage alcohol sales (energy drinks), identifying with health products (... slimfast)) due to the intentional duplication of branding, colours & typeface Complainant two:

The Portman Group is a trade organisation tasked with censoring drinks packaging. It upheld complaints about TinyFast under the following rules:

• Code paragraph 3.2(f): A drink, it's packaging and 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.
• Code paragraph 3.2(g): A drink, its packaging or promotion should not urge the consumer to drink rapidly or to down a product in one.
• Code paragraph 3.2(h): A drink, its packaging or promotion should not have a particular appeal to under-18s (in the case of sponsorship, those under 18 years of age should not comprise more than 25% of the participants, audience or spectators).
• Code paragraph 3.2(j): A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity 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 company did not submit a response to the complaint.

The Portman Group Panel's Assessment

The Panel discussed whether the packaging suggested, directly or indirectly, that the drink had therapeutic qualities, could enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour. The Panel considered that the packaging of TinyFast was a facsimile of a SlimFast Strawberry Meal Shake with the label intentionally mimicking the branding and flavour. The Panel noted that SlimFast was a well-known adult meal replacement drink that was used by consumers to aid in weight loss, or to help maintain a healthy weight. The Panel considered that as the SlimFast brand was synonymous with a health drink, the average consumer could consider that TinyFast with its near identical branding, and name, indirectly implied the drink shared the same weight loss properties. The Panel also noted that this association was particularly problematic in the context that some beers were considered fattening.

While the Panel acknowledged that the packaging of TinyFast did not include any direct health claims, the product descriptor text on the company's web page included the line Our 'Cos Jan's Bad Enough Beers are all made with love and fun to help chase away the January blues.. . The Panel also noted that the product had been launched as part of a wider range in January, a month that in recent years had become linked to health goals and giving up certain products or types of food and drink. The Panel considered that the product's marketing reinforced the perception that consumption of the drink could help change a consumer's mood to chase away the January blues, and that the drink indirectly suggested that it had a therapeutic quality. In addition to this, the Panel also considered that the product's mimicry of SlimFast meant that the product's packaging indirectly implied it could change mood and behaviour by enabling consumers to make better dietary choices and lose weight more successfully than they would otherwise be able to. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(j).

In the context that the packaging suggested the product had weight loss properties, and was mimicking a meal replacement drink, the Panel then considered whether there was anything on the packaging of TinyFast which could encourage a consumer to drink irresponsibly as raised by the complainant. The Panel considered the complainants' wording carefully and noted that complainant two was concerned that the product was designed to mislead and had raised Code rule 3.2(f) which included the wording irresponsible consumption. 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. After careful consideration of the Code rule 3.2(f) wording, and in the context of its decision under Code rule 3.2(j), the Panel considered that if a consumer believed that the product was a meal replacement, or had weight loss properties, this could indirectly encourage a consumer to drink it to excess in order 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. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(f).

As part of the discussion about whether the product indirectly encouraged irresponsible consumption, the name TinyFast was discussed from the perspective that it may encourage fast consumption. The Panel considered that the word fast in the product name created a link to a style of consumption and encouraged a consumer to drink the product rapidly. Accordingly, the Panel also upheld the product under Code rule 3.2(g).

Finally, the Panel considered whether the can had a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel discussed that while there were similarities between the packaging of TinyFast and a SlimFast Strawberry Meal Shake, which was targeted at an adult audience, young children were unlikely to be aware of the similarities between the two brands. In that context, the Panel considered the overall impression conveyed by TinyFast and noted that it included the image of a strawberry milkshake, strawberry fruit, the text strawberry flavour and the descriptor Strawberry Milkshake which was positioned above IPA and the drink's ABV. The Panel discussed the positioning of a beer as a milkshake and noted that a milkshake IPA was known in the industry as referencing an IPA brewed with lactose and was likely to be understood by beer consumers. Alongside this, the Panel also noted that a strawberry milkshake, as a non-alcoholic sweet beverage, was likely to have appeal to under-18s and that there were multiple strawberry milkshake products designed specifically for children. The Panel noted that in this instance the front label included an image of a milkshake with dripping sides and strawberry fruit depicted in an illustrated style, which it considered, in combination with the above points, was likely to appeal to children.

When considering the bear logo on the front of the can, in the context of a strawberry milkshake flavoured drink, with product artwork that made the strawberry milkshake a dominant theme of the packaging, the Panel concluded that the overall impression conveyed was likely to have a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).

Transport for London (TfL) has ludicrously banned adverts for business premises provider Workspace for using a cheese company as example customer.

The posters put forward by Workspace featured three panels, reading: From crunching numbers to selling cheese online, it all happens at Workspace. The advert featured an image of a hand typing at a calculator and another of some cheese, alongside the names of two Workspace tenants - an accountancy company, and London-based online cheese shop Cheesegeek.

But the adverts were rejected by TfL under its censorship rules aimed at cutting obesity. TfL claimed the poster wasn't going to conform to their advertising rules because of the high saturated fat contained within cheese.

TfL's rules dictate an advert will not be approved if, among numerous other reasons, it promotes (directly or indirectly) food or non-alcoholic drink which is high in fat, salt and/or sugar, according to the Nutrient Profiling Model managed by Public Health England.

Cheesegeek founder and CEO Edward Hancock slammed the decision as ridiculous and said it wrongly categorises cheese alongside genuine junk food.

The alcohol tradeassociation, the Portman Group, banned packaging for Cosa Nostra Scotch Whisky produced by Bartex Bartol.

The group report a breach of guidelines, namely that drinks should not suggest any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour

Bartex Bartol did not submit a response to the complaint.

The Portman Group Panel's Assessment: Complaint upheld

Rule 3.2(b):

A drink it's 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.

Rule 3.3:

A drink's name, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not cause serious or widespread offence.

The Panel discussed whether the packaging of Cosa Nostra Scotch Whisky suggested any association with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour. The Panel reviewed the shape of the bottle as the product's primary packaging and observed that it was a replica of a Thompson submachine gun, known as a Tommy Gun, which the Panel determined created a direct link between the drink and a dangerous weapon. The Panel considered that a Tommy Gun was often used in depictions of historical organised crime syndicates, and while a Tommy Gun was not a contemporary gun, the average consumer would recognise it as a firearm. Therefore, the Panel considered that the shape of the bottle created a clear link between the drink and a dangerous weapon which was wholly inappropriate for an alcoholic drink.

The Panel then discussed the drink's name, Cosa Nostra, and noted that the Cosa Nostra were a well-known faction of the Italian Mafia, an organised crime group renowned for engaging in violent behaviour and illegal activities. The Panel noted that text included on the packaging stated post proelia praemia which translated in English to after the battle, comes the reward, further compounding the association between the drink, violent behaviour and the glamorisation of criminal activity.

The Panel noted that the gun-shaped product came packaged in a large box which included the product name, an image of the primary packaging inside, imagery of two Tommy Guns crossed over each other and images of bullet holes on the box. The Panel noted that this further emphasised the product's direct link to violent behaviour and the glamourisation of criminal activity.

Considering the overall impression of the primary and secondary packaging, the Panel concluded that the name, the gun shape packaging and the language used all created a direct association with violent, aggressive, dangerous and illegal behaviour which glamourised crime and mafioso culture. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the complaint under code riule 3.2(b)

In light of the above, the Panel considered whether the drinks packaging could cause serious or widespread offence. The Panel discussed the association created between the drink and Cosa Nostra, a real-life criminal organisation. The Panel discussed that the average consumer would be aware of the Cosa Nostra given it was still a contemporary group, and one which was intrinsically linked with extreme violence, aggression, and criminal activity. The Panel stated that those who were directly affected by the violence perpetrated by the syndicate would consider packaging glamourising the Cosa Nostra seriously offensive.

The Panel also considered that the packaging created a clear link between an alcohol drink and a firearm. In the context of rising gun crime in the UK, the Panel considered that the packaging was also likely to cause serious and widespread offence, particularly to communities in which gun crime was an ongoing serious issue. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.3.

Between 21 February and 21 April 2023, Ofcom consulted on proposals for implementing new statutory restrictions on advertising and sponsorship for less healthy food and drink products.

The Health and Care Act -- which received Royal Assent on 28 April 2022 -- amended the Communications Act 2003 to introduce new restrictions on advertising and sponsorship for certain food and drink products that are high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS). These new restrictions apply to advertising on Ofcom-regulated TV and on-demand programme services (ODPS) and also online.

The restrictions:

• prohibit TV services from including advertising and sponsorship for less healthy food and drink products between 5.30am and 9pm;

• prohibit ODPS from including advertising and sponsorship for less healthy food and drink products between 5.30am and 9pm; and

• prohibit paid-for advertisements for less healthy food and drink products that are aimed at UK users from being placed online at any time.

These restrictions take effect from 1 October 2025.

Ofcom is the statutory regulator with responsibility for advertising on TV and ODPS. Our consultation proposed to:

• designate the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) as a co-regulator for the new prohibition on advertising for less healthy food and drink products in paid-for online space; and

• amend the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) Code and the Broadcasting Code to reflect the new restrictions that apply to advertising and sponsorship on TV.

This statement summarises the consultation responses and sets out our conclusions.

See statement [pdf] from ofcom.org.uk

A poster for a West End play featuring a wedding cake was banned by Transport for London (TfL) ludicrously seen as promoting foods high in fat, salt and sugar.

The ad for Tony n' Tina's Wedding , a dinner show at Wonderville, Haymarket, featured a three-tier sponge cake.

The interactive show is set at an Italian-American wedding, with a three-course meal, live music and dancing. Producer Paul Gregg told BBC London they could not run the posters after they delivered them to TfL. He said of TfL:

They said 'you can't put these up, they've got cake on'. It was a bit of a surprise...

The Portman Group is a trade body representing the drinks industry. It takes it on itself the job of censoring drinks labels and associated marketing.  It recently investigated the packaging of King William Fortified wine over associations with one side of sectarian politics in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

A complainant stated:

The use of King William of Orange as branding, and the ABV of 16.90% is playing to the sectarian elements which cause societal division particularly in the West of Scotland & Northern Ireland, which are stated to be the target markets.

The Portman Group treaded very carefully amongst the eggshells of identity politics and concluded:

The Panel discussed how the overall impression conveyed by the label was likely to be perceived by communities where sectarianism was prominent. The Panel considered that for those affected by sectarianism, the combination of elements on the label were likely to be divisive and inflammatory and would further fuel division in certain communities where religiously aggravated crime was still prevalent.

Whilst the Panel agreed with the producer that the use of King William in and of himself as a monarch did not cause serious offence, it concluded that the presentation of the packaging, particularly the overt references where the product's ABV had been used to signify a year that linked the product, and King William, to a specific conflict associated with sectarianism was likely to cause serious offence to certain communities. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.3.

The Panel welcomed the producer's offer to work with the Portman Group's Advisory Service to amend the label in order to address the issues presented by the inclusion of 16.90 as a number, as opposed to a factual representation of the product's ABV.

The Portman Group is a trade body representing the drinks industry. It takes it on itself the job of censoring drinks labels and associated marketing. It has recently investigated the packaging for Engine Gin, an Italian organic gin sold in packaging resembling an oil can.

A complainant with a chip on the shoulder about drink driving objected to the drink's reference to cars and driving:

I have stumbled across Engine gin on my recent Tesco shop and I am shocked and appalled about its design and open link to driving. The oil can design plus using phrases like fuel the dream are highly inappropriate and not something the alcohol industry should be doing.

The packaging is designed to replicate an oil can and not an alcoholic drink. The website and online material only continues this message and is pushing a fuel for car performance rather than an alcoholic brand. The engine logo on the front of the can also reflects a car performance drink rather than a gin.

I alongside thousands others have been directly impacted by drink driving incidents and to see this brand lean into it and openly encourage links to driving throughout the brand is disgusting. I believe this brand to be linking itself to driving and therefore a link to drink driving, the use of an oil can and car imagery is not something that a brand should be able to do as well as being very irresponsible.

The packaging is also very gimmicky and looks to be targeting a younger market and looks more like a toy than an alcoholic brand

In response the Portman Group dismissed parts of the complaint saying that the packaging was clearly an alcoholic drink, did not encourage drink driving and did not appeal to children. However the censors did object to trivial wording in the blurb on the back of the package. The censors wrote:

The Panel discussed whether any part of the packaging of Engine Organic Gin suggested the drink had therapeutic qualities, could enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood and behaviour. The Panel considered that the line fuel the dream was fairly ambiguous in its meaning when considered in isolation and could imply that consumption of the drink could help a consumer achieve a dream. The Panel noted that the back label included the sentence sage and lemon is a traditional remedy to cure a sour mood. The Panel discussed the wording and noted that it directly suggested that consumption of the drink could cure a consumer's bad mood by incorporating these ingredients, thus changing an individual's mood. The Panel was particularly concerned that the suggestion of a cure could directly appeal to those with poor mental health who may be more susceptible to substance misuse and concluded it was inappropriate for an alcoholic drink to directly suggest that it could provide a therapeutic quality. The Panel considered this wording alongside the line fuel the dream and considered that the elements combined also suggested the drink had a therapeutic quality. The Panel therefore concluded that the product packaging suggested the drink could change mood and had a therapeutic quality, and upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(j).

Action by Company: Made amends to product packaging to bring in line with the Code.

Prescription Gin offers the service to customise labels with a jokey prescription label with a customer specified name and dosage.

One example came to the attention of the trade organisation, the Portman Group, who act as drink label censors. The customer specified dosage read:

Take ONE swig before each exam. GOOD LUCK!

The Portman Group went on to ban the label under two counts of its censorship rules:

• 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 drink-driving, binge-drinking or drunkenness.

• A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity 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 drinks company, MixPixie, commented:

The company addressed the concern raised by the complainant that one of the bottles featured on its website included the front label text take one swig before each exam. Good luck!. The company explained that the product was personalised and that this particular product had been ordered by a customer. The company explained that when a customer bought the product, they had to confirm that they were over 18 years of age. Additionally, the company pointed out that when Royal Mail delivered its products, they could not hand it to anyone under-18. The company then stated that the complainant had presumed that this particular bottle was for a young person doing exams, but that in reality, it was most likely that this order was for a mature student.

The company stated that to resolve this particular issue with the complaint, it had removed this photo from its product page.

The Portman Group censor panel commented:

The Panel discussed the producer's formal response to the complaint and noted that the producer had stated that it could not be held responsible for what a customer chose to include but that it had the ability to vet what had been written before sending the label to be printed and could contact the customer to change it or issue a refund if the proposed text was inappropriate for an alcoholic product. The Panel sought to remind the producer that it did have responsibility for the entirety of the product, including the customisable element, as ultimately the producer could regulate the customisable content. The Panel noted that once the producer chose to incorporate the customer's personalisation on the product, the product in its entirety became the responsibility of the producer as it had willingly, and knowingly, printed the label onto its branded product.

The Panel discussed whether the product suggested that it had therapeutic qualities, could enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour. The Panel considered that the product was deliberately, and overtly, designed to look like a prescription medicine and that such medicines were synonymous with being used to cure and relieve physical and/or mental ailments. The Panel reiterated the points made during discussion under other Code rules and noted the usage of the exact replica of a pharmacy cross, small medicinal bottle shape and medicinal liquid colour which, when combined, suggested that the product had therapeutic qualities. The Panel also noted that the front of the bottle stated, POSSIBLE SIDE EFFECTS: MAY INCLUDE EXTREME RELAXATION, GIDDINESS AND HAPPINESS. The Panel considered that this directly suggested that the product could help a consumer to relax and that it would also result in happiness after consumption. The Panel considered that these phrases also suggested that the product had a therapeutic effect and that it could change someone's mood. The Panel therefore concluded that the product breached rule 3.2(j).

A paid-for Instagram post and a website for Pure Wines, seen on 26 April 2022.

• a. The paid-for Instagram post featured the text Spark Up Your Life alongside an image of six bottles of wine. An illustration on the label of one of the bottles showed a woman from the neck down, with her breasts exposed, drinking a glass of wine.

• b. The website www.purewines.co.uk, featured a listing for JUNG & SEXY * PET-NAT wine with text that stated R-Rated and an image of the product that had the same label illustration as ad (a). Further text stated, This dark ros39 Pet Nat wine is less provocative than its label but is as entertaining at the same time.

A complainant, who believed the ads linked alcohol with seduction, sexual activity and sexual success, challenged whether they breached the Code.

Pure Wines Ltd said that ad (a) was for a mixed case of sparkling wines called Spark Up Your Life. They did not believe that there was any link between the ad and seduction, sexual activity or sexual success, nor did it imply that alcohol could enhance attractiveness.

They said ad (b) was a listing for a wine called Jung & Sexy * Pet-Nat. They explained that this was a wine named and labelled by one of their suppliers, which was an Austrian winery. It was a young wine, which meant that it was produced and released a short time after the harvest. They said no sexual connotation had been intended and if the winery's intention had been to imply any connection between the design of the label and the name of the wine it would have been that both were sexy, but not sexual. They said that neither the design of the label nor the name of the wine contained a connotation of seduction, sexual activity or sexual success, nor did they imply that alcohol could enhance attractiveness.

They stated that the text r-rated implied that the wine was not suitable for consumers below the age of 18, like all their wines. They said this was an American expression from the world of cinema and was used figuratively.

ASA Assessment: Complaint upheld

The CAP Code required that marketing communications must neither link alcohol with seduction, sexual activity or sexual success nor imply that alcohol could enhance attractiveness.

The ASA understood that both ads featured a bottle of alcoholic sparkling wine with an illustration on the label and considered the image was of a woman wearing pants and a long sleeved top which had been pulled up to expose her naked breasts. Her face was not fully visible, but she was sipping a glass of wine. We understood that this label was one which appeared on the product itself. We also understood that the text Jung & Sexy in ad (b) referred to the name of the product.

Notwithstanding that, we considered that the way the model was posed and styled on the label, including that her breasts were deliberately exposed, meant that the image would be seen as sexually suggestive and featured a seductive pose. We therefore considered it was inherently sexual in nature.

We acknowledged that the text, Spark Up Your Life in ad (a) was a reference to the sparkling wines in the case. However, we also considered that, when viewed in conjunction with the image of the woman on label, the text might be understood to refer to sexual activity and further reinforced the depiction of the woman in the ad as sexual in nature.

We considered that impression was also reinforced by the use of the term r-rated in ad (b), which would be understood to refer to films containing adult themes, such as sexual activity. [Note that in the US an R rating is a minimum age of 17 and generally does not allow much in the way of sexual activity].

We considered the text This -- wine is less provocative than its label but is as entertaining at the same time in ad (b), when viewed in conjunction with the image of the woman, would be understood to be an explicit reference to the sexually suggestive pose and styling on the label and also reinforced the depiction of the woman as sexual in nature.

Because the image, particularly in connection with some of the text, was inherently sexual, we concluded that the ads linked alcohol with seduction and sexual activity and therefore breached the Code.

The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Pure Wines Ltd to ensure their future advertising did not link alcohol to seduction, sexual activity or sexual success.

A TV ad for Vegan Friendly UK, a campaign group, seen in March 2022, showed two women and one man sat around a table eating.

The first woman said, [A]nd plastic straws are ruining the oceans. Poor fish don't stand a chance. A close-up of the woman's mouth whilst eating fish was shown, followed by three clips of fish in quick succession, before showing the woman's mouth again. The first clip showed a large number of live fish out of water on a conveyor belt, the second clip showed a close-up of a fish head which was still gasping for air, and the final clip showed headless fish being filleted on a chopping board that had streaks of blood and fish guts on it.

The man then said, There's countries that still have bullfighting, to which the first woman replied, And wet markets. A close-up of his meal was then shown, followed by a close-up of him eating it. The man replied, They just don't care about animals like we do babe, followed by three clips in quick succession. The first clip showed a live piglet, alongside a pig with its eyes closed. The second clip then showed pork meat being chopped with a cleaver, followed by blood splashing onto a takeaway box.

The second woman then said, Let's not even mention human rights issues. A close-up of the man eating with his mouth open was shown, and quickly followed by a close-up of a burger, with thick red sauce spilling out. The first woman replied, Can we all just treat living beings the same please, to which the second woman said That's real equality. A close-up of the woman eating the burger was shown, followed by a clip of a cow's face which appeared to have tears coming from its red eye, alongside a moo-ing sound.

Close-ups of all three adults eating loudly with their mouths open were shown in quick succession, and the second woman had red sauce smeared on her face. Interchanging clips of animals followed by the humans' eyes were then shown. The first animal clip showed a piglet's eyes, alongside a squealing noise. The second animal clip was a fish out of water with its gills moving. The third animal clip showed the eye of a pig, accompanied by squealing, and the fourth showed the eye of a chicken, accompanied by squawking. The face of a live cow was then shown, which was then quickly followed by a cow's skinned head, with its eyes and teeth still present, lying on its side. As they continued to eat, text stated no animal was harmed, consumed, or purchased to make this advert, followed by the text MAKE THE CONNECTION.

The ASA received 63 complaints:

1. Some complainants challenged whether the ad contained graphic imagery and gratuitous violence towards animals, which caused unnecessary distress to viewers;

2. Some complainants also challenged whether the ad was scheduled appropriately, because it was broadcast when children could be watching; and

3. Some complainants challenged whether the ad was offensive because it vilified meat eaters.

Vegan Friendly believed that the ad did not cause distress, but said that if offence was caused by the ad, it was justifiable because billions of animals were killed in the meat industry.

ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld

1. & 2. Upheld

The BCAP Code stated that ads must not distress the audience without justifiable reason. The Code also stated that relevant timing restrictions must be applied to ads that might harm or distress children of particular ages, or that are otherwise unsuitable for them. We acknowledged that the ad was given a scheduling restriction which prevented it from being transmitted in or adjacent to programmes commissioned for, principally directed at or likely to appeal to children under 16.

The ASA noted that some of the imagery used in the ad was graphic in nature. Whilst some of the images were not inherently graphic or violent, we considered that some of the clips shown were likely to cause distress within the context of the ad; in particular, the clip of the cow which appeared to be crying, and the several clips that showed fish struggling to breathe. We also considered that the image of the skinned cow's head shown at the end of ad was particularly graphic and, in itself, likely to cause distress to both younger and adult audiences.

We considered the way in which the ad was shot had an impact upon the distress likely to have been felt by the audience. We noted that the quick succession of clips shown throughout the ad, and the juxtaposition between the adults eating and the animal imagery, would heighten the distress felt by viewers. We also considered that the camera angle was used to focus on the distress of the animals shown in the ad, for example by focusing on the gills moving in the several clips of the fish or the eye of the crying cow. In addition, we considered that the splash of blood that jumped from one clip and landed on the takeaway box in the following clip, deviated from what would be expected in normal food preparation, and as such we considered its inclusion to be gratuitous. We therefore considered that the way that the ad had been shot and edited contributed to the visceral nature of the ad.

We noted that both Clearcast and Vegan Friendly UK understood that the imagery shown in the ad was akin to what viewers could expect to see in cookery programmes or on the high street when walking past a butcher's shop or fishmonger's shop. We acknowledged that some clips which showed meat or fish being prepared for consumption, such as the fish being filleted, would not be out of place out on food programmes or when purchasing meat or fish. However, we considered that several of the clips shown, such as the clips which depicted animals in distress or the skinned cow's head, would likely not be seen in these places. In addition, visiting a butcher or watching a cookery programme was an active choice which came with different expectations to those of TV ads.

For those reasons, we concluded that the ad was likely to cause distress to both younger and adult audiences and therefore was not suitable for broadcast on TV regardless of scheduling restrictions.

3. Not upheld

We acknowledged that some viewers might believe that the adults were portrayed as hypocritical in their discussion of social and environmental issues in the ad, and might see the ad as portraying the characters in a negative light. We also acknowledged that some may have found the close-up shots of the adults eating unpleasant. However, we considered that the shots were both exaggerated for effect and we considered viewers would generally accept that the ad was trying to highlight how people's actions might not necessarily align with their beliefs.

We considered that the ad would be seen in the context of Vegan Friendly's wider aim to increase peoples' consumption of plant-based food by imploring them to think about the relationship between meat and animals being killed, rather than explicitly vilifying meat eaters. We considered that was reinforced by the tagline make the connection at the end of the ad.

We also noted that the adults were not shown killing or harming the animals, and neither was derogatory nor insulting language used towards them for choosing to eat meat.

For those reasons, we concluded that the ad was likely to be seen as distasteful by some viewers, but not likely to cause widespread offence by vilifying meat eaters.

The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Vegan Friendly UK to avoid using imagery which was likely to cause distress to both younger and adult audiences.

Sky TV have published a detailed plan about how the company educate, propagandise, nudge, nag and bully viewers into submitting to right think and right behaviour when it comes climate change.

Dana Strong Group Chief Executive, Sky explains:

At Sky, we believe in a better world, and we're committed to reducing our impact on the environment by transforming our business to become net zero carbon by 2030.

As Europe's largest media and entertainment organisation, we also want to accelerate our industry's efforts to drive global progress towards net zero. However, it is now widely accepted that we must shift the behaviour of millions of people to deliver on our collective net zero goals.

That's why when we became the Principal Partner and Media Partner for COP26, we were clear we wanted to lead the way in new standards for the broadcast industry, and to invest in research to better inform our collective approach.

Building on the work of BAFTA's albert consortium, and Sky's own Planet Test, the next frontier for our industry will be thinking not just about how we can reduce our own carbon footprint, but how we can encourage our viewers to do the same.

We know that what we broadcast has the power to change how we as consumers feel and act. What we see on our screens can shock us, inspire us, educate us, and entertain us.

By partnering with the Behavioural Insights Team, we aimed to answer a simple question: how does the content we see on our screens influence the sustainable choices we make in our daily lives? In this study from BIT and Sky, we spoke to 3,500 people in all the six markets in Europe where Sky operates. We are hopeful the results of this study will be the beginning of a growing data set that will inspire broadcasters and content creators to work in partnership to encourage - and normalise - less carbon use by consumers.

For the first time, we have the empirical evidence to help broadcasters understand how change can be achieved if we work together. We believe that by feeling closer to our planet, to the problems that it faces, and to the solutions available to protect it, consumers will truly feel empowered to act. Now we must all commit and work to deliver this.

Offsite Comment: Big Media is turning into Big Brother

8th November 2021. See article from spiked-online.com by Brendan O'Neill

TV news used to be about informing people. Now it's about manipulating us. Now it's about socially engineering us to make us more green. Now its ambition is to be a powerful tool of persuasion in order to transform viewers from the polluting pests we currently are into the eco-switched-on citizens of the future. At least that's the conclusion one is forced to draw from the deeply chilling report commissioned by Sky and authored by the Behavioural Insights Team, which is part-owned by the Cabinet Office.

Maryland-based Flying Dog Brewery is suing the North Carolina Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission for ludicrously rejecting its seasonal winter beer label depicting a naked cartoon claiming it's in bad taste.

The Freezin' Season Winter Ale features artwork designed by famed British illustrator Ralph Steadman of a stylized person standing naked by a campfire. The ABC Commission ruled that Flying Dog Brewery could not use the label under state laws that forbid undignified, immodest marketing.

In a federal lawsuit, the brewery accused the alcohol board of infringing on its constitutional right to free speech.

Jim Caruso, CEO of Flying Dog, said the lawsuit is about defending the First Amendment against petty bureaucrats who want to censor whatever they personally dislike.

The label has been approved in every other state within its 24-state distribution network, according to Flying Dog Brewery.

The perennial Hindu whinger Rajan Zed is complaining about a UK beer label.

Kali Yuga East India Porter brewed by Nottingham based Bang the Elephant Brewing Co uses the Hindu goddess Kali's image on its East India Porter beer can.

Zed said that inappropriate usage of sacred Hindu deities or concepts or symbols or icons for commercial or other agenda was not okay as it hurt the devotees. He added:

Breweries should not be in the business of religious appropriation, sacrilege, and ridiculing entire communities. It was deeply trivializing of immensely venerated Hindu goddess Kali to be portrayed on a beer label.

Hindus were for free artistic expression and speech as much as anybody else if not more ...BUT... faith was something sacred and attempts at trivializing it hurt the followers.

Thailand's The Standard news website has reported that it could soon be possible to be fined 500,000 baht (£11,400) just for posting a picture of a glass of beer or wine. And 60-80% of that fine could go into the pocket of the police or authority that brought the prosecution.

Up to now private individuals can be fined 50,000 baht (£1150) for promoting or advertising alcohol. Now a draft amendment from the authorities is proposing this is increased to half a million baht.

Commercial entities are liable to larger fines, currently at 500,000 baht, but the proposals would see this rise to a full one million baht.

There is also a proposal to stop a kind of loophole that allows big firms to promote their products by referring to soda rather than beer. Eg the beer maker Singha advertises its bottled water brand with a logo that is also used for its beer.

In future just using the soda/water logo could be illegal and subject to the alcohol fines by association.

The new proposals are currently on public consultation until 9th July, although it is a little offputting that ID cards are required from those wishing to comment.

Following a public consultation, regulations will come into force at the end of next year to introduce a 9pm watershed for advertisements of foods high in fat, salt and sugar ( HFSS ).

The new rules apply to TV and UK on-demand programmes, as well as restrictions on paid-for advertising of HFSS foods online as part of the government's ongoing commitment to tackle unhealthy eating habits at source.

The watershed will apply from 9pm to 5.30am, meaning HFSS adverts can only be shown during these times.

In order to keep the restrictions proportional, these new regulations will apply to food and drink products of most concern to childhood obesity and will ensure the healthiest in each category will be able to continue to advertise. This approach means foods such as honey, olive oil, avocados and marmite are excluded from the restrictions.

The restrictions will apply to all businesses with 250 or more employees that make and/or sell HFSS products, meaning small and medium businesses will be able to continue advertising. The government recognises these companies may be some of the hardest hit by the pandemic and rely on online media as the sole way to communicate with their customers.

Online restrictions will be limited to paid-for advertising, ensuring brands can continue to advertise within 'owned media' spaces online; such as a brand's own blog, website, app or social media page.

Analysis from September 2019 demonstrated that almost half (47.6%) of all food adverts shown over the month on ITV1, Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky1 were for products high in fat, salt and sugar, rising to nearly 60% between 6pm and 9pm. Ofcom research suggests that children's viewing peaks in the hours after school, with the largest number of child viewers concentrated around family viewing time, between 6pm and 9pm.

The measures set out today form part of our legislative response to tackling obesity. The government is committed to working alongside industry and will issue guidance to help them prepare for this transition.

Offsite Comment: The advertising industry is not impressed

25th June 2021. See article from adweek.com

Ad Industry Say UK Government HFSS Ban Is Set to Fail

The IAB, IPA, AA and ISBA all claim a ban will be ineffective in reversing childhood obesity rates

The UK Government writes:

We want your views on our proposal for a total online advertising restriction for HFSS (high in fat, salt or suger) products to reduce the amount of HFSS advertising children are exposed to online.

This consultation closes at 11:59pm on 22 December 2020

Consultation description

We're asking questions on:

• what types of advertising will be restricted

• who will be liable for compliance

• enforcement of the restrictions

In 2019 the government consulted on restricting advertising of HFSS for TV and online . It asked for views on whether to extend current advertising restrictions on broadcast TV and online media, including consulting on watershed restrictions. In July 2020 the government confirmed its intention to introduce a 9pm watershed on TV .

This new consultation goes further and looks at how a total HFSS advertising restriction could be implemented online. It should be read with the 2019 consultation.

The perennial hindu whinger Rajan Zed is urging  Prairie Krafts Brewing Company from Illinois to apologize and rename/withdraw its Trishul Pale Ale; claiming it to be highly inappropriate.

Zed said that inappropriate usage of sacred Hindu symbols or concepts or deities or icons for commercial or other agenda was not okay as it hurt the devotees. Zed indicated that Trishul was an emblem of Lord Shiva and one of the principal divine symbols in Hinduism; and its three prongs denoted the powers of creation, preservation, destruction; and represented three gunas (fundamental principles of universe).

Breweries should not be in the business of religious appropriation, sacrilege, and ridiculing entire communities. It was deeply trivializing of divine Hindu symbol to be displayed on a beer can, Zed claimed.

Upset Hindus have urged Anheuser-Busch InBev, largest brewer in the world, to change the name of its popular Brahma beer, claiming it to be highly inappropriate. The perennial hindu whinger Rajan Zed said:

Creator god Lord Brahma was highly revered in Hinduism, and was meant to be worshipped in temples or home shrines and not to be misused as a toasting tool or selling beer for mercantile greed.

Anheuser-Busch InBev should not be in the business of religious appropriation, sacrilege, and ridiculing entire communities. Inappropriate usage of sacred Hindu deities or concepts or symbols or icons for commercial or other agenda was not okay as it hurt the devotees.

Rajan Zed added that Hollywood celebrities Megan Fox and Jennifer Lopez have reportedly acted in Brahma beer commercials.

Brahma was created by Swiss immigrant Joseph Villager in Brazil in 1888. The company is known throughout Brazil as beer number 1.

Update: Wrong Brahma

16th July 2020. See article from patheos.com

Beers sold under the Brahma name include a lager, a double malt, a wheat beer and a chocolate stout, all named after a smart English geezer called Joseph Bramah, who invented the draft pump valve. But the unnamed and ooh-so-touchy interfaith coalition is convinced that the name belongs exclusively to Lord Brahma, Hinduism's four-headed god of creation, and wants the brewer to find a new name for the product.

Lucas Rossi, Head of Communications for Anheuser-Busch InBev's Latin America subsidiary, appears not be be intimidated. He said:

After explaining that the spelling was changed from Bramah to Brahma to make the name work better in the Portuguese language, and that the Brahma brand s very important to the culture of Brazil which has a tiny minority of Hindus.

Perenniel whinger Rajan Zed has called Sheffield's Neepsend Brew Co. to apologize and withdraw its Hanuman beer claiming it to be highly inappropriate.

Hindu campaigner Zed said that inappropriate usage of sacred Hindu deities or concepts or symbols or icons for commercial or other agenda was not okay as it hurt the devotees. He said that that Lord Hanuman was highly revered in Hinduism and was meant to be worshipped in temples or home shrines and not to be used in selling beer for mercantile intent. Moreover, linking Lord Hanuman with an alcoholic beverage was very disrespectful.

Update: Apologies

22nd June 2020. See article from rajanzed.com

Neepsend Brew Co. has apologized after Hindus protested over its Hanuman Beer. Gavin Martin, Director/Head Brewer of Neepsend Brew Co wrote to Rajan Zed:

Thank you for bringing this to our attention and we of course apologise for any offence we have caused. Though ignorance isn't an excuse we certainly didn't mean any deliberate insult or disrespect by using the name...we'll be sure to research beer names more thoroughly in the future to avoid something like this happening again.

The Portman Group, a trade group for the drinks industry have banned Lawless Unfiltered Lager from Purity Brewing. The company markets the beer with the description: 'Lawless is a maverick beer' and 'is a law unto itself'.

The Portman Group panel considered its rule 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, anti-social or illegal behaviour.

The Panel expressed concern that the name Lawless suggested an association with illegal behaviour.

The Panel noted the text on the back of the can, which said Lawless is our maverick beer named after our farmyard fiend, Bruno the goat. Just like our lager he is law unto himself, full of character with a sharp kick!. The Panel acknowledged that the producers were a small company challenging the established order in their industry and understood that they intended to convey that spirit. The Panel considered, however, that the text on the back of the can was not enough to prevent the name Lawless from being seen as a reference to illegal behaviour.

The Panel noted the producer's argument that the name of the product was Lawless Unfiltered Lager and that Lawless never appeared in isolation. The Panel also noted the wording on the back of the can, however, which stated Lawless is our maverick beer and Lawless is brewed with a big dose of El Dorado hop. The Panel rejected the argument that Lawless was only ever used as part of the phrase Lawless Unfiltered Lager.

The Panel discussed the image of the goat and the explanation around the name. Whilst the line drawing of the goat on the front of the can was not a problem in itself, the connection between the animal and the name as a motivation for the Lawless branding was not sufficient. The Panel concluded that the name would still be problematic, even with more extensive text linking the artwork to the name.

The Panel agreed that to be a maverick or breaking the mould was not the same as breaking the law, and considered that positioning a beer as maverick or highlighting quirky or mould-breaking qualities could be acceptable under the Code, whereas a reference to breaking the law was unacceptable.

After considering all the arguments put forward, the Panel maintained their view that Lawless was fundamentally incompatible with the rule that alcohol products should not suggest any association with illegal behaviour. They emphasised that their concern was about the product name alone and they believed the Code breach to be unintentional. The Panel considered that the name Lawless directly implied breaking the law, which was by definition illegal behaviour. Therefore, it could not be justifiable through content given the nature of the Code. The complaint was therefore upheld under Code rule 3.2(b).

The perennial hindu whinger Rajan Zed is urging Three Hills Brewing in Northamptonshire to apologize and withdraw its Veda India Pale Ale; calling it highly inappropriate.

He said that inappropriate usage of Hindu scriptures or deities or concepts or symbols or icons for commercial or other agenda was not okay as it hurt the devotees. Vedas were revealed Sanskrit texts considered as eternal-uncreated-divine-direct transmission from Absolute. Vedas were foundation of Hinduism and included Rig-Veda, world's oldest extant scripture. Zed claimed:

Using Vedas to sell beer was highly insensitive and trivializing of the immensely revered body of sacred and serious knowledge.

Shavasana Ale

Rajan Zed is also urging Newport (Oregon) based Rogue Ales & Spirits brewery to apologize and rename its "Shavasana" (Imperial, Granola Blonde Ale) beer; calling it highly inappropriate.

Zed stated that Shavasana, a highly important posture in yoga, was the ultimate act of conscious surrender and was also used in Yoganidra meditation. Yogis slipped into blissful neutrality in Shavasana. "

The logo for Jägermeister alcohol is not religiously offensive, a Swiss court has ruled.

The Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property had blocked efforts by the German spirit brand to expand its trademark to cosmetics and entertainment services. It claimed that the logo - a stag and a cross - could offend the country's Christians.

But Swiss federal judges ruled in favour of Jägermeister. The Federal Administrative Court ruled that the "intensive" use of the logo had "weakened its religious character" over time, making the chance of genuine offence unlikely, Swissinfo reported.

The logo refers to the legend of St Hubertus, the 'Apostle of the Ardennes', who is said to have converted to Christianity one Good Friday in the 8th century after witnessing a stag with a crucifix between its antlers.

Jägermeister can now use its logo on a wide-range of products in Switzerland including cosmetics, mobile phones, or telecommunications services.

The US perennial religious complainer Rajan Zed continuously rails against beers betaring references to Hinduism so it is interesting to read what the UK drinks censor makes of religious references in marketing.

The Portman Group represents the UK alcohol trade and has a self censorship role to censor drinks packaging that may inspire offence taking. It recently considered a complaint against the Australian Lucky Buddha beer brand.

Complaint (which was not made by a religious person but by a food and drinks consultancy, Zenith Global).

The shape of the bottle, the name and the Buddha symbol are all prominently displayed on the bottle. This may cause widespread offence to Buddhism followers who consider the Buddha as a sacred symbol to the religion. Displaying this on an alcoholic beverage is perceived as disrespectful to the faith.

The company explained that they were an Australian company who had sold their uniquely packaged beer for over 12 years on the international market. The company stated that they owned the Lucky Beer and Lucky Buddha brands and that the bottle and the logo were trademarks in many parts of the world. The company explained that the product was produced in China, was sold internationally in restaurants and supermarkets and had been sold for 10 years in UK supermarkets and restaurants. They argued that, if their product caused serious or widespread offence, they would have heard about it: they said they had never received an email or negative comment from any government or religious agency.

The company said the bottle showed Pu Tai, the Laughing Monk, not Buddha. The company explained that: Pu Tai's image was used in amulets and within restaurants; Pu Tai had become a deity of contentment and abundance; people rubbed Pu Tai's belly for wealth, good luck and prosperity; Pu Tai was the patron saint of restauranteurs, fortune-tellers and bartenders; when someone ate or drank too much, it was jokingly blamed on Pu Tai.

The Portman Group assessment: Complaint not upheld

The Panel first discussed whether the product name or packaging had caused serious or widespread offence. The Panel noted the product was sold in predominantly Buddhist countries including Thailand. The Panel noted that there were different named Buddhas and different images of Buddha. Despite the fact that the bottle included the brand name Lucky Buddha, the Panel considered that the bottle was in fact a representation of Pu Tai. The Panel also noted that this product had reached the complaints process following a compliance audit of the new Code and considered that it did not provide evidence that Buddhists were offended by the name or packaging.

The Panel accordingly did not uphold the complaint under Code rule 3.3.

A Facebook post by The Folly Bar in Boston, Lincolnshire, seen on 29th September 2019, featured text which stated Buy your own keg for you and your friends! Over 50 cold pints available at your fingertips -- Have it next to your table in the main room, our private room or outside in the beer garden! The ad featured an image of a man in a suit with a pint of beer leaning on a bar, under which sat a keg of beer.

A complainant challenged whether the ad was irresponsible because it encouraged the excessive consumption of alcohol.

The Folly Bar said that the keg was offered to groups of 10 or more people. As that offered up to five pints of beer to each person, they did not deem such consumption as excessive. They said the keg was predominantly purchased for birthdays and stag parties, and their staff monitored the consumption throughout. The Folly Bar said that their local Licensing Authority saw no issue with the ad, and that the keg was only available for pre-purchase, where consumers were required to complete an online form confirming how many people would be attending the event. They said they would amend the ad so that it stated For group bookings.

ASA Assessment: Complaint upheld

The CAP Code required marketing communications to contain nothing that was likely to lead people to adopt styles of drinking that were unwise, including excessive drinking. The ASA considered that consumers would understand from the text Buy your own keg for you and your friends! Over 50 pints available at your fingertips -- Have it next to your table in the main room, our private room or outside in the beer garden to mean that they and a group of friends could purchase the keg, which offered them 50 pints of beer, in various areas of the pub, and consequently implied it was readily available to any size group.

We acknowledged The Folly Bar's comment that the product was available to groups of 10 or more people. However, that was not accounted for in the ad, and we noted that the Office of National Statistics (ONS) defined binge drinking as having over eight units in a single session for men and over six units in a single session for women. We understood that the UK's Chief Medical Officer (CMO)'s Low Risk Drinking Guidelines advised both men and women not to drink regularly more than 14 units a week. It also advised consumers not to save up their 14 units, and that it was best to evenly spread them across the week. We understood that five pints of 5% beer such as the one on offer equated to 14 units, which went beyond the ONS's definition of binge drinking, and went against the CMO's advice to spread the units evenly across the week. In light of the above, we considered the ad was irresponsible because it encouraged the excessive consumption of alcohol and was therefore in breach of the Code.

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told The Folly Bar to ensure that their future advertising did not encourage excessive drinking.

Offsite Comment: Binging On Stupidity

11th January 2020. See article from reprobatepress.com

The advertising censors get worked up about the idea of someone having more than two pints of lager in a session.

An outdoor poster ad for an alcohol-free beer by BrewDog, seen in October 2019, included text which stated SOBER AS A MOTHERFU next to the image of a beer can with the text BREWDOG, PUNK AF and ALCOHOL FREE IPA written on it.

The ASA received 26 complaints:

1. All the complainants challenged whether the ad was likely to cause serious or widespread offence.

2. Sixteen complainants also challenged whether the ad was inappropriate for display in a medium where it could be seen by children. Response

ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld

1. & 2. Upheld

The ASA understood the ad was featured in billboard media on which no restrictions had been placed and that it was therefore viewable by a general audience, including children.

One complainant identified that the ad was placed immediately outside a primary school. We considered older children and adults who saw the ad would understand MOTHERFU was a truncated version of the expletive motherfucker. We acknowledged that the word was not displayed in its entirety; however, we considered the word motherfucker was clearly being alluded to, and motherfu would therefore be understood as a clear reference to that swear word. We considered that word was so likely to offend a general audience that such a reference should not appear in media where it was viewable by such an audience. We concluded the ad was likely to cause serious and widespread offence and that it was not appropriate for display in media where it could be seen by children.

The ad must not appear again in the form complained about. We told BrewDog plc to ensure they avoided causing serious or widespread offence by, for example, avoiding references to expletives in media targeted to a general audience which included children.

Perennial whinger Rajan Zed is urging Saint Petersburg based Mookhomor microbrewery to apologize and not use Hindu deity Lord Ganesh's image on its White Illusion IPA beer, calling it highly inappropriate.

Zed, the president of Universal Society of Hinduism, said that inappropriate usage of Hindu deities or concepts or symbols for commercial or other agenda was not okay as it hurt the devotees:

Lord Ganesh was highly revered in Hinduism and he was meant to be worshipped in temples or home shrines and not to be used in selling beer. Moreover, linking a deity with an alcoholic beverage was very disrespectful.

Thrill Seekers Pale Ale is brewed by Oakham Ales

The drinks censors of the Portman Group received a complaint:

I found the printing design (stylised brightly coloured spacemen floating in space against a black background to be targeted towards under 18s. In addition, the product name, Thrill Seeker Pale in bright orange also attracted underage consumers. The product name does not in anyway indicate this is an alcoholic product (Pale Ale). At the local Primary School Fete I witnessed children asking for this product, based purely on the can design and printing.

The Panel began by discussing the drawings of spacemen on the product and noted that the images were more adult in nature due to the graphic novel style of the design. The Panel then discussed the reference to children asking for the drink mentioned within the complaint but concluded that the company could not be held liable for the placement of the product within a school fete.

The Panel recognised that the spacemen illustrations could reasonably have appeal to both adults and children, but felt that they would be unlikely to have a particular appeal to under-18s so did not uphold the complaint.

The Panel then discussed the size and design of the can. Some panel members noted that the colour of the product reminded them of a Tango can, with its use of black and orange. The Panel concluded that, because of the size of the can (330ml) and the nature of the busy label, together with the type of illustrations, the packaging needed to work harder to convey the alcoholic nature of the contents, given the overall look and feel of the product. The Panel also expressed concern that the description used, New Word Pale, might not be widely understood by the average consumer to adequately convey that the can contained an alcoholic drink. The Panel thought that the full name including the word Ale (New World Pale Ale) would have given more clarity to the fact the product contained alcohol.

The Panel considered that, although it was a niche product, Thrill Seeker had been sold more widely and the company could not rely on the product being encountered only by beer drinkers. The Panel therefore upheld the complaint.

The Panel carefully considered the name Thrill Seeker and felt that it was inappropriate to have an alcoholic drink associated with thrill seeking. The Panel were concerned that the name implied risk or danger, referring to the Oxford English Dictionary's definition: a person who is keen to take part in exciting activities that involve physical risk.

The Panel recognised it was not possible to emulate the activities depicted on the can, and that this may well have been an unintended link to bravado but felt it was problematic, nonetheless. The Panel felt, on balance, that an association between drinking alcohol and thrill seeking was not acceptable. The Panel concluded that the name linked this product with bravado and upheld the complaint..

The company voluntarily agreed to remove Thrillseeker 330ml can from their product range.

UK drinks censors at the Portman Group have banned the packaging for a high strength cider named Suicyder produced by The Bearded Brewery.

The Bearded Brewery stated that it was a small, independent brewery with no intention of selling Suicyder to larger shops and suppliers. It highlighted the wider use of the word suicide in the branding of UK ciders, and noted that 244 beers, ciders and breweries also used the name internationally.

The Portman Group wrote in an adjudication:

The Panel discussed the product name 'Suicyder' and noted that this appeared in combination with a human skull, a noose and the wording 'juice from the noose'. The Panel considered that these three elements in combination were unequivocally creating a direct link to suicide.

The Panel discussed the product name and imagery in the context of wider societal awareness of mental health issues and considered that it was inappropriate to link alcohol to suicide. The Panel also considered that it was highly irresponsible to portray death by hanging in such an obvious manner, linking the name with its play on suicide, with a prominently placed noose alongside the other elements of the brand logo.

The Panel noted the company's point that multiple other producers reference suicide on alcohol products but sought to remind the company that it could only consider the product that was subject to complaint. In this instance, the Panel concluded that the product name 'Suicyder', when used in combination with imagery that depicted a hanging method of suicide, created a direct link between suicide, alcohol and dangerous behaviour and accordingly upheld the product 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, anti-social or illegal behaviour.

The company decided not to work with the Portman Group advisory service to amend their product in line with the Panel's ruling. Therefore, the Retailer Alert Bulletin below will be issued asking retailers not to order the product,

Doctors writing for British Medical Journal open have issues a strong criticism of Ofcom for not implementing a total ban on junk food advertising before the 9pm watershed. Ofcom had a more nuanced restriction only targeting pre-watershed adverts in programmes that appeal to children.

The doctors have no gone further and suggested that public health officials should take over Ofcom's TV censorship powers related to health.

In a new study published in the journal BMJ Open, the campaigners said that the industry has unduly influenced the regulations for TV advertising of unhealthy foods to children. Hence, they said that since Ofcom's duty is to protect commercial broadcast interests, they should not be responsible for a public health issue.

Instead, the doctors argue, that public health doctors should be the ones to decide on this matter, noting that they are more credible in making decisions regarding health. The researchers based their conclusions on a thematic analysis of responses from stakeholders to the public consultation on proposals, which became effective in 2009. The proposals aimed to emphasize rules on TV advertising of foods for children and even teens.

The doctors say that Ofcom may have prioritized commercial considerations over the health of the children. This fact has led to questioning of the conflict of interests of the regulatory body, if protecting broadcasting interests should be a reason for not allowing it to lead a public health regulation.

They added that Ofcom should have banned adverts of high-sugar, high-fat, and salty food before 9 p.m. when children are still watching programs like evening shows with their parents. Despite banning junk food advertisements during shows watched by children aged 4 to 15 years old, it did so after two years. It banned the adverts only after industry representatives told it to do so.

Perennial whinger Rajan Zed has  taken aim at a restaurant chain in Switzerland selling beef burgers and naming itself Holy Cow.

Zed said in a statement that cow, the seat of many deities, was sacred and had long been venerated in Hinduism.

It appeared to be a clear trivialization and ridiculing of a deeply held article of faith by Hindus world over. Hinduism should not be taken frivolously. Symbols of any faith, larger or smaller, should not be mishandled.

Zed urged Holy Cow! Gourmet Burger Company (HCGBC) to rethink about its name so that it was not unsettling to the Hindu community.

The drink censors of the Portman Group have upheld a recent complaint about Sweet Little Drinks (Sweet Little Glitter Bubble Gum Gin Liqueur, Sweet Little Glitter Bomb Love Heartz and Sweet Little Pink Vanilla Candy Floss Gin Liqueur). The group said:

The complaint was referred to us from the Advertising Standards Authority, with concern expressed that the Sweet Little Drinks appear to promote alcohol to children through the labels, artwork, product names, the colouring and bottle shapes, along with the brand name Sweet Little.

Reviewing the products in detail, the Panel felt:

• They may have a particular appeal to children and look like part of a children's confectionary range.
• They could be considered to look more similar in design to a bubble bath product than an alcoholic drink, if they were placed in a home environment.
• The face in the "Sweet Little" logo was the profile of young girl's face and conveyed the impression that the brand was not targeting an adult market.
• The direct link to the Love Hearts sweet brand together with the Love Heart style of font used and the dark pink colour of the drink, could lead the product to appeal to teenage girls.
• In the case of Sweet Little Glitter Bomb Bubble Gum Gin Liqueur and Glitter Bomb Love Heartz Gin Liqueur, despite containing positive alcoholic descriptors on the bottle, these were in a difficult to read font on a clear label on a glitter based product which may cause further consumer confusion as to the alcoholic nature of the product.

The Panel concluded that the cumulative impact of sweetie cues on each individual label, together with the Sweet Little brand name and logo, had unintentionally created a particular appeal to under 18s in each case. The Panel felt that Sweet Little Drinks need to make an effort to ensure that they do not cause any consumer confusion or appeal to children, by going to greater lengths when communicating their alcoholic nature. The Panel therefore accordingly upheld the complaint against the products.

New research has found that reality TV programmes like Love Island , TOWIE and Geordie Shore have exposed children and young people to smoking and alcohol, partly because they're available on catch-up outside the 9pm watershed.

The study by the University of Nottingham's Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies found that reality shows contain much higher levels of tobacco and alcohol content than other primetime TV programme genres. The in-depth analysis is published in the Journal of Public Health.

The research team previously reported high levels of tobacco imagery, including branding, in the 2017 series of Love Island. However, after complaints over the level of smoking in that series, an editorial decision was made to remove smoking content. The team's new study found no tobacco content in the 2018 series of Love Island.

For this new study, the researchers measured depictions of alcohol and tobacco products on Made in Chelsea, The Only Way is Essex, Geordie Shore and Love Island and the now discontinued Celebrity Big Brother ,all airing on UK channels for a total of 112 episodes between January and August 2018. They measured the number of one-minute intervals containing tobacco and/or alcohol imagery, including actual use, implied use, tobacco or alcohol-related materials, and product-specific branding, and estimated viewer exposure to the imagery on screen.

Audience viewing figures were combined with mid-year population estimates for 2017 to estimate overall and individual impressions -- separate incidents seen -- by age group for each of the coded episodes.

Alcohol content appeared in all 112 episodes and in 2,212 one-minute intervals, or 42% of all intervals studied. 18% of intervals included actual alcohol consumption, while 34% featured inferred consumption, predominantly characters holding alcoholic drinks. The greatest number of intervals including any alcohol content occurred in Love Island. Alcohol branding occurred in 1% of intervals and was most prevalent in Geordie Shore (51 intervals, 69% of episodes). Forty brands were identified, the most common being Smirnoff vodka (23 intervals, all but one of which occurred in Geordie Shore).

Tobacco content appeared in 20 episodes, in 110 or 2% of all intervals studied. Almost all (98%) of this content occurred in a single reality TV series, Celebrity Big Brother. This included actual tobacco use, inferred tobacco use, and tobacco paraphernalia. Tobacco branding was not present.

When all the data were combined with audience viewing figures and population estimates, the researchers estimate that the 112 episodes delivered 4.9 billion overall alcohol impressions to the UK population, including 580 million to children under the age of 16, as well as 214 million overall tobacco impressions, including 47 million to children under 16.

Lead researcher on the study, Alexander Barker, from the University's Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, said:

Starting to smoke or drink alcohol at a young age is a strong predictor of dependence and continued use in later life. Recent data shows that 44% of 11 to 15-year-olds in England have had an alcoholic drink, and 19% have tried smoking.

Given that seeing alcohol or tobacco imagery in the media promotes use among young people, our study therefore identifies reality television shows as a major potential driver of alcohol and tobacco consumption in young people in the UK. Tighter scheduling rules, such as restricting the amount of content and branding shown in these programmes, could prevent children and adolescents from being exposed to the tobacco and alcohol content.

Advertisers have launched a scathing attack on the government's plans to introduce further restrictions on junk food advertising, describing them as totally disproportionate and lacking in evidence.

In submissions to a government consultation, seen exclusively by City A.M. , industry bodies Isba and the Advertising Association (AA) said the proposals would harm advertisers and consumers but would fail to tackle the issue of childhood obesity.

The government has laid out plans to introduce a 9pm watershed on adverts for products high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS) on TV and online .

But the advertising groups have dismissed the policy options, which were previously rejected by media regulator Ofcom, as limited in nature and speculative in understanding.

The AA said current restrictions, which have been in place since 2008, have not prevented the rise of obesity, while children's exposure to HFSS adverts has also fallen sharply over the last decade.

In addition, Isba argued a TV watershed would have a significant and overwhelming impact on adult viewers, who make up the majority of audiences before 9pm.

They also pointed to an impact assessment, published alongside the consultation, which admitted the proposed restrictions would cut just 1.7 calories per day from children's diets.

In a new survey by Action on Sugar and Action on Salt based at Queen Mary University of London, in association with Children's Food Campaign , has found half (51%) of 526 food and drink products which use cartoon animations on pack to appeal to children are unnecessarily high in fat, saturated fat, sugar and/or salt. Manufacturers and retailers are accused of deliberately manipulating children and parents into purchasing dangerously unhealthy products, which can encourage pester power and excessive consumption.

Action on Sugar, Action on Salt, Children's Food Campaign and other organisations are calling for a complete ban of such marketing tactics on unhealthy products and for compulsory traffic light nutrition labelling, giving parents the chance to make healthier choices. If marketing on children's packaging were to follow the same advertising codes as set by the Committee for Advertising Practices for broadcast advertising, half would fail the eligibility criteria and therefore would not be allowed to be advertised to audiences under the age of 16. The campaigners call for this criteria to be extended to all forms of media, and to any programme watched by a child, as is currently being discussed in the Governments latest consultation on further advertising restrictions for products high in fat, salt and sugar

Alarmingly Tom Watson MP, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party agreed with teh call for censorship saying:

This research reveals the scale of irresponsibility in the industry. We're in the midst of a child obesity crisis and companies are using cartoons to advertise their junk foods to kids. It's unacceptable. It's time we changed the rules to get these cartoons off our packs.

Amsterdam based Friekens Brewery (Friekens Brouwerij) has apologized and removed Hindu deity Lord Ganesh's image, associated with its I.P.A beer, from its website, ins response to comments from the perennial whinger RajanZed.

Friekens Brewery wrote:

We would like to apologise for the use of the image of Ganesh on the label of our I.P.A. beer. We never meant to offend anyone. Our apology. All reference to Ganesh and his image have been removed from our website, and we will develop a new brand identity for our I.P.A.

Zed, who is President of Universal Society of Hinduism, thanked Friekens Brewery for understanding the concerns of Hindu community which thought image of Lord Ganesh on such a product was highly insensitive.

Rajan Zed suggested that companies should send their senior executives for training in religious and cultural sensitivity so that they had an understanding of the feelings of customers and communities when introducing new products or launching advertising campaigns.

A pair of entrepreneurs have been refused European trademark protection for their energy drink named Brexit after an EU body labelled it offensive.

Pawel Tumilowicz and Mariusz Majchrzak had attempted to register their product Brexit with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (Euipo) after they launched the drink in October 2016.

But they were denied on the grounds that EU citizens would be deeply offended by the appropriation of the word. Euipo claimed:

Citizens across the EU would be deeply offended if the expression at issue was registered as a European Union trade mark.

The pair then appealed before Euipo's Grand Board of Appea which rejected Euipo's judgement that the word was offensive. However it ruled that Brexit could not be trademarked because it was not distinctive enough under EU law and would be confusing.

The high-caffeine drink - which is described on its website as the only reasonable solution in this situation - is branded with the Union Jack and was only named after the contentious political event for a laugh, the Telegraph reports.

Recent complaints about three Firebox products - Unicorn Tears Gin Liqueur , Unicorn Tears Raspberry Gin Liqueur and Unicorn Tears Raspberry Gin Liqueur Miniature - have been upheld by the Independent Complaints Panel.

The complainant, a member of the public, said the images on the product appealed to children. The Panel noted the illustration of the unicorn had the appearance of a child's drawing and would not be out of place as a logo on a child's toy, in a colouring book, or on an item of children's clothing. When considering the overall impression conveyed by the product, including the unicorn logo and childlike typeface, the Panel considered that the product did have a particular appeal to under 18s, and accordingly upheld the complaint.

The panel also agreed that the words Gin Liqueur and the product's ABV could have been communicated in larger text on the front of the label given that the product packaging was unconventional and was likely to have a particular appeal to under 18s. It was the view of the Panel that the product had the potential to cause consumer confusion as to its alcoholic nature and the Panel therefore did not believe that this had been communicated with absolute clarity within the spirit of the Code, particularly when considered alongside the unicorn logo, childlike typeface, sparkly pink liquid colour and cosmetic-like appearance.

Firebox is now working with the Advisory Service to amend the label on these three products.

The Portman Group is a trade organisation for the UK alcoholic drinks industry. It acts as the industry's censor of drink marketing and packaging. It reports:

A recent complaint about Beavertown Brewery's product, Neck Oil , was not upheld by the Independent Complaints Panel

The complainant, a member of the public, expressed concern that the product uses bright colours and that the name Neck Oil implies that the product is to be consumed in one i.e. necked. Furthermore, the complainant said that the colours used on the packaging are clearly aimed at the younger market and encourage irresponsible consumption .

The Panel firstly considered whether the product has a particular appeal to under 18s. The Panel discussed the colour palette and illustrations on the can design and noted that muted, instead of contrasting, colours had been used and that the artwork was sophisticated, and adult in nature. The Panel concluded that there was no element of the can that could have a particular appeal to under 18s and accordingly did not uphold the complaint with regards to under 18s.

The Panel considered the company's submission and acknowledged that the phrase neck oil was widely recognised as colloquial term for beer both within and outside the industry. The Panel noted that neck was used as a noun and did not consider that its use in this way suggested a down in one style of consumption. The Panel concluded that there were no visual or text cues to encourage irresponsible or down in one consumption and accordingly did not uphold the complaint with regard to encouraging consumption.

Perennial whinger Rajan Zed is urging the Amsterdam micro-brewer Walhalla to withdraw its Shakti double India pale ale, calling it highly inappropriate.

He said that inappropriate usage of Hindu deities or concepts or symbols for commercial or other agenda was not okay as it hurt hindu devotees.

Shakti was highly venerated in Hinduism since Vedic times and was meant to be worshipped in temples or home shrines and not to be used in selling beer. Zed stated that it was deeply trivializing of immensely revered Goddess to be portrayed on a beer label like this,

A chef has criticised Instagram after it decided that a photograph she posted of two pigs' trotters and a pair of ears needed to be protected from 'sensitive' readers.

Olia Hercules, a writer and chef who regularly appears on Saturday Kitchen and Sunday Brunch , shared the photo alongside a caption in which she praised the quality and affordability of the ears and trotters before asking why the cuts had fallen out of favour with people in the UK.

However Hercules later discovered that the image had been censored by the photo-sharing app with a warning that read: Sensitive content. This photo contains sensitive content which some people may find offensive or disturbing.

Hercules hit back at the decision on Twitter, condemning Instagram and the general public for becoming detached from reality.

Perennial hindu whinger Rajan Zed is urging urging Salem (Virginia) based Olde Salem Brewing Company to apologize and withdraw its Hanuman (Spanish Milk Stout) beer; calling it highly inappropriate. Zed claimed that inappropriate usage of Hindu deities or concepts or symbols for commercial or other agenda was not okay as it hurt the devotees.

Zed, who is president of Universal Society of Hinduism, indicated that Lord Hanuman was highly revered in Hinduism and was meant to be worshipped in temples or home shrines and not to be used in selling beer for mercantile intent. Moreover, linking Lord Hanuman with an alcoholic beverage was very disrespectful.

Update: Apologies

3rd March 2019. See article from rajanzed.com

Brewery owner Sean Turk, in a Company statement emailed today to Rajan Zed, wrote:

When naming our Spanish milk stout Hanuman we were unaware of the Hindu deity referenced by Rajan Zed. This name was purely a musical reference and had no other intent. We are reviewing options to address the situation206We apologize if this inadvertent association has offended anyone in anyway.

A complaint about 3 Pugs Gin produced by Silverback Distillers has been upheld by the drinks censors of the Portman Group.

The complainant, a member of the public, believed that the product was aimed at an under-18's audience. The complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h), which states that a drink, its packaging and any promotional material should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s.

The Panel considered the overall packaging of the product. They concluded that the use of the descriptor pugalicious, description of the bubblegum flavour on the labelling and the fact that the product was a pink coloured gin were not in themselves problematic. However, the Panel felt that when these factors were considered alongside the depiction of the dogs as cartoon pugs in a hot air balloon overlooking a Willy Wonka-like sweet land across a pink liquid, then it was likely to have a particular appeal to under-18s.

A Portman Group spokesperson commented: This decision once again highlights that producers should steer clear of references and imagery related to childhood and childhood memories. They should think carefully about what is conveyed by the overall impression of the product and speak to our advisory service if in any doubt.

Perennial whinger Rajan Zed writes:

Upset Hindus are urging Congleton (Cheshire, England) based microbrewery Cheshire Brewhouse to apologize and re-name and re-label its two Govinda beers carrying sacred Hindu symbol Om; calling it highly inappropriate.

Rajan Zed said that inappropriate usage of Hindu deities or concepts or symbols for commercial or other agenda was not okay as it hurt the devotees. Moreover, linking Lord Krishna with an alcoholic beverage was very disrespectful.

In Hinduism, Om, the mystical syllable containing the universe, is used to introduce and conclude religious work.

Single bottle of these objectionable beers, Govinda Organic Plumage Archer (ABV 6.4%) and Govinda 'Chevallier' Edition (ABV 6.8%), both Heritage India Pale Ales, is priced at £5 each. This awards-winning artisan craft brewery, established in 2012, whose tagline is Craft Beer From Cheshire That's Far From Plain; besides a taproom, also sells beer online. It claims to use animal-free process and Shane Swindells is the Head Brewer.

Update: The inevitable apology

7th January 2019. See  article from rajanzed.com

Cheshire Brewhouse has inevitably apologized and agreed to remove the Hindu symbol Om from its beer labels after Hindus protested, claiming it to be highly inappropriate.

Shane Swindells, Head Brewer and Owner of The Cheshire Brewhouse, in an email to Hindu whinger Rajan Zed who initiated the protest, wrote:

I now understand the Offence caused by Using the OM on our labels, & will therefore remove this from our beer labels, on all future runs. Please accept my humble apology, not offence was ever intended.

A complaint about HappyDown sparkling cocktails has been upheld by the Independent Complaints Panel for failing to clearly communicate their alcoholic content.

The complainant, a member of the public, believed that the cartoon imagery used on the cans could appeal to children. The Panel did not believe that it did appeal to children but did raise concerns that the cues describing it as alcoholic were not immediately obvious. The Panel concluded that the alcoholic nature of the drink was not clearly communicated and accordingly found the product in breach of Code rule 3.1.

HappyDown's producer, Tipple Brands Limited, will work with the Advisory Service to address the issues raised.

John Timothy, Secretary to the Independent Complaints Panel, commented, Alcoholic content needs to be conveyed clearly. Producers need to ask themselves if there is any other messaging or design on their product which could undermine this clarity.

Index on Censorship is standing with our free speech friends at Flying Dog Brewery who've just been told by the UK drinks censor that they should stop selling one of the beers because the artwork by award-winning artist Ralph Steadman might encourage immoderate drinking.

Flying Dog was told that the Portman Group deemed the artwork for its Easy IPA Session India Pale Ale could spur people to drink irresponsibly.

indexoncensorship commented:

We think this is nonsense and are pleased Flying Dog plans to ignore this ruling.

The press release sent by Flying Dog Brewery is below:

Flying Dog Brewery Will Not Comply with Regulatory Group's Ruling on Easy IPA

Flying Dog Brewery has been defending free speech and creative expression in the United States for more than 25 years. Now, it's taking a stand in the United Kingdom.

In May 2018, the Portman Group, a third-party organization that evaluates alcohol-related marketing, allegedly received a single complaint from a person who thought that Flying Dog's Easy IPA Session India Pale Ale could be mistaken for a soft drink.

After months of deliberation, the Portman Group issued a final ruling, claiming that the packaging artwork ...directly or indirectly encourages illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption, such as binge drinking, drunkenness or drunk-driving. It will be issuing a Retailer Alert Bulletin on 15 October, which will ask retailers not to place orders for the beer.

Notwithstanding the Portman Group's ruling, Flying Dog has decided to continue to distribute Easy IPA in the United Kingdom.

Jim Caruso, Flying Dog CEO said:

Not surprisingly, the alleged complaint -- by a sole individual -- that a product labeled 'Easy IPA Session India Pale Ale' might be mistaken for a soft drink was, we believe, correctly dismissed by the Portman Group,  That should have been the end of it. However, the Portman Group then went on to ban the creative and carefree Easy IPA label art by the internationally-renowned UK artist Ralph Steadman.

Steadman has illustrated all of Flying Dog's labels since 1995. In the ruling, the Portman Group claims that the artwork of this low-ABV beer could be seen as encouraging drunkenness.

Without question, over-consumption, binge drinking and drunk-driving are serious health and public safety issues, and Flying Dog has always advocated for moderation and responsible social drinking, Caruso said. At the same time, there is no evidence to suggest that the whimsical Ralph Steadman art on the Easy IPA label causes any of those problems. We believe that British adults can think for themselves and Flying Dog, an independent U.S. craft brewer, will not honor the Portman Group's request to discontinue shipping Easy IPA to the UK.

Update: The drink censor's case

16th October 2018. See article from portmangroup.org.uk

The drinks censors of the Portman Group tried to justify their ban in their summary release:

A complaint about Easy IPA has been upheld by the Independent Complaints Panel.

The complainant, a member of the public, believed that the drink, which is produced by Flying Dog Brewery, appealed to under 18s. While the Panel concluded that the product did not have direct appeal to under-18s, the Panel investigated whether the product packaging encouraged immoderate consumption.

The Panel noted that the front of the can contained the terms Easy IPA, and Session IPA, which is a commonly used descriptor in the craft beer category. However, they also noted that the original meaning of the phrase was a prolonged drinking session. Although the Panel did not consider these terms to be problematic if used in the right context, when used alongside an image of an inebriated looking creature balancing on one leg presented an indication of drunkenness. Accordingly, Panel upheld the decision.

John Timothy, Secretary to the Independent Complaints Panel, commented: We are disappointed that Flying Dog Brewery do not appear to respect the decision or the process. Producers need to be extremely sensitive about the overall impact of their labelling. Use of a phrase that could have been innocuous on its own has taken on a different meaning when considered alongside a drunken looking character.

People's medical records will be combined with social and smartphone surveillance to predict who will pick up bad habits and stop them getting ill, under radical government proposals.

Matt Hancock, the health secretary, is planning a system of predictive prevention, in which algorithms will trawl data on individuals to send targeted health nags to those flagged as having propensities to health problems, such as taking up smoking or becoming obese.

The creepy plans have already attracted privacy concerns among doctors and campaigners, who say that the project risks backfiring by scaring people or being seen to be abusing public trust in NHS handling of sensitive information.

Peter Rabbit is a 2018 UK / Australia / USA family animation comedy by Will Gluck.
Starring Daisy Ridley, Margot Robbie and Elizabeth Debicki.

Feature adaptation of Beatrix Potter's classic tale of a rebellious rabbit trying to sneak into a farmer's vegetable garden.

Filmmakers behind a new adaptation of Beatrix Potter's Peter Rabbit have been forced to apologise after facing calls for it to be banned from cinemas over a scene in which the protagonist and his furry friends deliberately pelt an allergic man with blackberries.

Allergy UK claimed the film mocks allergy sufferers and trivialises a life-threatening condition. Carla Jones, the charity's chief executive, said:

Anaphylaxis can and does kill. To include a scene in a children's film that includes a serious allergic reaction and not to do it responsibly is unacceptable. Mocking allergic disease shows a complete lack of understanding of the seriousness of allergy and trivialises the challenges faced by those with this condition. We will be communicating with the production company about the film's withdrawal.

Sony Pictures on Sunday night admitted it should not have made light of Mr McGregor being allergic to blackberries and said it regretted not being more aware and sensitive of the issue.

Peter Rabbit will be show in cinemas in March. It is PG rated for mild threat, comic violence.

Update: Peter Rabbit falls to the outrage mob

16th February 2018. See article from spiked-online.com by Candice Holdsworthwriter

The zealotry of today's censors knows no bounds.

The perpetually outraged have found their latest target. This time, they have decided that a film adaptation of Beatrix Potter's Peter Rabbit is beyond the pale.

See article from spiked-online.com

UK food censors are whingeing about people's 'Meal Deals' because they claim the promotion will diminish the effectiveness of the government's new nanny tax on sugary drinks.

Carol Williams, Principal Lecturer: Health Promotion and Public Health, University of Brighton explains:

From April, the UK government's sugar tax will make 500ml bottles of high-sugar drinks cost an extra 14p, and two litre bottles an extra 58p. The higher price is intended to steer people towards choosing lower-sugar drinks. But promotions, such as meal deals, could make the sugar tax meaningless by negating the price difference.

The drinks industry says the size and scale of the sugar-tax bill is too much for them to absorb, so they will pass the cost on to retailers. Retailers are likely to do the same and pass the cost onto consumers. This is what Public Health England intended; high-sugar drinks should cost more to make them less attractive to buy. But the tax may have an unintended consequence on drinks purchased in meal deals, which typically include a sandwich, a snack and a drink.

Our research with students (aged 16-19 and 19-24) found that they decided what to buy in a meal deal based on price and getting a bargain. Students tend to choose the most expensive drink in order to maximise the cost benefit of the deal, even though they are often aware of the health aspects.  When the sugar tax comes into force and full-sugar drinks cost more, this may create a perverse incentive because choosing the more expensive drink will increase the relative discount/cost effectiveness achieved by buying a meal deal.

Now it is over to retailers and other drinks outlets to act in the spirit of the sugar tax by passing the higher price on to consumers and keeping a price difference between high- and low-sugar drinks. For meal deals, there are three options: add the sugar tax to the price of the meal deal when a full-sugar drink is chosen, take sugary drinks that are taxed out of the meal deal, or do nothing and risk encouraging people to choose the full-sugar version, undermining everything PHE is trying to achieve.