This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
News
Racing driver refuses to alter beer label featuring child’s drawing
A former F1 racing driver refuses to redesign his beer label following a ruling by UK industry watchdog The Portman Group.
Mr Laverstock was drawn by Jody Scheckter’s four year-old son
Jody Scheckter, who was a Formula One World Champion in 1979, is owner of Laverstoke Park Estate – a producer of organic food and drink, including beer, all of which feature a picture of Scheckter drawn by his four-year old son.
After years of selling the organic ale and lager branded with the image, dubbed “Mr Laverstoke” – and almost 200,000 bottles of sales – a single complaint from a member of the public to the Portman Group last year instigated an investigation by the alcohol watchdog, which is funded by the drinks industry.
As a result of this, Scheckter was informed that the label breached the Portman Group’s voluntary code because “Mr Laverstoke” could be seen to appeal to children, and Scheckter was asked to remove the image.
Despite the threat of delistings in major retailers, Scheckter has said this week that we won’t be changing the branding of his alcoholic products.
“After several meetings, a lot of debate and over £30,000 spent on legal fees, we decided that to change our ale and lager label was not a viable option for us.”
Explaining this decision, he added, “It is not just the cost of the change (it would cost the farm tens of thousands of pounds in rebranding) but the loss of our brand identity in having our iconic Mr. Laverstoke taken off the bottle.”
Scheckter also stressed that he didn’t believe “for one minute” that the label was encouraging under 18s to drink.
Meanwhile he questioned the authority and approach of the industry-funded group.
“As a structure, the Portman Group is independent. This means that they are not accountable to anyone or need to supply qualitative and or quantitative evidence to support their rulings,” he said.
Continuing, he commented, “I have had to waste a huge amount of time and money on this whole mess and I am angry that a body with no legislative power can just come along and make arbitrary decisions that we, a small producer, are then left with the consequences of, in my opinion, ill-informed and unjustified views.”
Finally, he said that if the supermarkets did choose to delist Laverstoke Park products as a result of his decision, he would “respect and accept their position”.
Yet another stupid decision by the Portman Group, which acts more out of fear of being replaced by a government appointed body than of any true understanding of the product and its effect in the marketplace. Everything that Scheckter does at Laverstoke is for the very best of ethical and environmental reasons. His organic credentials are impeccable and he has employed so many scientists to evaluate biodynamic processes that The Soil Association consults Laverstoke, not the other way around. Scheckter’s wife established an education centre at Laverstoke that teaches children of all ages and ability the moral responsibility of farming. This is not just “petting”, it is fun-inspired education, delivered by a fully qualified Education Officer. How galling it must for the Scheckters, who put so much time, money and effort into ensuring youngsters are put on the right course in life, that they should then be accused of encouraging the absolute opposite. I hope that any supermarket that disagrees with this ruling will have the courage not to delist, particularly those who are Code Signatories. When decisions get out of control – and this is by no means the Portman Group’s first blunder – Code Signatories have just as much duty to rectify the decision-making process, as they do to follow the decisions when they are the right decisions.