Nanny Censors

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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