Renton also points out the launch could be risky from a PR angle. Highly alcoholic caffeinated drinks have caused controversy in the past. Take US brand Four Loko. Before hitting the UK last year, it had faced criticism in the States and changed its recipe in 2010. Dragon Soop has similarly come under fire in Scotland for alleged links to antisocial behaviour. The name, colours and even flavours, albeit likely fake, seem to be designed to be particularly eye catching to teenagers,” the complainant said.

I’ll write diary updates here but chat it in the comments, I imagine I’ll answer more and more interesting questions more candidly as time goes on. Concerns have been raised over Dragon Soop – a potent mix of alcohol and caffeine being downed by Scots teens – which can create “wired, wide-awake drunks”. The panel found that the use of a dragon on all product artwork, along with the claw marks, did not look aggressive and did not create an association with aggressive behaviour. The company drew comparison with a previous case, Carlsberg Special Brew 9% 500ml can, highlighting that whilst the Panel had upheld a complaint against the 500ml product, which contained 4.5 units of alcohol per can, the 440ml can, which contains 4 units, is still for sale in supermarkets. The company stated that NIADA seemed to make the general case that high strength alcohol in and of itself caused anti-social behaviour. However, the company stated that if this was true, a well-known vodka brand with a 37.5% ABV would be far more likely to cause excess drinking and anti-social behaviour than Dragon Soop at 7.5% ABV.

Both the NIADA and a member of the public raised a concern around reports of the product being mistaken for an energy drink. It shows caffeinated booze is “a very indie-driven market – you’re thinking Costcutter, Spar, market towns and impulse sales on a Friday night for younger guys that will have it at a mate’s or on the go,” says HRA Global MD Hamish Renton. The Panel then considered the company’s claim that snakes were not aggressive animals. The Panel noted that the company had provided images of various brands which featured snakes and agreed that snakes were not always aggressive, but that the snake depicted on Dragon Soop Venom was in a clear striking pose with fangs bared. The Panel therefore remained of the view, that in this particular context, the snake depicted was aggressive. The Panel also considered that in comparison to other products from the Dragon Soop range, which the Panel had previously considered and not upheld under any section of the Code, Dragon Soop Venom had a different appearance. The Panel considered that, as pointed out by the company, the other products in the Dragon Soop range also included the flavour variant multiple times around the top of the can. However, the Panel considered that this presentation of the word ‘venom’, alongside the aggressive snake with its fangs bared, created an association with bravado.

Inactive - Do very little exercise, going for the occasional walk (moderate pace, low intensity). Spend majority of leisure time doing activities such as watching TV, playing computer games, on the internet, reading, cooking, driving, general household chores. I got takeaway came home making moe good food good food just food but typos must stay a frozen pizza and I bought three more cans fromtnbebat from the bar and I’m just finishing my eighth. Heavy - Active for much of the day, walking non-stop and carrying objects. Typical jobs: hospital/ward nurse, waitressing in a busy restaurant, cleaner, porter, labourer/construction worker, gardener, farm worker. Leisure Activity LevelUnder the ‘Health effects concerns’ paragraph of the complaint, the company highlighted that NIADA had stated that “so many young people are consuming this drink usually in large quantities.” The company stated that this claim was based on shaky evidence of one small focus group made up of young, often under-age, substance and alcohol abusers. The company stated that there was no proof that Dragon Soop was consumed in greater excess than any other alcoholic drink. Additionally, the company stated that young people who did consume alcohol in great excess might reasonably be supposed to consume any popular alcoholic drink in large quantities. Moderately active - Do light to moderate intensity exercise 3-4 times a week. E.g. going to the gym / swimming / cycling / horse riding / dance classes / playing golf. Daily dog walking (brisk pace, twice a day). The Panel sought to remind the producer that existing drink names in the on-trade did not constitute compliance with the Portman Group’s Code of Practice, as had most recently been demonstrated in the case against Porn Star Martini. The Panel also noted that its considerations could only be in relation to Dragon Soop Venom, as the product subject to complaint, and that it was outside of the Portman Group’s regulatory remit to regulate wholly retailer-led marketing activities. In summary of the above, the Panel concluded that Dragon Soop Venom did breach Code rule 3.2(b), but did not breach Code rules 3.1, 3.2(a), 3.2(f), 3.2(h),3.2(j) or any other part of the Code. Action by company: Commenting on the decision, the chair of the ICP, Nicola Williams, said: “When alcohol is combined with supplements such as caffeine it is incumbent on producers to ensure that consumers understand what they are drinking and there isn’t a suggestion that these additions are enhancements.

In a submission by Dragon Soop, the company stated that the brand was conceived and developed with due regard to every aspect of the Portman Group Code of Practice.WKD head of brand Alison Gray believes WKD X “has a role to play everywhere” in retail, beyond c-stores The company concluded by stating that it was important as a self-regulatory body that the Portman Group continued to be seen by all its members as demonstrably fair and transparent. The company noted that the Portman Group was obliged to proceed against a member company or Code Signatory every time a company was accused of a breach of the rules; regardless of who had made the complaint or however credible the complaint was. The company also explained that the Portman Group proceeded with breach procedure, even if the company had previously been cleared of breaching those rules. The company stated that the Panel’s decisions had far reaching consequences, which could potentially lead to a Retailer Alert Bulletin which resulted in the removal of a brand from all retail shelves.