Click here to return to issues list
When you see a line of coloured and underlined hypertext, this means that you can click on that text to go to another information page.
|
The Liquor Pop debate: should alcoholic icy poles be offered for sale in Australia?
Echo Issue Outline 1999 / 6-7: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney
What they said ...
The uproar over Liquor Pops is yet another case of the older generation's lack of faith in a teenager's ability to make up his or her own mind
A teenage writer to the Herald Sun, published January 16, 1999
It's about targeting young people.
This is a very cynical attempt to create a new market by getting kids used to alcohol when they are young'
Dr Michael Carr-Gregg, of the Royal Children's Hospital Centre for Adolescent Health
In January, 1999, a Melbourne company, Unique Beverages, announced that it was soon to release fruit flavoured frozen ices containing alcoholic spirits. Among the spirits to be used in these ices are vodka, rum and whisky. The ices will have an alcohol content of 6 per cent.
The product is to be called Liquor Pops and its manufacturer claims it is aimed at the young adult market.
The product was initially developed for Unique Beverages by the Australian Food Industry Science Centre (AFISC). AFISC has since merged with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation(CSIRO) to form Food Science Australia.
The federal Health Minister, Mr Michael Wooldridge, would like to see the ices banned and various state health ministers have expressed concern. However, at least one state, Victoria, has suggested it would be impractical to try to ban them and that efforts should instead be made to ensure they were not sold to children or under-age drinkers.
|
Background
While some Australian reports have claimed that the process used to freeze the alcohol contained in Liquor Pops is a world first for Unique Beverages and the former Australian Food Industry Science Centre (which helped develop the technique), other reports suggest this is not so.
Though the manufacturing process may not be the same, Spiked Ice, a 5.5% frozen vodka and raspberry sorbet/lollipop was launched in Britain in June, 1997. At about the same time two other products were announced in Britain - Frappe, a flavoured frozen liquor sold in a carton at 4.4% strength and Tony's Freezer Cocktails, a range of 250 ml pouches with 5.4% alcohol. It is claimed they are targeted at female drinkers and are intended to be frozen at home.
At about the same time a product similar to Spiked Ice went on sale in New South Wales. The product is brand named Buzz Blocks and the ices contain 8% alcohol.
In October, 1997, the New Zealand Drug Foundation declared its opposition to such products being sold in New Zealand. The Foundation was supported by the Distilled Spirits Association of New Zealand.
Some commentators have suggested that the alcoholic ices are part of a larger trend that gained force with the development of alcoholic soft drinks.
In Britain alcoholic soft drinks, generally referred to as alcopops, came on the market in the summer of 1995.
The original alcoholic lemonade, Two Dogs, was an Australian product, first produced by an Australian lemon grower with a glut of fruit.
The sale of alcopops has generated more controversy in Britain than it has in Australia.
A year after the introduction of alcopops British alcohol manufacturers adopted a voluntary code of practice, designed to help ensure these products did not lead to under-age drinking.
Critics have maintained that the code has not been sufficiently successful.
In November, 1996, the government increased the excise on alcopops in an attempt to make them less attractive to young people by making them more expensive.
In April, 1997, two alcoholic milk drinks went on sale in Britain.
One, Moo, comes in strawberry and banana flavours and has an alcohol content of 5%. The other, Supermilch, is an alcoholic vodka milk drink with an alcohol content of 5.5%.
In May, 1997, there was a change of government in Britain. The new government had pledged to look at the problem of under-age drinking and the restriction of alcoholic products apparently aimed at children.
Some varieties of these products have been withdrawn from sale, but to date there has been no general ban and such a response seems unlikely.
There a number of Internet sites treating aspects of this issue.
One of the most informative sites at which to start is the British Alcohol Concern site.
Alcohol Concern is a national agency researching the effects of alcohol abuse, disseminating information and developing support services for problem drinkers.
Alcohol Concern has two fact sheets dealing with alcopops.
The first, titled Alcopops, can be found at http://www.alcoholconcern.org.uk/factsheets/alcpops.htm
It gives definitions of the different forms of alcohol mixes that are supposedly causing concern. It supplies some recent research findings on drinking patterns among young people in Britain and gives a summary of the debate surrounding alcopops.
The second fact sheet is titled, Alcopops: the story so far. It can be found at http://www.alcoholconcern.org.uk/factsheets/alcpops2.htm
This gives a summary of some of the principal reasons for concern regarding the sale of alcopops and similar products.
It also gives a breakdown of some of the major alcohol marketing and manufacturing developments together with industry and government responses, by year and month. This alcopops diary is clear and informative.
Both fact sheets make specific reference to the development of alcoholic ices.
The section of the CSIRO site that contains information on the development of alcohol freezing techniques is not open to the general public.
However, there is available an April 1997 media release which announces that the former Australian Food Industry Science Centre(AFISC) is to merge with the CSIRO to form Food Sciences Australia..
The AFISC was already working on the Liquor Pops technology for Unique Beverages when the Centre merged with the CSIRO.
It is interesting to note that one of the objectives of Food Science Australia is the development of `new products and processes for fruit juice'. It seems likely that the work on Liquor Pops would be part of this `particular project'.
The press release announcing the merger and the new body's objectives can be found at http://www.dfst.csiro.au/pr.htm
It may also be of interest that the research for this product was conducted by an organisation that is now part of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).
It is possible that the federal government might have some difficulty taking action against a product whose research development was undertaken by a government-funded body, apparently with the intention of assisting Australian fruit growers.
A marketing publication, Explorer-Information for Food Industry Professionals, gives a look at the alcopop phenomenon from a manufacturing and sales perspective.
Early in 1997, this site published a new product review looking at what was being offered for sale in Europe and Asia in 1996.
This review can be found at http://www.foodexplorer.com/product/industry/FI04737.HTM
You will need to scroll down through several pages. The eighth item in this review is titled The Alcopop Explosion.
It gives an enthusiastic rundown of the large array of alcoholic mixes coming onto the market. This report helps to indicate the extent to which these products are proliferating around the world.
|
Arguments in favour of banning the sale of Liquor Pops
The primary argument offered against the sale of Liquor Pops is the claim that the product is likely to increase under-age drinking.
This claim has been made by the federal Health Minister, Dr Michael Wooldridge, who has stated, `Anything that makes alcohol more attractive to children is undesirable.'
Dr Wooldridge has also been reported as claiming, `It is a very highly irresponsible move by the company concerned and we will be doing everything we possibly can to see that this is not a success on the market.'
Similarly, it has been claimed, that even if the manufacturer's claim that Liquor Pops are intended for those over 18 is correct, this will not stop the product being attractive to children and those in their mid-teens.
The Victorian Minister for Small Business, Ms Louise Asher, has claimed that the manufacturer, Unique Beverages, is `na‹ve' to think that children would not be attracted to the product.
Other critics have suggested that the product is actually aimed at a younger market, including under age drinkers.
This claim appears to have been made by Dr Michael Carr-Gregg, of the Royal Children's Hospital Centre for Adolescent Health.
Dr Carr-Gregg has claimed, ` It's about targeting young people.
This is a very cynical attempt to create a new market by getting kids used to alcohol when they are young.'
The same point has been made by Warwick Murphy of the Drug Awareness & Relief Movement, in a letter published in the Herald Sun on January 14.
Mr Murphy claimed, `The alcohol industry continues to aim at our youth because they know what the research says - the earlier someone starts drinking, the more likely they are to be a long-term customer.'
Those who are concerned that the product will increase alcohol consumption among the young appear to believe that selling spirits mixed with fruit juices in a form generally associated with children, will make alcohol more attractive to younger consumers.
Part of this belief appears to derive from the fact that the sweetness and apparent familiarity of such frozen mixtures are likely to make them more palatable to younger consumers who have not yet developed a taste for alcohol in more conventional forms.
Those who hold these fears also tend to argue that alcohol already represents a significant problem for young Australians and thus should not be presented to them in a form which is likely to make it more attractive.
It is argued that a high proportion of adolescents and younger children consume alcohol and that this is creating health ad social problems for them.
These claims have been made by Dr Michael Carr-Gregg, in a letter published in The Herald Sun on January 13, 1999.
Dr Carr-Gregg stated, `A report released last September by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre in NSW found substance abuse disorders in 10 per cent of young Australians.
This meant they were either addicted to alcohol or had physical and mental problems because of their drinking behaviour.'
Dr Carr-Gregg has further claimed that drinking among the young cannot simply be regarded as something they will grow out of. He has stated, `The findings [of the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre] challenged perceptions that alcohol abuse among the young could be dismissed as just a phase.'
It has further been pointed out that Liquor Pops may make it more difficult for adults to detect when children are consuming alcohol.
Ms Geraldine Burke, the senior vice-president of the Victorian Federation of State School Parents Clubs, has argued, `It's not identifiable. When you drink alcohol from a bottle or a can its clearly alcohol. Once you take the wrapper off an icy pole, it's an icy pole.'
It has also been argued that Liquor Pops will create problems even if not consumed by under-age drinkers.
This point has been made by Sally Morrell a freelance writer whose comments were published in The Herald Sun on January 14, 1999..
Ms Morrell noted that immature or inexperienced drinkers often hold a glass of something they find relatively unpalatable for a long time, drinking the substance quite slowly.
Ms Morrell suggests that such drinkers may not actually enjoy alcohol but `still think they need a swig ... to chat at parties'. She implies that the slow rate a which they often drink protects them from becoming intoxicated.
Ms Morrell further suggests that this protection will disappear if Liquor Pops become available and popular. It has already been noted that their taste may make alcohol more palatable. Ms Morrell further claims, `But even more worrying is how fast they are intended to go down. With Liquor Pops you'd have to eat them fast or they would melt.'
It has also been suggested that the innocuous presentation, as an icy pole, could make consumers, whether youths or adults, treat alcohol with less caution than they otherwise might.
This point has been made by Gail Kennedy, a spokesperson for the Australian Consumers Association.
Ms Kennedy has claimed that the new product is `placing an adult product in children's clothing'. She has stated, `The bottom line is the customer should be aware even the humble icy pole could push them over the drink driving limit.''
Relatedly it has been claimed that it is inappropriate that Liquor Pops should have a higher alcohol content than beer. According to this line of argument, the average consumer, of any age, is aware that beer is an alcoholic substance. He or she may not, however, be aware that Liquor Pops are actually more intoxicating than beer.
Arguments against banning the sale of Liquor Pops
The primary argument offered in support of Liquor Pops being put on sale is that they are not aimed at children or under-age drinkers.
Mr Jerome Jolson, the director of the company manufacturing the product, Unique Beverages, has claimed that the ices were designed to appeal to the 18 to 25-year-old youth market and nightclub patrons.
Mr Jolson has further claimed that the products black and silver packaging was intended to be unattractive to children.
It has also been noted that the product will be sold from registered liquor outlets and that retailers will have the same responsibility with regard to Liquor Pops that they do with any other alcoholic product so far as ensuring they are not sold to under 18s.
Unique Beverages sales director, Mr Perry Stork, has claimed, `It would only be through the lack of responsibility of parents and retailers that this product will ever fall into the wrong hands.
We've done everything in our power with packaging, labelling and we are following all the laws - it's up to parents and retailers to make sure they sell it responsibly.'
Another argument offered in favour of alcoholic ices remaining on sale is that their availability does not mean they will pose an irresistible temptation to children and teenagers.
According to this line of argument all people, of whatever age, are capable of making deliberate decisions about their actions and because something is possible for them it does not mean they will inevitably decide to do it.
Those who take this view argue, for instance, that the availability of condoms does not mean youth will automatically engage in sex or, if they do, that it will have been access to condoms that has led them to do so.
This point was made by a teenage writer to the Herald Sun in a letter published on January 16, 1999. The writer argued, `The uproar over Liquor Pops is yet another case of the older generation's lack of faith in a teenager's ability to make up his or her own mind.
We do not take up drugs just because there are syringe bins in planes and we will not become alcoholics just because there are alcoholic ice blocks.'
It has also been noted that these ices are no more likely to induce children and adolescents to consume alcohol than are a number of other products already on the market.
Jerome Jolson has argued, `To suggest that Liquor Pops will be confused with ice blocks is like suggesting cans of scotch and cola are confused with soft drinks.'
Relatedly, it has been noted that if children and adolescents want to drink alcohol they do not need to consume Liquor Pops in order to do so.
The teenage letter writer published in The Herald Sun on January 16, 1999, noted, `Beer is a cheaper and easier alternative for youngsters to get their hands on, particularly from dad's fridge.'
It has further been suggested that the call to ban Liquor Pops is at best inconsistent and at worst hypocritical.
Those who make this claim note that while as a society we allow alcohol to be legally offered for sale, there is little point in trying to prevent certain forms of alcohol from being put on the market.
This general point has been made by Louise Asher, the Victorian Small Business Minister. Ms Asher, though concerned at the potential for these ices to be consumed by children, has rejected calls to ban the product, saying `we don't ban alcohol in our society.'
A similar point has been made by Frances Lou, in a letter published in The Age on January 14, 1999.
Ms Lou has stated, ` I cannot comprehend why anyone would oppose the introduction of the new Liquor Pops. To me they are just another alcoholic product ... Targeting the Liquor Pops is grossly unfair. If the children's health is the issue, then why ban just the Liquor Pops, but alcohol altogether?'
It has further been noted that there is strong interest in the Australian product from overseas retailers.
Unique Beverages sales director, Mr Perry Stork, has noted that his company has received inquiries for some 11.5 million units from European distributors.
Suggesting the likely popularity of the product in other locations, Mr Stork also stated that Liquor Pops would be launched in the United States, Europe and Japan in July and August in order to coincide with those regions' summer market.
Finally there are those who have claimed that all the negative publicity and talk of banning has actually promoted the product.
According to this line of argument, extensive discussion of prohibition and the media coverage this has received have effectively provided the manufacturer with million's of dollars worth of free publicity.
Those who hold this view also argue that all the talk about possible harm to children and adolescents is likely to have promoted Liquor Pops among this very group of potential consumers.
This point was made by Mr Ian Oshlack in a letter published in The Age on January 15, 2999.
Mr Oshlack wrote, `Here you have a product that was condemned by everybody ... as well as being promoted on every news service and current affairs program. With the nature of the target market prepared to accept anything that authority says is no good for you, the condemnation was, in fact, an endorsement of the sort money cannot buy.'
Opponents of the prohibition of alcohol generally argue that it is ineffective and can increase the consumption of the substance. Here, what appears to be being suggested is that even discussing the banning of Liquor Pops may lead to an increased consumption of the product when it does go on sale.
Further implications
At this point it seems unlikely that Liquor Pops will be prevented from entering the Australian market. The federal Health Minister, Dr Michael Wooldridge, has said he does not have the power to ban them, though he would like to do so. As an individual minister that would appear to be the case and would seem to indicate that there is not sufficient opposition within the federal government as a whole for it to mount a major campaign against the alcoholic ices.
Even were the federal government to oppose this new product, the regulation of liquor sales is a state responsibility.
To date the manufacturer, Unique Beverages, has indicated it intends to sell the product through licensed outlets, not through milk bars or supermarkets.
However, the Victorian Government has indicated that current state laws would probably not prevent these ices being sold at milk bars and supermarkets. It is possible they would be classified as a food and so would be exempt from liquor laws, as, for example, are chocolate liquors.
When the Victorian Parliament next sits, the Government has indicated that it will introduce laws to ensure these ices can only be sold from licensed liquor outlets. The Government has indicated that it believes it would be impractical to attempt to ban the product. It intends instead to attempt to prevent the ices being easily acquired by under-age drinkers.
New south Wales, Queensland and West Australian governments have not indicated that they will change their states' laws to ensure that Liquor Pops can only be sold from licensed outlets. Instead they have called on liquor traders not to stock the product.
Whether alcohol traders will voluntarily boycott the product remains to be seen. The head of the Australian Hotels Association, Mr Alan Giles, has expressed concerns regarding the alcoholic icy poles.
Mt Giles has said, `It sounds like the sort of product designed to catch the under-age market, not the over-age.
You'd have to say an icy pole would have to be aimed at a young person, and we'd look at something like that very closely.
Despite Mr Giles' reservations, however, it would appear that a similar product, Buzz Blocks, went on sale in New South Wales last year. Neither The Age, The Herald Sun nor The Australian has indicated through which outlets this product was sold.
It will be interesting to note what impact these ices have on the alcohol consumption patterns of the young when they do become available. In Great Britain it has been claimed that they now form a significant component of the youth market's alcohol consumption, this includes that of under-age drinkers.
It is probably worth remarking that the introduction of alcopops into Great Britain in 1995 appeared to cause significantly more controversy than the introduction of similar products, such as Two Dogs, has here.
Sources
The Age
13/1/99 page 4 news item by Sandra McKay & Penny Fannin, `Child fears bring icy reception for Liquor Pops'
14/1/99 page 12 letter from Lyndel Connolly, `Alcohol, children and abuse'
14/1/99 page 12 letter from Frances Lou, `So much fuss over icy poles'
15/1/99 page 12 letter from Ian Oshlack, `Thanks for the great publicity!'
The Australian
13/1/99 page 4 news item by Katherine Towers, Michael Bachelor and Trudy Harris, `Minister to put freeze on laced ice blocks'
The Herald Sun
11/1/99 page 15 news item by Helen Carter, `More alcoholic youths seek aid'
12/1/99 page 1 news item by Miranda McLachlan & Greg Thom, `Ice storm/World-first technology puts alcohol in an icy pole'
13/1/99 page 3 news item by Greg Thom & Miranda McLachlan, `Ice pops get the big chill'
13/1/99 page 18 editorial, `A frosty view of boozy pops'
13/1/99 page 20 letter from Professor Michael Carr-Gregg, Centre for Adolescent Health, Royal Children's Hospital, `Cold on icy booze'
14/1/99 page 7 news item by Miranda McLachlan & Greg Thom, `Cheap alcohol fears/Teens drunk on essence'
14/1/99 page 19 comment by Sally Morrell, `Time to put pops on ice'
14/1/99 page 20 cartoon by Knight
14/1/99 page 20 letter from Warwick Murphy, Drug Awareness and Relief Movement, `Fired up on booze pops'
16/1/99 page 28 cartoon by Knight
16/1/99 page 28 letter, `Booze pops no threat'