|
 In March 2006, the Office of the Legislative Auditor (OLA) released a report that detailed how consumers are harmed by Minnesota's current liquor laws. After months of comprehensive research, the OLA found that Minnesota's monopoly-style liquor regulations protect the profits of the liquor industry and cause higher prices and limited product options for consumers.
The OLA report is the third report in two years to conclude that Minnesota's current system for liquor regulation is broken. This report should help build momentum for the Wine With Dinner proposal.
The OLA report concluded that:
- Minnesota restricts off-sale retail competition in the liquor business more than most states.
- Off-sale prices for beer and wine are higher in Minnesota than in Wisconsin, but prices for distilled spirits are lower.
- Minnesota's more restrictive retail laws are probably responsible for the state's higher beer and wine prices, while its relatively unique law for spirits wholesaling is responsible for its lower spirits prices.
- Allowing grocery stores to sell wine would probably have relatively modest economic and social impacts.
The report confirms that Minnesota's approach to liquor regulation is outdated and unfairly benefits liquor wholesalers and retailers at the expense of consumers. Unlike the liquor cartel, the grocery industry thrives because it operates in a competitive environment that focuses primarily on customer needs. This report will provide a strong foundation for adopting a more consumer-friendly approach to alcohol sales in Minnesota, such as Wine With Dinner.
A 2004 report conducted by American Economics Group (AEG) of Washington, D.C. concluded that Minnesota imposes unusual limitations on retail liquor licenses, restricting consumer choices and convenience. A 2005 report by AEG found that Minnesota's regulatory system forces consumers to pay hundreds of millions of dollars more per year for wine and beer than they would if they shopped in Wisconsin.
|
©
Minnesota Grocers Association