Labels - so how can this possibly be legal?

[itma]

Perusing the local supermarket shelves the other day, I happened to notice a product calling itself "Three Barrels Honey".

It strikes me as being a blatantly illegal use of the "reserved description" of "Honey".

The product doesn't actually contain ANY honey - just "natural honey flavouring".

I don't think there is any doubt about the product name

Three Barrels Honey will benefit from a £300k above the line launch programme. The ‘Embrace the Unexpected’ campaign includes high impact outdoor advertising and digital activity focusing on The Basildon Family creative, which was a success for Three Barrels in 2013 in terms of raising consumer awareness and brand appeal.

Coach AND horses. Straight through …

http://www.thedrinksreport.com/news/2014/15531-three-barrels-honey-launched-in-uk.html





However, it does "legitimise" the idea of washing down your cappings with cheap supermarket brandy …

… and if anyone has any trouble with label officialdom, it might be worth remembering.

 

[Dishmop]

The fact that it says "honey flavouring" is good enough.

 

[alanf]

...It strikes me as being a blatantly illegal use of the "reserved description" of "Honey"...

Playing the devil's advocate here, I'm guessing that they rely on no-one assuming it is actually "honey". It's "honey flavoured brandy" in the same way that "honey cake" is honey flavoured cake or "honey mustard" is honey flavoured mustard. A bit cheeky in that the brand "Three Barrels" is being suggested as so familiar that is doesn't even need to be explicitly "brandy" in the headline.

As far as I recall, alcoholic drinks have long had separate legislation - "honey beer" would be covered for example. One difference is that they don't have to list all ingredients as you would with a food product such as flavoured mustards.

 

[itma]

The fact that it says "honey flavouring" is good enough.

Tosh!



The FSA Honey Regs Guidance Notes say

Reserved descriptions are controlled sales names that apply to specified honey products. The Regulations provide that a food offered for sale to the ultimate consumer or a catering establishment may not be described using one of the reserved descriptions unless it meets the relevant specifications laid down in Schedules 1 and 2. Additionally, the reserved descriptions are “names prescribed by law” for the purposes of Regulation 6(1) of the FLR. Therefore the name under which a specified honey product is sold must be (or include) a reserved description.
The reserved descriptions may also be used in the name of a food in the following circumstances:
a) where it is clear that the specified honey product to which the reserved
description relates is only an ingredient of the food. (e.g., “honey cake”,
“honey roast ham”, “honey and bran muffin”)
b) where it is clear that the food is not, and does not contain, the specified
honey product to which the reserved description relates. (e.g., “honey substitute”)

Now "Honeyed Brandy", "Honeyed Three Barrels" or "Brandy with Honey Flavouring" would pass that test.
But "Three Barrels Honey" - no way does that *label* description CLEARLY identify honey (actual honey, not 'flavouring') as a mere ingredient …

As a "food product" *label* it does strike me as abusing the Reserved Description of "Honey".

I doubt that anyone would actually spend £18 on a bottle thinking it was (very) runny honey - BUT I don't believe that the product name and labelling comply with the law.

 

[Dishmop]

Bit of a sod trying to get it out of the bottle with a knife..

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Goes on all the time - bought a packet of Java Lava coffee a few months ago - NOT A TRACE of molten rock or Krakatoa fragments in there. And as for bull's blood - disgusting how the supermarkets try and rip you off

 

[midnight sun]

Tosh!



The FSA Honey Regs Guidance Notes say
Now "Honeyed Brandy", "Honeyed Three Barrels" or "Brandy with Honey Flavouring" would pass that test.
But "Three Barrels Honey" - no way does that *label* description CLEARLY identify honey (actual honey, not 'flavouring') as a mere ingredient …

As a "food product" *label* it does strike me as abusing the Reserved Description of "Honey".

I doubt that anyone would actually spend £18 on a bottle thinking it was (very) runny honey - BUT I don't believe that the product name and labelling comply with the law.

You could always ask trading standards what they think of it. I think now you have to contact some 'private company' at your local council to get through to trading standards.
Worth a try to put your mind at rest?
Regards Dave

 

[user 6228]

COME ON if it was France we would be blockading Morrisions..

They are stealing our brand OUR bandwagon.

Write to your MPs Everyone go to the LOCAL TRADING STANDARDS and KICK UP A FUSS!!!!

 

[MikeT]

View attachment 11096Here's the so called honey on sale in all the major supermarkets.

Here's their web site http://www.thehousebrandy.com/products/?gclid=COTb1LKElMICFWnMtAodt2AARA

Mike

 

[mintmoth]

Should I get my panning gear out, then?

 

[user 6228]

"Removed by user request pending legal advice"

 

[VEG]

Is a drink classed as a food?

 

[richardbees]

derek - is this a cunning stunt to get us a few free cases for Christmas?
imo they're not 'passing off' and we all know the well known Scotch isn't made from bells

good luck!

 

[user 6228]

"Removed by user request pending legal advice"

 

[richardbees]

OK done, I've just mailed her...

 

[itma]

…
imo they're not 'passing off' and we all know the well known Scotch isn't made from bells

good luck!

Thing is that the words "bells", "gold", lava" etc are NOT legally protected from misuse by specific legislation - in the way that the specific word "honey" is protected (or is supposed to be protected).
Folk are not allowed to make flavoured syrup and label it as "honey". This law protects beekeepers and honey farmers from bad guys abusing OUR brand - "honey".
These guys aren't labelling their stuff as "with honey flavouring" they are naming their product "honey".
And according to the law, that should not be permitted.

It is a "reserved description" legally only allowed to be applied to specific things.
Which is why our honey has to have the right water content, sugar composition, diastase activity, electrical conductivity, etc … otherwise WE aren't legally permitted to name our product "honey".

 

[Anduril]

This is from Ask Cedric.

What is the difference between Flavour and Flavoured products.

Foods that are described as, for example, strawberry flavour may be flavoured artificially and need not contain any strawberries at all whereas strawberry flavoured product must derive most of its flavour from strawberries. If the food is described as “strawberry”, for example strawberry yoghurt, then it must be made from whole strawberries.

 

[Teebeeaitch]

Too much time on your hands. From looking at the bottle, is it not blatantly obvious what the product is. For those that enjoy them, here is a wild goose chase for Christmas.

 

[Edwardking]

I know some of you are not taking this seriously, but I think you need to reconsider. The label regulations are for everyone and should be followed by everyone. If we don't react to this issue then next time it'll be something worse. I support us all writing to our MP's and to the manufacturer. You may wish to point out that in 1993 Yves Saint Laurent brought out a perfume called Champagne - and six months later had to remove all stock and rebrand it Yvresse. Check out ebay YSL champaign to see how much the original bottles now sell for. We must stick up for ourselves.

 

[Dishmop]

Thing is that the words "bells", "gold", lava" etc are NOT legally protected

Richard Branson took somebody to court to stop them using the word Virgin in a product.. I think it was a beer.