I didn’t actually have to produce ID as I’m officially a mature lady now, but I got a “Challenge 25” flag earlier while buying 0.0% beer and non-alcoholic winter punch.
My question is, why? They’re not alcoholic at all, so why do I need to be over 18 to buy it?
OP marked this as the best answer, given by /u/Otherwise_Hunter8425.
What is this?
I think it's because although it's 0%, it's still classed as being in the alcoholic drink category by the supermarket. Like you can get 'challenge 25' for buying spoons or anything else in the cutlery category.
Until you've had a damn good spooning this can leave some a little confused, but once some street tough has spooned you roughly you soon understand.
https://youtu.be/9VDvgL58h_Y?si=ZDSnVGWv6xrpyMKZ
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MKfmwNUF6pw
It’s not often I see a musk ox, but whenever I do I still get the “cleaning musk ox” song stuck in my head.
It's for people playing knifey spoony
That's not a knife.....
Alright alright! You win. I see you've played this knifey-spoony before!
The weirdest one I experienced recently was a potato peeler. I did ask the cashier if there had been a lot of violent peeling incidents lately, but immediately regretted it when the look on her face made me realise I was far from the first to enquire about it.
Man in court for having potato peeler in public place
https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/16197023.Man_in_court_for_having_potato_peeler_in_public_place/
https://twitchy.com/sarahd/2018/05/09/is-this-a-joke-scottish-man-to-be-sentenced-for-possessing-this-offensive-weapon-n671808
Spoons are a genuine oversight, but for non-alcoholic "substitute" drinks they're deliberately in that classification.
Because they don’t want to encourage children to drink non-alcoholic beer. If a child can go and purchase non-alcoholic beer that’s quite problematic. Easier to just apply the 25 rule to everything.
Why is it problematic if it’s non-alcoholic?
Would you also consider a kid drinking a can of shandy problematic?
Cmon man this is so obvious
I think it’s problematic for a child to be drinking a beverage emulating alcohol, yes.
I guess mocktails are off the menu for your kids then lol
If you don’t understand the difference between a mix of fruit juices/fizz and 0% beer, then this is not a conversation I can be bothered to have with you.
I mean, Shandy Bass is actually 0.5% and, at least when i was younger, not sure about now, children could buy that. So you have a bit of a point.
Shandy is typically 50:50 beer/lemonade, so if by "problematic" you mean encouraging children to drink alcohol, yes?
The only option named shandy that Tesco have is the Fosters one, and it's 3% alcohol, which I think is pretty reasonable to ID for.
50/50 shandy is found in pubs. And is obviously restricted for children.
Cans of shandy (sold in newsagents, fish & chip shops etc), are not 50/50. They contain no more than .5% alcohol (same as non-alcoholic beer). So again, what’s the difference? Is one promoting alcohol more than the other? Because one can be sold to children and one cannot.
If you're referring to things like Barrs "Shandyade", it has no alcohol in it, it's purely a soft drink, so no ID is required.
As I just told you, Fosters shandy is 3% ABV, and is age restricted.
Morrisons shandy is 0.5% ABV and is also age restricted.
"Shandyade" is not pretending to be alcohol, or emulating an alcoholic beverage, others may be.
Ben Shaws Shandy sold in chip shops is a “no more than 0.5%” shandy and is sold without age restrictions.
If I go to buy it on Amazon, it says you need to be 18+, so it's entirely up to the retailer if they want to ID for it or not.
I’d imagine that people seeing a 13 year old drinking a beer on the way home from school would not look good on the school etc, and most non alcoholic beers look just like the alcoholic ones
Supermarkets don't want to be seen as promoting alcohol to kids by selling them products that deliberately resemble/imitate alcoholic drinks.
There is no law against selling non-alcoholic drinks to under-18s, it's just bad PR to sell something that looks like Guinness to a child in school uniform. It's the same reason why candy cigarettes aren't a thing anymore, or at the least have been heavily rebranded and don't use any tobacco imagery.
Chocolate cigs were amazing, I loved those as a kid.
I never had chocolate cigarettes but I remember the sugar stick ones.
Absolutely disgusting they were, they tasted like vaguely sweet chalk.
Yeah you could get both kinds. Some of the indie sweet shops sold choc cigs wrapped in paper in cartons that looked like American cig packets. The chocolate was gritty and odd tasting, can still taste it now 🚬
The candy cigs were more widespread and also tasted odd. They were pink at the tip like they were supposed to be smouldering or something 😆 🚬
You’re right, the candy cigs were horrible. When I (now 62) was a little kid there was also a sweet that imitated a packet of tobacco, I quite liked that.
Coconut tobacco? You can still buy that in sweet shops 😊
They were even cheaper than advent calendar chocolate
But slightly more tasty! A bit. 🚬
I never worked out if you were supposed to eat the paper or not
Ha! I never risked it. I think it would have dissolved in the mouth if it was supposed to have been. 🚬
Yeah, also the "challenge" schemes aren't law. They're a consortium of the big supermarkets that came with a marketing/enforcement campaign to make things simpler for their members.
Yep. A lot of pubs still have "Challenge 21" instead of 25.
I believe Scotland might be slightly different in this respect, though? I vaguely remember hearing something about that.
I think the idea is that you don't want to encourage people under 18 to engage with any kind of 'alcohol'.
If you let a 14 year old drink 0% beer, you potentially create associations/loyalty to a booze brand... Despite the drink they are having not containing any alcohol.
If you saw a bunch of rowdy kids in the park with some branded cans, without being close enough to read the 0%, you would probably assume they were drinking. The police would be called and their time wasted for sure.
There's a comedy sketch in there somewhere
Curtain Twitchers at it again
That makes sense! It's all about the associations, even if the drink's technically non-alcoholic. Better safe than sorry, I guess!
throughout the 70's and 80's kids routinely drank Top Deck Shandy or Shandy Bass (which was styled to look like a beer can even). I would suggest whether this all leads to the demon drink has already been tested. (peak booze consumption was early 2000s, long after these kids grew up)
There's three main reasons - one because they don't want to encourage children to be associated with "alcohol", so keeping the Challenge 25 system in place for any beer or wine, whether it's 0.0% or not, means that under 18s are less likely to consume them.
Two: In addition to discouraging U18s from consuming them initially, if the C25 flag is on 0.0% there's less chance of "real" alcohol being slipped through a self scan checkout, scanned as 0.0% as the packaging is often designed to be very similar, especially at a glance, so if the attendant has to physically go to the checkout to verify the purchasers age then they also have the opportunity to see what has been scanned is what is actually being bought.
Finally, on a practical admin level, I work in a supermarket and anything that is in the Beer, Wines and Spirits department is automatically flagged to be a Challenge 25 on the system ... This is a supermarket that has hundreds and hundreds of different BWS lines, some just in store for a short time on a promo, and others being swapped in and out seasonally etc and nobody wants to go through and manually override the C25 flag for 0.0% items so they just leave it on as it's better to have every BWS line flag up as needing a C25 check than risk the wrong item is taken off the C25 check and some kids get their hands on them and get paralytic
!answer this seems like the most reasonable explanation especially on the IT side
From what I gather it's because of the way the stuff is listed in the computer system. Non alcoholic beer is still listed in the beer category for inventory purposes, so it flags up.
I think this is likely the correct one. It saves time and stops mistakes. For example, you could hide a few alcoholic ones among the non-alcoholic ones. Having a challenge 25 on all alcohol or alcohol adjacent drinks means they'll never accidentally sell one to someone underage. From their perspective, protecting their alcohol licence is worth far more than making a few customers disgruntled because they got 'unnecessarily' ID checked.
This is the reason. Maybe the reason they haven't fixed it is because they don't want to encourage underage drinking, or maybe it's just because it will cost money, but the actual reason for it to happen in the first place is "computers".
Source: worked at Ocado, asked an IT spod.
Had this when I was pregnant. Googled it. It’s cos it can encourage the “flavour” etc
I had to show 🪪 for buying nose spray a few times
I got ID'd for those heat patches you stick on bad backs. They're not even medicinal.
You could get addicted to placebos. Can't be too careful!
Getting addicted to warmth is a real problem
Yes, but that's different. What if you get addicted to being able to breathe more easily??
That's a common thing... It's a steroid
I know, I was just making a wee joke.
... You can't comprehend why medical products might be age-restricted? Honestly?
No, not honestly. I'm perfectly well aware, thank you, it was a joke.
Medical products are NOT age restricted. Shops deciding to restrict them are going beyond what the law requires.
Some can contain upto 0.5% alcohol still even though it will say 0% so even if it’s 0.001% it contains alcohol so maybe that?
Shandy contains far more alcohol by volume but is legally classed as a soft drink.
Depends on the drink.
Barr's "Shandyade", is non-alcoholic, so is a soft drink.
Fosters Shandy is 3% ABV, so is not a soft drink.
Ben Shaws Shandy is no more than 0.5% and still sold in chippies to under 18s and without any alcohol license.
Yes, you replied saying as much elsewhere.
As I replied to that comment, if I go to buy it on Amazon, it says you need to be 18+, so it's entirely up to the retailer if they want to ID for it or not.
That’s probably because Amazon uses Morrisons, and you’ve said that retailer requires 18+. There’s absolutely no legal reason so why even enforce it for Something like a less than 0.5% shandy or beer?
That's why my first comment explicitly stated "Depends on the drink", and gave examples of one that's non-alcoholic and doesn't require ID, and one that is and does.
Equally "no legal reason", doesn't mean that they can't choose to do it for things that are 0.5% and classed within the same product category.
Didn’t think of that
It’s due to the way they are categorised in the shop’s system. I remember seeing somewhere that there’s technically more alcohol content in orange juice than non alcoholic beer.
Ah that makes more sense then just what came to my head wasn’t certain
Currently pregnant and learning about the alcohol content of random things - orange juice, bananas and bread all have more alcohol than non-alcoholic beer. God knows how much is in banana bread.
It's just how they're categorised by the till system
Please help keep AskUK welcoming!
When replying to submission/post please make genuine efforts to answer the question given. Please no jokes, judgements, etc.
Don't be a dick to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on.
This is a strictly no-politics subreddit!
Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Yeah it's a silly rule. Non alcoholic drinks should be available to all.
You can't buy candy cigarettes anymore because it was seen as promoting smoking to children. I really don't see how this is any different?
I don't have a problem with candy cigarettes either 🤷♂️ I enjoyed them as a kid.
I had to show ID to buy party poppers the other day.
I wasn’t allowed to buy a Red Bull the other day because my 16 year old didn’t have photo ID to show the jobsworths. I had my driving licence on me but hey whatever … and was then allowed to buy a beer at the same place without showing it.
My husband got age checked for buying Baileys caramel ice cream sauce this week. Definitely zero alcohol content. I think it's down to the category the supermarket puts it in on their system
Interestingly you'll in theory not be ID'd for it in a pub as they go by different rules/agreements. So buy it from your local pub and you'll be fine.
I used to drink top deck (0.5%) and shandy bass (0.5%) as a kid, I remember sitting on top of the bottle bank eating chips with my mates drinking shandy from the chip shop when I was 11.
1987 - different times.
As someone who’s worked in a few supermarkets one of the worst aspects of the job was self entitled customers who seemed to think rules were silly or didn’t apply to them. Challenge 25 for energy drinks or non alcoholic beers or solvents with harmful chemicals is one of the best rules this government has come up with in retail. It’s there to protect the public and should not be questioned
Used to have this a lot with the paracetamol limit. I used to get particularly annoyed as, when I worked in Tesco, I knew that the till itself would rat out colleagues who went over the limit to management (there are cameras above the tills and when the challenge 25 prompt triggered the camera would record and send to security hub. Consecutive transactions of medicine also flag). I knew this because I was a supervisor and got the security reports. I'd explain this to customers and they would tell me it didn't do that. Like I literally got the reports myself…
I get the reasoning with over the counter medication. But unless you're miles away from the next store that has them in stock, it's not really protecting the buyer. At most it's causing them inconvenience.
But in the flipside at least the person/store who didn't sell them has a clear conscience.
Apparently research suggests that that inconvenience is enough to reduce paracetamol overdoses. People don't stock up because it's inconvenient, therefore they don't have a lethal amount in the house. Fortunately most attempts are spur of the moment and rarely make it past the planning process if one is needed.
true
Many things are there to "protect the public" but how many actually do? I find the idea of just simply not allowing questions on certain subjects to be a major step towards a dictatorship rather than a democracy.
Who is stopping you from asking questions?
As staff I’ll happily explain the rules but the issue is when the customers huff and puff and act like the rules are stupid or don’t apply to them. The ones that call for freedom of speech and democracy are also the same category of people who complain the most when people break the rules or have an opinion that differs from them
The people who bang on about FoS are always the ones who have no understanding of what it means or how it is legally applied.
As a tee-total non-driver, I find this rather problematic. I'm obviously not carrying a driving license, same as many other people, and I'm definitely not leaving my passport in my bag on the random chance I decide to buy something age restricted in the supermarket when I'm out.
My crow's feet and grey hairs should really be enough to convince anyone I'm over 18. I understand the idea behind challenge 25 and I support it, but asking for ID from middle aged women is not "challenge 25". The clue is in the name. Nobody with functioning eyes could possibly think I might even slightly, possibly be under 25. Long gone are the days when getting ID'd was flattering, or even mildly amusing.
And don't even get me started on the fact I had to pretend not to be with my younger brother (also in his 40's) when he bought whatever it was he was getting in case he was refused because I couldn't prove my age. And yet when I'm buying pints for my other brother when we're having a pub lunch, there's no issue. It's only supermarkets.
You can carry a provisional driving license if needs be or a PASS card or other forms of ID that aren’t a full driving license or passport if it makes your life easier. I carry a backpack of medical supplies because I also don’t drive because it makes my life easier with my medical conditions. Also most people have common sense. I started going grey as a teenager and never have been ID checked in my life buying age restricted products. However there are others that look younger then their age and if anything that is a compliment.
You cannot legally apply for a provisional license if you have any medical condition which prohibits you from driving. And as a tee-totaler I don't want to have to figure out what/how to apply for any other ID just on the random chance I might need, at the age of 45, to prove I'm 18 or older, because I'm with someone else buying beer in a supermarket. Common sense has gone out the window.
I’m not from the UK, do customers often make a fuss about being asked to prove their age? Do the owners/managers not reprimand them if they overhear?
Personally I would enjoy dealing with these types of customers. They seem to not understand the power imbalance between retailer and consumer….
The ones that usually make a fuss are more desperate in that moment like those with a gambling addiction buying scratch cards of those who need a drink that in that moment. Otherwise most people carry an ID and they laugh and call it a compliment when they are judged to be younger then what their age is.
The only ID I carry is debit card 🤷♂️
In my personal experience, there’s a tipping point where it goes from being annoying to being flattering. Then it stops happening all together 🥲. I’ve never kicked off, but I have let out an incredulous “really?” more than once in my younger years.
I get the policy but being in my mid twenties (and looking it) and not able to buy a red bull in case I'm 15 is a bit maddening. Alcohol I don't resent because it's a lot more serious, but my god, a red bull.
There should be some amount of reason allowed, especially for 16+ items. Telling a 15 year old and 24 year old apart with 100% certainty is easy.
Obviously store policy isn't employees fault.
Energy drinks aren't even legally age-restricted, it's shop policy. A lot of people wrongly think the energy drink age restriction is a legal one, because there are multiple times the government have proposed doing it, but it's never made it into actual law.
Same goes for painkillers. If you go to a proper pharmacy instead of a supermarket they won't ask for ID for Paracetamol or Ibuprofen.
customers suck and UK probably have some of the worst customers
Welcome to the UK, where pointless laws are introduced by fools.
Welcome to Reddit where people are all too often r/ConfidentlyWrong
It's not the law at all, but the way shops choose to implement their own policies.
Typically the concern is a mix of perception, as well as caution regarding similar packaging getting products mixed up. Better to ID for AF beer than risk being fined because non-AF beer was accidentally sold too a minor.
Enjoyably, this thread has 2 instances of to/too being used incorrectly, in both ways, in separate posts! That must be rare!
"too a minor/all to often"
I wonder if the other post is also by an android user who finds the native text interface to have massively declined in competency to the point I'm correcting a majority of words and errors are still getting through.
For example, why did it guess "Mallory" over "majority"!
I get IDd for energy drinks every time I go to any big Tesco I’m 25 next year I look it and have a full beard and a widows peak yet I always just go for my ID as soon as someone scans my can of monster
Retail manager here.
It is basically down to store policy, nothing to do with licencing.
Most shops will ask for ID to save confusion for staff, as non alcoholic products look the same as alcoholic variation.
A lot of non alcoholic drinks contain low levels of alcohol.
For example "alcohol free punk ipa" is actually 0.5%.
For reference orange juice can contain 0.04-0.73%>
However it's mostly just because they want to cover themselves
It's apparently because they are a "gateway drink" towards the proper stuff.
Pretty pathetic I think TBH.
it's funny I remember when top deck was in vending machines in my school anyone could buy it and it's not even alcohol free, excessive safety makes the world a much shitter place
I’ve heard that because the bottles tend to look like their boozy counterparts they put it in to make it easier for staff
They weren’t energy drinks in any way were they? They are restricted
Lol.i get propted for ID if i order Lucozade
I had a chuckle at that when buying grenadine in a supermarket. Nothing remotely alcoholic about it. I was told because it was kept in the alcohol aisle so it was all tagged the same way.
I once got IDed for grenadine syrup in Tesco. it doesn't make any sense.
If Tesco are anything like the supermarket I work for, it will be because the grenadine has been assigned to the BWS department on the inventory system and everything in that department will be automatically flagged as a C25 item.
Could the staff go through and manually override the flag for things like grenadine and other cocktail ingredients that aren't alcoholic? Yes.
Will the staff go through and manually override the flag for a handful of items in the BWS dept that aren't alcoholic, bearing in mind that every time a new delivery arrives into store and resets the automatic C25 flag on the item they will have to manually override it again? No, because they just don't have the time or staff to do it.
Im seeing some good reasons. And they likely pay a large part.
But alcohol free and 0% alcohol drinks still have some alcohol content its small. But its there.
You shouldn't, but some supermarkets will still ask for it and refuse sale if you can't produce it.
Yes, I've seen this happen. No, it doesn't make any sense.
People buy 0% and then will use that in a pub and go oh it tastes bad can you pour me another one and bam alcohol
Head to your local chippy and get a can of Shandy, contains alcohol and sold to kids legally.
I was refused sale at Tesco for non alcoholic wine because I didn’t have ID. The employee said it was because it’s still made at a brewery so the law still applies.
Ehh..
High energy drinks can be really really dangerous.
And things like slushies contain so much sugar at cool temperatures it can cause hyperglycaemia shock.
It's not just alchol which is dangerous.
But I get you, the specifically advertised as 0 alcohol does seem a little reductionist.
Because someone could swap it out for the alcoholic counterparts which are the same price and weight as an attempt to circumvent the system.
It would make a bad image for companies if there weren't voluntary restrictions.
Because most of them are part of RASG, who does Challenge 25 and it's one of their guidelines to do this.
It's not a legal requirement. But shops don't necessarily want to be "the shop that sold kids booze", because there are some absolute nutters who would spin it that way. They could sell it to under 18s, they just don't want to mostly for reputation reasons. Does also help staff avoid making mistakes.
[deleted]
It won’t be any more alcoholic than orange juice so that’s not the reason
Indeed, go look at the alcohol content of a can of shandy. A soft drink you can buy at any age.
0.5% ABV shandy in Morrisons is age restricted, so the "soft drink you can buy at any age" doesn't seem to apply.
So is the 3% ABV Fosters shandy that Tesco sell.
It's not "pseudo-authority", they have the actual authority to approve or refuse your sale.
Not sure why them being half your age is even remotely relevant though.
Worked retail for a decade. There are a TON of people who absolutely despise being questioned or told no by somebody they, consciously or not, view as "beneath" them
Yep, plenty of experience of it working retail myself.
Typically always guys with "wee man syndrome".
It was especially bad when I was an early 20's supervisor, something about that gets people really peeved