WAR OF WORDS

How Products Are Policed

Through its "independent complaints panel" the Portman Group tries to
ensure alcoholic drinks are marketed responsibly. If a complaint about a
product is upheld, the panel asks the manufacturer to make changes and puts
out an alert asking retailers not to restock it. But does the panel work?
Here are two examples of products that have fallen foul of the code.

Bad Jelly, Haggards Brewery Greater Manchester police complained about this
vodka-based product, claiming it appeared to be aimed at young or under-age
drinkers and it was not immediately evident that it contained alcohol.

The panel said the product would be more likely to appeal to under-18s than
adults. It took issue with the words "bad" and "jelly" because they were
likely to appeal to under-age drinkers. It also said the product's texture
and colour, visible through the clear container, were likely to attract
younger people.

The panel's report concludes that the company intended to "comply with the
code". But when the Guardian spoke to the makers of Bad Jelly last week,
they admitted that the label still read "Bad Jelly Company Limited". And
the product was still visible through the bottle, although the label had
been increased in size slightly to obscure it.

The company's director, Tim Haggard, said it had sold "thousands and
thousands" of the product, which was aimed at 18- to 25-year-olds.
Customers included big national companies.

Sorted, Halewood International A member of the public complained that the
drink's name, coupled with an image of a target on its label, suggested
violent behaviour and had associations with drug culture. The panel agreed
with the first point but not the second. It thought it "might" appeal to
the under-18s.

Again its report said the company intended to comply with the code. The
company has changed the name - to Vodka Sorted. It has removed the
offending target picture. It denies that the drink was aimed at under-18s
or that its name was intended as a drugs culture reference.