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.

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.