Alcohol Justice

Doghouse: Spirits Producers Force 20/20 to Promote Alcohol Industry Spin

By Alcohol Justice on May 13, 2013 11:25 AM | No TrackBacks

*Originally posted on AlcoholJustice.com on October 22, 2012

On September 21, ABC news show 20/20 aired an investigation program called Intoxication Nation, which pointed out the extreme lengths that some youth in America are taking in order to binge drink, as well as some of the dangerous consequences associated with the underage drinking epidemic in the U.S. Apparently, the Distilled Spirits Council of the US (DISCUS) was unhappy with the program, and didn't think that the DISCUS take on youth drinking - that spirits producers are wholly against underage drinking, are spending a great deal of money to prevent it, and that the alcohol industry is responsible for any decline in youth drinking - was adequately showcased by 20/20. In response, DISCUS immediately pressured 20/20 producers to use the show's airtime to articulate the spirits producers' agenda.*

In the end, ABC gave in to the pressures of the spirits producers and issued a completely unnecessary "correction;" one in which 20/20 anchor Chris Cuomo stated that "the industry is totally opposed to underage drinking" and "spends millions each year fighting the problem." Cuomo went on to directly mention rates of youth drinking for which DISCUS and other alcohol industry members are taking credit, linking the industry's fuzzy calculations, ineffective information programs, and public relations campaigns to any positive findings in youth drinking behaviors.

Just another example of money, power, and influence buying the alcohol industry exactly what it wants - at the demise of public interest journalism and the public's health and safety.

*DISCUS member companies: Bacardi, Beam Global, Brown-Forman, Campari, Constellation Brands, Diageo, Florida Caribbean Distillers, Luxco, Moet Hennessy, Patron Spirits, Pernod Ricard, Remy Cointreau, Sidney Frank Importing, Suntory International

Alcohol Justice is the Industry Watchdog, you can find their full website and blog here.

Alcohol Problems on Pine Ridge: Just How Much Does A-B InBev "Care"?

By Alcohol Justice on August 9, 2012 2:07 PM | No TrackBacks

February 2012, the Oglala Sioux Tribe filed a lawsuit against Anheuser-Busch InBev (ABI), SABMiller, Molson Coors, MillerCoors LLC, and Pabst, alleging that they knowingly contributed to devastating alcohol-related problems on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. On the reservation, as many as two-thirds of adults may be alcoholics, and one of out four children is born with fetal alcohol syndrome. The Oglala Sioux Tribe has prohibited alcohol on the reservation for the last 180 years. Yet the alcohol continues to get funneled right into the hands--and lives--of tribal members, and ABI is giving a standard denial for playing any role in the resulting harm.

Just outside the reservation's borders, the tiny town of Whiteclay, Nebraska (pop. 10) sells more than 4 million cans of beer and malt liquor annually. The town seems to exist solely to sell alcohol to Pine Ridge residents. Alcohol (including ABI brands such as Hurricane malt liquor and Budweiser) is either smuggled into the reservation, or simply consumed on the streets of Whiteclay. When New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff visited recently, he witnessed "men and women staggering on the street, or passed out, whispers of girls traded for alcohol."

Kristoff's visit to Pine Ridge and Whiteclay, combined with his knowledge of the industry's tactics, led him to declare that "Pine Ridge's alcohol problem is matched only by Anheuser-Busch's greed problem. Brewers market beers with bucolic country scenes, but the image I now associate with Budweiser is of a child with fetal alcohol syndrome." He declared a personal boycott on A-B InBev's beers and asked other Americans to do the same.

Despite refusing the comment for months while Kristoff was writing his column, ABI hit back immediately after it was published with a pat letter to the editor in which they claimed to "care about the tragic problems of tribal members on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and [be] greatly concerned about alcohol abuse there and anywhere." Not surprisingly, ABI denied any responsibility for the gross overabundance and availability of its products in Whiteclay and the nearby reservation.

If they really cared about the harm their products cause the Sioux Oglala tribe, ABI--and the other alcohol producers--would stop selling their products in Whiteclay. Instead, per usual, ABI is raking in the profits while denying any responsibility for the repercussions.

Alcohol Justice is the Industry Watchdog, you can find their full website and blog here.

Non-Fat, No-Whip, Extra-Cold Venti Chardonnay To Go

By Alcohol Justice on January 27, 2012 12:23 PM | No TrackBacks

First it took over every street corner in America; now it's trying to corner the market on alcoholic beverages. That's right: Starbucks is bringing alcohol to more of your neighborhood cafes.

It all started in 2009, when Starbucks started selling wine in some Washington and Oregon cafes. Apparently, the little experiment hit its profit targets. The mega-chain now plans to expand alcohol sales to at least a dozen more outlets in Southern California, Chicago and Atlanta. Now, the public can not only count on Starbucks to buzz them up in the morning with a shot(s) of caffeine, but to slow them back down at night with alcohol. How would you like your Merlot - in a grande (16 oz) or a venti (20 oz) cup? Maybe a trenta (31 oz), without ice?

While adding alcohol to the menu may add up to lots more cash register ka-chings for Starbucks, it also adds up to more potential for alcohol-related harm in the more than 12,000 US neighborhoods that Starbucks inhabits. It will ratchet up the "alcohol-is-everywhere" social norms for high school and college students who study and hang out in its cafes.

If Starbucks is really dedicated to supporting communities around the world (as it says on its own website), it should start by reviewing the cost and kinds of alcohol-related harm going on in these communities. Then it should commit to not increasing that harm by increasing access to alcohol, especially for young people.

*Image courtesy of Global Grind

Alcohol Justice is the Industry Watchdog, and you can find their official blog here.

Diageo-Facebook Deal will Blanket Underage Youth with Alcohol Promotion

By Alcohol Justice on October 14, 2011 12:05 PM | No TrackBacks

The ties between Big Alcohol and social media just keep growing stronger. In September, the world's largest alcohol company, Diageo, and the world's largest social network, Facebook, entered into a landmark partnership intended to bring unprecedented amounts of alcohol advertising to Facebook users. This new youth-oriented alcohol marketing partnership is the first of its kind in social networking history.

Facebook users include at least 250 million people under the age of 21, the legal drinking age in the United States. And advertising alcohol on Facebook works - as a result of its Facebook activity, Diageo reports its brands in the US have enjoyed a 20% increase in sales. We can't help but wonder what age demographic those sales are coming from, especially since a recent study found that underage drinkers in the U.S. identified Smirnoff and Captain Morgan (top Diageo brands) as two of their favorite alcohol brands to drink. Study results also suggested that marketing influences choice of beverage for adolescents.

Such alarming statistics beg the question: is anyone regulating this harmful advertising? The short answer is: not so much. The industry wants us to believe that it can 'self-regulate' its own marketing and advertising practices. But as we found in our 2008 report on the ineffectiveness of self-regulation of spirits advertising, lack of oversight of alcohol advertising in the U.S. is left to, and benefits, the industry. Meanwhile, exposure to alcohol advertising contributes to higher levels of risky drinking behaviors in youth: earlier initiation of drinking and higher consumption among underage youth who drink. Youth in markets with greater alcohol advertising expenditures drink more; and each additional dollar spent on alcohol advertising raises the number of drinks consumed by three percent. (See our Fact Sheet on Alcohol Marketing and Youth for citations and more research on this issue.)

So there's a double-whammy: Diageo is not only spending tens of millions to reach young people where they spend a great deal of their time, but also simultaneously trying to present itself as responsible through the promotion of a set of voluntary alcohol advertising'guidelines.' The newest addendum to industry's regulatory charade was released by the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS) - a D.C. based front group for the biggest of Big Alcohol spirits corporations, and of which Diageo is a primary funder. It is no coincidence that the DISCUS self-regulation announcement coincided precisely with the Facebook partnership announcement, as a smoke screen to deflect the criticism that inevitably arose with news of the deal.

The social media segment of DISCUS's already-ineffective self-regulations stakes the alcohol industry's claim to branded alcohol promotion on websites, social networking sites, blogs, mobile communications, and in applications. While they advise alcohol marketers to restrict such messages to venues where at least 71.6 percent of the user audience is the legal drinking age or older, age-restricting mechanisms to ensure compliance are essentially ineffective.

Two years ago, Alcohol Justice director of research, Sarah Mart, co-authored the article Alcohol Promotion on Facebook which exposed the excessive amounts of alcohol marketing, and lack of regulation, on Facebook. Mart says, "We saw this train wreck coming two years ago. Now it's here; Big Alcohol is spending more than ever before to exploit users, particularly young people, by digitally befriending them and seamlessly integrating alcohol brands into their online lives. Meanwhile, its industry front group keeps spinning the same old self-regulation rhetoric for members to hide behind."

Its high time that regulators step up, and stop Big Alcohol's continued attempts to buy its way into the lives of young people--attempts that have harmful, even deadly, consequences.

Heineken, Google, and a Hundred Million Minors

By Alcohol Justice on August 26, 2011 11:00 AM | No TrackBacks

Heineken, the world's third-largest brewing company, has signed a landmark partnership with Google aimed at taking over our computer screens - and marketing to our children. The advertising deal is estimated to reach at least 103 million minors under the age of 18 per month, plus several million more underage youth between the ages of 18 and 20 worldwide. Heineken ads will be concentrated on Google's YouTube and will involve homepage takeovers and pre-roll ad slots. YouTube receives about 490 million visitors per month, of which an estimated 21% are under age 18. Other alcohol advertisers such as Anheuser-Busch InBev (Bud Light) have previously bought standard YouTube pre-roll ad space, but no alcohol company has ever entered into such an extensive deal that will reach so many young people.

Not only will this deal directly reach the world's underage drinking population, it flouts several national self-regulation codes which prohibit alcohol advertising in media channels where the audience is likely to consist of 20% or more minors. Greater exposure to alcohol marketing has been clearly linked to earlier initiation of drinking, increased underage alcohol consumption and more alcohol-related harm. YouTube and other major social media platforms offer alcohol marketers previously undreamed-of access to the youth market - an opportunity that companies like Heineken have just begun to exploit.

Gasolina "Party in a Pouch" Adds New Fuel to the Booze Fire Targeting Urban Kids

By Alcohol Justice on July 14, 2011 11:31 AM | No TrackBacks

Following in the footsteps of brands like Four Loko and Blast who use colorful, youth-oriented packaging and pop-culture icons to market their products to an underage, urban demographic, newcomer Gasolina Urban Blends has upped the ante with its "Party in a Pouch" line: Brightly colored, 200-ml aluminum pouches complete with little straws inside to suck up the vodka, tequila, and rum, plus some fruit juice.

These pouches look remarkably similar to Capri Sun. Yes, the same packaging you see at youth soccer games across the country has now been repurposed for easy-access, take-anywhere alcohol.

We can't help but wonder how the manufacturer, Pan American Properties, can say their product is not intended for consumption by minors without bursting into fits of laughter. Who else drinks sweet, brightly colored liquid from small aluminum pouches? Maybe the giggle fits continue when imagining parents grabbing the wrong pouch from the fridge when packing their kids' lunches. Not so funny when the kids actually drink the whole pouch of up to 11% alcohol by volume.

Gasolina is also directly targeting the urban Latino demographic with product names such as "Tu Madras" and "Mojito" along with its own brand name. The marketing on its Facebook and Twitter accounts is in both English and Spanish. And young people are already paying attention - the Gasolina Facebook page has 77,888 "likes" and features beach parties, bikini-clad young girls, and "belly button of the week" contests, along with events like last week's "all-you-can-drink Gasolina pouches" event called "Frequency Thursdays" at Zen Exotic Lounge in Orlando, advertised on Gasolina's Open Bar page on Facebook.

Just when we might think Blast had captured the lowest level of alcohol marketing, Gasolina takes dangerous and ill-advised to the very bottom.

Los Angeles Considers Alcohol Ads on Bus Benches

By Alcohol Justice on June 2, 2011 11:39 AM | No TrackBacks

Should a city use public property to advertise alcohol? The City of Los Angeles is including the idea in a new contract that would allow alcohol advertising on public property. L.A. community members have come together to propose an amended contract.

The Board of Public Works is currently reviewing a contract that would grant Martin Outdoor Media LLC exclusive right to place advertising on city bus benches throughout L.A. for the next ten years. The contract allows Martin Outdoor Media, a Florida-based street furniture company, to act as the city's agent and broker for the leasing of advertising and display. In other words, the City of Los Angeles will benefit financially from the advertisements--including alcohol ads.

The annual cost of alcohol-related harm in Los Angeles is estimated at $10.8 billion--the highest amount in California. Youth in markets with more exposure to alcohol advertising start drinking at earlier ages, consume more alcohol, and engage in more risky drinking behaviors than other youth. Youth in markets with greater alcohol advertising expenditures drink more. Alcohol advertising is already pervasive in Los Angeles, and adding 6,000 bus benches will only make the problem worse.

Martin Outdoor Media would like to have voluntary limits for alcohol ads within 500 feet from schools or churches. But the City of Los Angeles does not have to bend to corporate dictates; as noted in Marin Institute's 2007 study, many cities in the U.S. already ban alcohol advertising on mass transit systems. Government property should not be used to provide an opportunity for corporate marketing of potentially dangerous products, especially to youth.

The Coalition to Ban Alcohol Ads on Public Property in Los Angeles is actively organizing to put an end to all alcohol advertisements on public property in the city. Preventing alcohol ads from appearing on bus benches is a good place to start.

Tell the FDA to Include Alcoholic Beverages in Restaurant Menu Labeling

By Alcohol Justice on May 15, 2011 3:10 PM | No TrackBacks

SUGGESTED TALKING POINTS FOR FDA COMMENTS ON NUTRITION LABELING

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed regulations for nationwide menu labeling.1 The proposed rules require restaurants with 20 or more locations to post on menus the caloric content of items and make available upon request a listing of other nutritional information.2 As currently drafted, alcoholic beverages are exempted from the proposed regulations. The FDA is requesting comments on the proposed rules, specifically on alcohol. We offer several public health and legal arguments for the FDA to require restaurants to disclose information about the alcoholic beverages they serve.

Submit your comments here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=FDA-2011-F-0172-0001

Health Issues

Alcoholic beverages contain calories and few nutrients. Exempting alcoholic beverages from menu labeling requirements may give the mistaken impression that an alcoholic beverage has either no calories, or fewer calories than other non-alcoholic beverages. Considering the myriad significant health and societal harms associated with alcohol consumption, this is especially problematic. Consumption of alcoholic beverages contributes a significant source of calories to the American diet and can facilitate food over-consumption and poor dietary choices.3 Thus, calories from alcohol can contribute to obesity, which in turn may be associated with a range of health problems including heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and stroke.

It is difficult for drinkers to calculate the number of calories contained in a specific alcoholic beverage on their own. The caloric content of an alcoholic beverage depends in part on the volume of alcohol it contains. As a result, the caloric content can vary between similar types of alcoholic beverages. Mixers can also add additional calories to alcoholic beverages. Because restaurants are in a better position to know the contents and serving size of an alcoholic beverage, it should be their responsibility to inform the consumer of the caloric content of a menu item.

Jurisdictional Issues

Congress did not explicitly exclude alcoholic beverages from food labeling requirements. The FDA infers that it is prohibited from imposing nutrition disclosure requirements on alcoholic beverages because Congress may have considered the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) the sole regulator of alcohol labels. The purpose of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was to improve the health of all Americans. The nutrition disclosure requirements support this goal. Congress wants consumers to know the number of calories contained in food sold at restaurants, and since FDA recognizes alcoholic beverages as "food" it follows that the regulations should require the posting of nutritional information for alcoholic beverages.

The FDA has jurisdiction over the regulation of alcoholic beverages for health purposes. The FDA is responsible for protecting our health by regulating food safety and nutrition. Included in the definition of "food" are alcoholic beverages. In contrast, the purpose of the TTB is to collect alcohol taxes and ensure that alcohol companies comply with trade-related requirements. Just as the FDA demonstrated its clear jurisdiction last fall when the agency acted to remove caffeine from alcoholic beverages, so must the agency act to protect the health of Americans by including alcoholic beverages in its menu labeling requirements.

The TTB continually fails to act regarding the labeling of alcoholic beverages. The FDA justifies excluding alcoholic beverages because it asserts that the TTB will issue alcohol-labeling rules in the near future. In fact it has been nearly four years since the TTB published its proposed rules and many more years since such rules were requested by consumer groups. If recent history serves as any guide, it will likely be several years or more (if ever) before the TTB takes any action on alcohol labeling.

A good example of the TTB's inability to protect the public's health was the FDA's action against caffeinated alcoholic beverages last fall. The TTB approved the nationwide sale of these dangerous products in the first place. It then remained silent for the most part, despite continued outcry by public health groups for several years. It was only thanks to the FDA taking leadership that these dangerous products came off the market, despite the TTB's concurrent jurisdiction.

Exempting small alcohol producers can remove burden of obtaining nutritional information. The FDA is concerned that the disclosure requirements will represent a great burden for small brewers because the TTB does not already require alcoholic beverages to be labeled with nutritional information. Because a majority of beer and other alcoholic beverages are produced by large companies, exempting products produced by small producers will negate concerns about burdening regulation while having little to no effect on the effectiveness of the proposed regulations.

REFERENCES

1. The notice of Proposed Rules on "Food Labeling: Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items in Restaurants and Similar Retail Food Establishments" (FDA-2011-F-0172-0001) can be found at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FDA-2011-F-0172-0001.

2. The form must present in a clear and concise manner the total number of calories derived from any source, the total number of calories derived from fat, total fat , saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, sodium, total carbohydrate, dietary fiber, sugars, and protein. Proposed 21 CFR 101.11(2)(ii) et seq.

3. See http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/161/4/368.full and http://www.adajournal.org/article/S0002-8223%2809%2902096-3/abstract

The New Spirits "Thin-dustry"

By Alcohol Justice on May 4, 2011 8:56 AM | No TrackBacks

In an attempt to find yet another way to target the young female demographic, spirits producers have sprung new lines of premixed drinks designed and marketed to associate drinking their products with weight loss. This new trend toward spirits marketed as "low-cal" even has its own industry label: The "Thin-dustry." This move by the spirits industry marks an obvious attempt to follow in the footsteps of the Big Beer duopoly, where for the past several years MillerCoors and Anheuser Busch InBev have seen success through marketing low-cal and low-carb beer lines targeted to both men and women.

The new sprits "Thin-dustry" is taking a decidedly young, women-focused approach. The poster child for this new class of products is a line called "Skinnygirl Cocktails" - as if that's what will happen to you if you drink their lower-calorie margaritas. Launched and promoted by Bethenny Frankel, a reality TV star and former 'Real Housewife of New York City,' Skinnygirl's marketing carefully stops just short of claiming the product actually causes weight loss. But that doesn't stop them from exploiting the physical insecurities of American women for financial gain, by encouraging them to buy a product that will do nothing but harm the very thing they worry about most. The marketing spin for the product is perfectly encapsulated by a toast Bethenny gave in this deleted scene from her reality show that she tweeted to her fans: "Have fun, and don't get fat and bloated."

Not surprisingly, the Skinnygirl Cocktail line has been very successful - it was recently acquired by Fortune Brand's Beam Global Inc. for an estimated $120 million (the fact that Fortune recently split into subsidiaries and could be thinking about entertaining offers for Beam Global makes the Skinnygirl acquisition a particularly strategic move). The Skinnygirl deal involved the promise that Bethenny will stay involved for the sake of "creative control" (read: marketing), a great deal for Beam Global given all the free advertising they get by using a reality TV star, her TV show and profuse media appearances to sell the product. As Bethenny herself said, "I went on the show singlehandedly and exclusively for business." As reality TV becomes more and more about the marketing of products, we'll keep our eyes peeled for increasing examples of this insidious (and unregulated) advertising by Big Alcohol.

Phusion Projects and United Brands Skip Out on New York Alcopop Hearing

By Alcohol Justice on April 21, 2011 12:56 PM | No TrackBacks

It may have been the most important public hearing on alcopops to date, and yet two major producers of these dangerous products couldn't be bothered to show up.

The New York Senate Standing Committee on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse held a public hearing on April 12 to discuss the need to restrict youth access to alcopops: sweet, fruit-flavored alcohol drinks, often with alcohol levels as high as 12%. Alcopops producers directly market them to underage drinkers, and cost hundreds of lives and billions of dollars of alcohol-related harm annually.

Setting an example for all states, New York State has conducted studies that revealed the startling availability of alcopops to teens. Senator Jeff Klein (D-Bronx/Westchester), chair of the Committee, recently introduced Senate Bill 4221 to address the problem by restricting the sale of flavored malt beverages to liquor stores. As part of the legislative process, the recent Committee hearing provided a forum for both for both opponents and proponents to make their case about alcopop availability on the record and before relevant lawmakers.

Despite issuing statements touting the safety of their products and complaining that the proposed legislation is "misguided," two primary manufacturers of these products - Phusion Projects (Four Loko) and United Brands (Joose) - both failed to attend. Their absence was striking, given their confident appearances at previous hearings in multiple states regarding their products.

Perhaps they knew that their shoddy defenses couldn't withstand a public conversation about the evidence against their products? In this case, their (lack of) action certainly speaks louder than their press releases.

To listen to the full public hearing, click here.