"We Will Restore Science To Its Rightful Place."

In a speech full of significance, those eight words from President Obama yesterday may prove to be the most significant.

Science is the objective search for answers. It is not the pursuit of evidence to support conclusions that have already been reached.

This problem manifests itself in many ways, some more weighty than others, but the abuse or undermining of science and scientific method has to be pointed out and resisted wherever it occurs.

Like in my area of interest, alcohol policy.

Neo-Prohibitionists are very fond of citing 'research' to support their crackpot ideas about underage drinking. The Illinois General Assembly, led by my own State Senator and State Representative, has been in there pitching the crap about so-called alcopops, as I wrote about here and elsewhere.

Lew Bryson, on his blog, pointed me in the direction of this post by wine enthusiast Tom Wark, about the abuse of science and scientific method by Neo-Prohibitionists who are attempting to build a case to shut down online alcohol sales.

In case you've never received a shipment of alcohol from UPS or FedEx, the package will not be released without an adult signature so, essentially, it's the same control that occurs in a liquor store. Kids cannot obtain alcohol over the internet any more easily than they can from their neighborhood retailer. It's as simple as that.

So why is the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation willing to spend $400,000 to prove something else?

I'm not saying the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is a bad outfit. Quite the opposite. They do a lot of good work, but this is nonsense.

Senator Heather Steans, For The Children.

Although she downplayed it in an email to me, writing that "there are far more serious problems we need to tackle," Illinois State Senator Heather Steans (D-7th) continues to boast about her role in "banning promotion of alcoholic energy drinks to children." Since no one was promoting alcoholic energy drinks to children in the first place, I guess she can claim success.

I happen to live in Senator Steans' district.

Of the five legislative accomplishments she chose to tout in her Legislative Update sent to constituents last week, this one ranked second:

This spring, I was chief sponsor of legislation that prohibits the marketing of energy drinks containing alcohol to children and requires improved labeling to assist parents and businesses with identifying these products which are not safe for children.

It came after one headlined "Ending Pay-to-Play Politics" and before "Working to Eliminate Poverty." Senator Steans is nothing if not ambitious.

But her work on the so-called Alcopops Law (235 ILCS 5/6-35) is a non-solution to a non-problem.

This sort of thing drives me crazy because it falsely accuses the good people of the beverage alcohol industry of seeking to harm children, a serious and completely baseless charge, made for the purpose of pandering to parents, including some who want to blame their children's substance abuse problems on someone other than their children and themselves, and who better?

These charges are also an attack on the advertising industry. Since for a long time I worked in the advertising industry on alcohol accounts, I take this personally.

Who in government doesn't blame marketing and marketers? How about the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which investigates such things and has consistently found that the beverage alcohol industry does not market to underage consumers. Instead of falling for neo-prohibitionist propaganda like Senator Steans does, read the FTC's most-recent report here. (Right-click to download the PDF.)

Critics will, of course, dismiss the FTC as in the pocket of Big Alcohol, and Senator Steans knows all about that since she is the scourge of "Pay-to-Play," but in its 86-page report the FTC found little to fault in the performance of alcohol marketers, and while it made some common sense recommendations for improvement, none of them involve anything like the measures of which Senator Steans is so proud.

The Legislative Update gave this additional example of Senator Steans wasting government resources to make it look like she's doing something "for the children." It announced her co-sponsorship of a bill creating the Illinois Commission on Children and Youth.

Illinois achieved statehood on December 3, 1818 and I can't imagine how her children and youth have survived 190 years without this commission.

Death Knell for Alcoholic Energy Drinks?

On Thursday, Anheuser-Busch announced that it has stopped manufacturing its alcoholic energy drinks BudExtra and Tilt, and is reformulating them to remove the stimulants caffeine and guarana. Actually, the announcement came from the National Alcohol Beverage Control Association (NABCA), whose members are the states that directly control beverage alcohol sales within their borders by being the state's sole distributor of beverage alcohol products, and in some cases its sole retailer as well.

There are 18 control states, plus two control counties in Maryland. The other 32 states are known as license states, because they control beverage alcohol distribution and sales through the licensing of producers, distributors and retailers.

Busch agreed to stop making the products in conjunction with a deal with attorneys general from eleven of the control states, who alleged among other things that the products are targeted at underage drinkers, using the same dubious assumptions discussed in some of my previous posts on the subject. (Click on the "alcopops" label, below, to bring them all up.)

Here is what a spokesperson for Busch said about the decision: "We have determined that competing in the prepackaged caffeinated alcohol beverage sector may detract from our reputation as the global industry leader in promoting responsibility among adults who drink and discouraging underage drinking."

If ever there was a sentence that needed a comma before the "and" it is that one. Whew!

America's other big brewer, SAB/Miller, says it will continue to make and market the products, but I suspect they will fold too before too much longer.

Even if these products continue to be made and marketed by smaller brewers, those smaller companies probably won't have the necessary marketing muscle, and they certainly won't make as inviting a target for the anti-alcohol forces.

While I continue to feel that the marketing-to-youth charge is bogus, this is a common sense decision, as expressed by one of the attorneys general: "Alcohol mixed with high amounts of caffeine is a recipe for disaster, particularly in the hands of young people," said Maine Attorney General Steve Rowe, Chair of the National Association of Attorneys General Youth Access to Alcohol Committee. "The caffeine gives drinkers the subjective belief that they can function normally. This false belief results in the potential for increased serious harm. This agreement is a monumental win for our nation's young people who are lured by marketing into believing these products are safe."

In addition to that strong argument against them is the fact that I can't think of any argument for them. What are alcoholic energy drinks good for anyway? As an experienced consciousness-alterer, I can confirm that no good has ever come from mixing depressants with stimulants.

So while I don't agree with the attack on the marketing, it will be better for everyone if these products just go away.

Why does it matter that the marketing charges are bogus? Look at the second half of Rowe's last sentence. The supposed beneficiaries of this are "young people who are lured by marketing into believing these products are safe." Huh? I challenge Rowe to show me where any marketing claim is made regarding safety. That statement is ridiculous on its face.

Since marketing beverage alcohol to underage persons is illegal, the marketing charge alleges wrongdoing on the part of marketers. Naturally, that becomes the most important part of the story, even though it is the weakest part of the argument. The movement (assuming its stated motives are its true ones) would be better served by dropping the bogus arguments and highlighting the good ones. Too bad they won't.

Nothing New in the Adult Beverage Wars.

Just a follow-up to last week's post's about my state senator and her support of the latest attack on the marketing of adult beverages. The gist of that post was sent to her by way of a reply to her reply. She answered my first inquiry in about 24 hours. This time, it's been a week and no word.

She may not reply and that's okay. The first email was a direct question. The second states my opinion. She isn't really obliged to reply to that. I also have no illusions that I have changed any minds in the Steans organization.

I'll keep you posted if anything further develops.

A Call to Arms.

I always try to pay attention to the neo-prohibitionists.

I need to try harder.

Illinois just passed a new law aimed at alcoholic energy drinks like Sparks and Tilt.

I wrote about some of this on Sunday and again yesterday.

In reading SB2472, I discovered that it basically amends an existing law aimed at what they call "alcopops." Among other things, I am outraged that such a prejudicial colloquial term would find its way into a statute. The industry does not use that term because it does conflate the ideas of "alcoholic beverage" and "soda pop" in a potentially confusing way, and may even make those products more appealing to under-age youth. In other words, by popularizing the term "alcopop," the neo-prohibitionists are doing exactly what they falsely accuse the beverage alcohol industry of doing.

That alone should get your dander up.

I'm not going to go into a lot more about it here. Scroll down to read the older posts. It's also easy enough to research it on your own.

My point here is to urge everyone to add neo-prohibitionist legislation to the list of political things you pay attention to, and react accordingly. I don't expect to ever taste Sparks or Tilt, and I might even argue they're a bad idea, but this affects all of us who enjoy the responsible use of beverage alcohol products.

For a peak into the neo-prohibitionist world, check out GetSerious.Org.

Alcoholic Energy Drinks, Part Two.

I received a prompt answer to my inquiry to Senator Steans. It's a good answer; factual and reasonable, at least as far as it goes. What I wrote to her is here. This is her answer:

Thanks for your e-mail. The products in question are named Tilt, Sparks, BudExtra, and LiquidCharge and are manufactured by Anheuser-Busch and Miller Brewing Co. These beverages are over 6% alcohol. My staff members have found Tilt and Sparks in grocery stores in the district. While they are located in the alcohol aisle, the products look so much like normal energy drinks that when my 24 year old intern purchased one in a local store, along with non-alcoholic drinks, he wasn’t carded.

All over the country, police officers and parents have complained that these beverages look so much like energy drinks that it is difficult to tell them apart. Here are links to a few news articles about alcopop energy drinks, reporting on this labeling issue:

(She provided one, here.)

This new legislation in Illinois changes the labeling requirements so that consumers can clearly tell that this product is alcohol. The labels on beverages in Illinois have already changed. Pictures of the previous product labels are available here. We took these pictures after purchasing the beverages locally.

These products are being marketed towards young people. Attorney generals from 30 states have written a letter to federal authorities expressing concerns over the marketing of these beverages. For example, you can see the website for Sparks at www.sparks.com. This site is clearly youth-oriented, even cartoonish in nature. Several of these beverages advertise on facebook and myspace, used by millions of teenagers.

While I am pleased to have been able to address this issue, I believe there are far more serious problems we need to tackle, including the need for higher quality education for all kids in the state, reducing the regressive nature of our taxes, changing our culture of corruption, decreasing violence in our communities, and addressing our state’s fiscal crisis. I am working on these issues as well, and appreciate any suggestions regarding other concerns you feel we should be addressing at the State level.

Regards,
Heather Steans

Alcoholic energy drinks have been around for a couple of years. They haven't been particularly successful and their footprint in the marketplace is very small. They are like Smirnoff Ice and its ilk in that they are beer with most of the flavor and color stripped away, to be replaced by sweet citrus fruit flavors. Like Red Bull and other energy drinks they contain caffeine, taurine and ginseng.

As the Toledo Blade article points out, it should concern parents if their kids are consuming large quantities of even the non-alcoholic energy drinks.

I'm pretty much with Senator Steans through her third paragraph. We part company at the part about them being marketed to kids. Yes, the products are being marketed to young adults, but the web site she cited has an age requirement like all alcoholic beverage sites, and standard alcohol warnings, and the "cartoonish" claim, dubious even if true, isn't.

I don't know if I would go so far as to call these products irresponsible, but they may well be a bad idea for their makers. I haven't had one and don't know the actual effect but alcohol is a depressant and the other active ingredients are stimulants so, on paper at least, the effect should be ... nothing. They should cancel each other out, though it probably doesn't work that way. I know plenty of people who drink vodka and Red Bull or Jaegermeister and Red Bull. It just seems like a bad idea, no matter who is doing it.

The fact that some retail clerks are unfamiliar with these products, may not realize they're alcohol, and may not card purchasers is a problem. It's a problem for retailers because that's a very easy way to lose your license. It's also a problem for producers, image-wise. As someone who would like to see the whole beverage alcohol industry be less harassed, these products are not helpful.

The pictures she pointed to, of the old and new packaging, don't show much. Ironically, because these are marketed as malt beverages, not beer, they are able to show their alcohol content on the label. In most states, beers are prohibited from putting their alcohol content on the label, which was supposed to prevent brewers from competing to offer the highest alcohol content products. That worked well. Senator Steans might want to look into changing Illinois law to require all beverage alcohol labels to clearly state the product's alcohol content.

The last paragraph of Senator Steans' reply is also somewhat disingenuous, in that it was she who listed that legislation first among her personal legislative accomplishments in her legislative update.

But it's the advertising-to-children claim that always gets my goat. As with the character dubbed "Joe Camel," ads are deemed to be directed at children solely because they are illustrated. Illustrations, especially those that can be characterized as cartoons, appeal to children, ergo Joe Camel was being used to advertise cigarettes to children. It became an article of faith among anti-smoking activists, then came to be treated as a statement of fact. There was never one iota of evidence presented that Joe Camel was intended to influence children or ever used in such a way as to reach children. The charge was based solely on the conclusion that Joe Camel must be targeted at children because he is a cartoon character.

Likewise, "alcopop" is a term of derision coined by anti-alcohol activists (aka neo-prohbitionists). That term has never been used by the producers. The non-energy versions of these products have been around for many years – the Coors product Zima was the prototype.

Like their energy counterparts, those products are deemed by their critics to be directed at children solely because they taste good, and taste similar to soda pop. The fact that most of these products bear the names of well-known distilled spirits brands is further evidence that they are not trying to pretend they are anything other than alcoholic beverages intended for legal age adults. This is not true of the alcoholic energy drinks, but it doesn't seem to matter. The same critics are making all of the same claims.

Most beverage alcohol advertising is directed at young adults, as is most advertising for automobiles, music, electronics, clothing, health and beauty aids, and a wide range of other consumer products. Young adults are attractive to advertisers because they are still forming brand preferences. Also fundamental is that there is no way to create advertising that will appeal to persons of legal age but won't appeal to anyone younger than legal age. There is not some kind of switch that is thrown at age 18 or 21. Kids, especially older kids, like many of the same things young adults like. It is not possible to effectively advertise to persons at the low end of the legal age scale without some of that advertising reaching individuals at the high end of non-legal age.

This is why claims that certain products or ads are nefariously directed at children are, at best, an unfounded personal opinion and, at worst, a deliberate falsehood.

There is one objective way to determine if advertising is directed at children, and that is by examining the medium in which it is run and determining who views or hears that medium. The standard followed by the beverage alcohol industry is that advertising for those products is placed only in magazines, on television shows, on radio shows, or in other media, where at least 70 percent of the audience is expected to be adults. The Federal Trade Commission has consistently found that the beverage alcohol industry adheres to those guidelines and, therefore, does not market to underage consumers.

I Read Their Legislative Reports So You Don't Have To.

My State Senator, Heather Steans, sent me a legislative update yesterday. Here's the legislation of which she is most proud:

Better regulating energy drinks that contain alcohol (SB2472). I was the lead sponsor of this bill that requires energy drinks that contain alcohol to have better labeling and prohibits them from being marketed to youth. Research shows that energy drinks are consumed primarily by youth. As a mother of 3 kids, I was very concerned about the easy access underage kids had to the alcoholic version of these beverages.

So I sent Senator Steans the following constituent inquiry:

Dear Senator Steans:

As the lead sponsor of a bill that requires energy drinks that contain alcohol to have better labeling, and prohibits them from being marketed to youth, who you allege have “easy access” to said beverages, could you please give me the names and makers of the products that concern you and point me in the direction of your evidence that these products are being marketed to youth, as well as your evidence that “underage kids” have “easy access” to these products. In particular, I would appreciate knowing what specific evidence convinced you that this is a serious problem within the 7th District.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

I'll let you know what she says.

We've been down this road before. I'll cut to the chase for you. This is a phony, non-solution to a phony non-problem, the kind of stunt legislation legislators from this district are famous for.

Lying for a Worthy Cause.

Every time this comes up, I get worked up about it all over again. Today I received a constituent newsletter from my State Representative, Mr. Greg Harris. One of the things he is bragging about is legislation he sponsored "to ban the promotion, marketing and advertising of alcoholic beverages to children."

To me, that phrase is like waving a red cloth in front of a bull. So, of course, I sent Rep. Harris a stern letter of complaint, as follows:

Dear Representative Harris:

Although alcohol abuse is a serious social problem, and preventing children from obtaining and consuming alcohol is a worthy cause, I am disappointed to see that you support a phony solution. I know Senate Bill 1625 is now law, but I wanted to let you know my opinions on this matter anyway, as I expressed them to Senator Ronen when this legislation was introduced back in January.

It always bothers me when well-meaning people lie in support of a genuinely worthy cause, especially when kids are involved, but that is what the Illinois Alcoholism and Drug Dependence Association (IADDA), and now The State of Illinois, has done with this legislation to supposedly “ban(s) the promotion, marketing and advertising of alcoholic beverages to children.”

Lying to kids, even when it is for their own good, almost never works out the way we want it to. Let there be no doubt that I consider keeping kids away from psychoactive drugs of all kinds, including cigarettes and alcohol, to be desirable. But teaching kids to tell the truth is worthwhile too and we do kids no favors by lying to them. When they find out that we have lied to them about something like this (and they always find out), why should they believe us when we tell them about all the real harm the misuse of psychoactive substances can cause?

When this legislation was introduced, IADDA spokesperson Allen Sandusky accused beverage makers of targeting youth media with ads for so-called "alcopops" such as Bacardi Silver, Smirnoff Ice and Mike's Hard Lemonade.

"This is just like Joe Camel cigarettes that were advertised to kids years ago," said Sandusky. Senator Ronen made almost the identical statement at her subsequent press conference announcing the introduction of SB 1625.

They are the same, in that anti-tobacco crusaders lied about Joe Camel and now anti-alcohol crusaders are lying about “alcopops.”

The truth is as follows.

Advertising that used the character dubbed "Joe Camel" was deemed to be directed at children solely because the character was illustrated. Illustrations, especially those that can be characterized as cartoons, appeal to children, ergo Joe Camel was being used to advertise cigarettes to children. It became an article of faith among anti-smoking crusaders, then came to be treated as a statement of fact. There was never one iota of evidence presented that Joe Camel was intended to influence children or ever used in such a way as to reach children. The charge was based solely on the assumption that Joe Camel must be targeted at children because he is a cartoon character.

Likewise, "alcopop" is a term of derision coined by anti-alcohol crusaders. It is meant to describe flavored malt beverages such as the brands mentioned. These products start out as beer but are processed in a way that removes the characteristic flavor and color of beer, which is then replaced by other flavorings and sweeteners. The flavoring is usually some kind of citrus fruit, such as lemon, lime or orange. Consequently, they taste like a soft drink (e.g., 7Up) but contain alcohol, about the same amount as beer. These products have been around for many years – the Coors product Zima was the prototype. They have become more prominent recently, but have not been the success many in the beverage industry expected.

These products are deemed by their critics to be directed at children solely because they taste good, and taste similar to soda pop. However, these products also appeal to a great many legal age drinkers who want to consume a beverage alcohol product but don’t like the characteristic taste of beer. Functionally, these products are little different from a mixed drink that combines a neutral spirit, such as vodka or white rum, with a soft drink such as 7Up. The fact that most of these products bear the names of well-known distilled spirits brands is further evidence that they are not trying to pretend they are anything other than alcoholic beverages intended for legal age adults.

The beverage industry has never called them “pop” or used any terminology that would lead anyone to compare these products to soft drinks. The anti-alcohol crusaders have done all of that.

Two additional facts of relevance. First, most beverage alcohol advertising is directed at young adults, as is most advertising for automobiles, music, electronics, clothing, health and beauty aids, and a wide range of other consumer products. Young adults are attractive to advertisers because they are still forming their brand preferences. This is Marketing 101. Also fundamental is that there is no way to create advertising that will appeal to persons of legal age but won't appeal to anyone younger than legal age. There is not some kind of switch that is thrown at age 18 or 21. Kids, especially older kids, like many of the same things young adults like. It is not possible to effectively advertise to persons at the low end of the legal age scale without some of that advertising reaching individuals at the high end of non-legal age.

All of this is common sense that anyone short of a blinkered fanatic should be able to accept. It is why most claims that certain products or ads are nefariously "directed at children" are, at best, an unfounded personal opinion and, at worst, a deliberate falsehood.

The second fact is this. There is one objective way to determine if advertising is "directed at children," and that is by examining the medium in which it is run and determining who views or hears that medium. The standard followed by the beverage alcohol industry (similar to that followed by the tobacco industry before cigarette advertising was effectively banned) is that advertising for those products is placed only in magazines, on television shows, or on radio shows where at least 70 percent of the audience is expected to be adults. The Federal Trade Commission has consistently found that the beverage alcohol industry adheres to those guidelines and, therefore, does not market to underage consumers.

I am aware that SB 1625 primarily targets outdoor advertising, not the specific media mentioned above, but it still is fundamentally dishonest and a disservice to the very people it is meant to protect. With a little bit of honest examination, I think you can see that SB 1625 and the noise surrounding it has been simple demagoguery, wholly empty and phony. The law is so vague that it probably is unenforceable and it will not do anything remotely like what you and its other supporters say it will do to “help prevent alcohol abuse.”

I am very disappointed to see my state representative associated with such a sorry piece of work. I continue to expect better.

Sincerely,
Charles K. Cowdery