Dragon Soop complaint quashed

A complaint made against Corinthian Brands-owned Dragon Soop has not been upheld by the Independent Complaints Panel (ICP).

The complaint was made by the Northern Ireland Alcohol and Drugs Alliance (NIADA) against 11 Dragon Soop products.

Both the NIADA and a member of the public raised a concern around reports of the product being mistaken for an energy drink.

The complaint read: “As an alliance, we have concerns around the drink Dragon Soop and those similar. We at NIADA believe that this drink breaches numerous rules stated in the code of conduct including the alcoholic content, strength, appeal to under 18s, popularity, anti-social behaviour and sexual success.”

The 11 Dragon Soop products that were of concern were: Dark Fruit Punch, Dragon Soop Blue Raspberry, Dragon Soop Mango Pink Lemonade, Dragon Soop Passion Fruit & Orange, Dragon Soop Peach & Raspberry, Dragon Soop Red Kola, Dragon Soop Rhubarb & Custard, Dragon Soop Sour Apple, Dragon Soop Tropical Fruit Punch, Dragon Soop Apple & Blackcurrant and Dragon Soop Wicked Watermelon.

NIADA raised concerns about the aforementioned products citing the following Code rules: the alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated with absolute – 3.1; there must be no undue emphasis on the drink’s higher alcoholic strength, or intoxicating effect – 3.2(a); a drink should not suggest any association with bravado, violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour; a drink should not encourage irresponsible or immoderate consumption – 3.2(b).

The concerns also considered potential breaches of the Code rules that indicate a drink should not have a particular appeal to under-18s – 3.2(h), and must not suggest any link with therapeutic qualities, mood altering or enhanced mental or physical capabilities 3.2(h).

Further complaint

An additional complaint was also made against Dragon Soop Wicked Watermelon by a member of the public after reading a newspaper report that said a woman had put the drink in her child’s lunchbox thinking it was an energy drink.

“The name, colours and even flavours, albeit likely fake, seem to be designed to be particularly eye catching to teenagers,” the complainant said.

The NIADA added: “Our focus groups highlighted teenagers as young as 14 are drinking Dragon Soop, and reported suffering from heart palpitation and anxiety the next day. Marketing of the Dragon Soop brand is clearly aimed at young people through official merchandise on their website, where they sell a collection of t-shirts, hoodies and run competitions.”

The ICP considered each of the rules in relation to the products.

In terms of the rules, they noted that each product repeated the 7.5% ABV on its front, base and back, and all the products had a ‘drink responsibly’ message and a link to the Drinkaware website.

It also noted that the communication of the products’ alcoholic strength had been conveyed in a factual and proportionate way, and there was nothing on the cans that placed undue emphasis on the products’ higher alcoholic strength or intoxicating effect.

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.

None of the illustrations on the products were childlike and would be unlikely to have a particular appeal to under-18s.

For Dragon Soop Wicked Watermelon it was noted that the news article referenced by the member of the public involved a 22-year-old man, as opposed to an individual under-18, whose lunchbox had been packed by his mother and that she had packed a can of Dragon Soop Wicked Watermelon in it.

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.

The company explained that in 2015, Dragon Soop was fully investigated by the Independent Complaints Panel (Panel) under Code rules 3.2(f) and 3.2(h), which it found to not be in breach. The company highlighted that it had received a letter from the chair of the Panel that there had not been any breach of the Code and that the decision was final.

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.

“It is important that references on packaging are factual and the Panel were satisfied that these Dragon Soop products adhered to the Code.”

The Portman Group upgraded its labelling guide in May this year.