Checking the Facts

Claim: Consumers benefit when the liquor monopoly controls wine sales in Minnesota.
Here are the facts: Actually, it's consumers that lose when the liquor monopoly controls sales. According to Minnesota's independent watchdog – the Office of the Legislative Auditor – Minnesota laws regulating liquor sales cost consumers millions of dollars a year in higher prices. The spring 2006 report found:

• Minnesota restricts off-sale retail competition in the liquor business more than most states.
• Minnesota laws restrict competition among wine wholesalers.
• Off-sale prices for wine – the prices consumers pay in liquor stores – are higher in Minnesota than in Wisconsin.
• Less restrictive retail licensing laws could save Minnesota consumers about $100 million a year.

Two other studies, conducted by the American Economics Group of Washington, D.C., concluded that Minnesota consumers are denied the convenience, choice and competitive pricing that exist elsewhere because Minnesota artificially restricts its number of liquor licenses. Because competition is limited or doesn't exist in their area, existing license holders can charge higher prices. 

Claim: Minnesota's restrictive retail licensing laws for selling wine must be maintained to protect public safety.
Here are the facts: Based on actual experience in 33 states that already allow grocery stores to sell wine, less restrictive wine sales laws do not correlate with greater public safety. In fact, FBI data shows that states that permit wine sales in grocery stores have rankings in key public safety statistics that are similar to states that do not permit wine sales.

Minnesota grocers take public safety seriously. That’s why under the Wine With Dinner proposal, grocers will adopt a 10 Point Code of Conduct that requires them to follow the strictest restrictions in the country for selling wine.

Claim: Allowing wine sales in grocery stores will put municipal budgets at risk.
Here are the facts: Some Minnesota communities have municipal liquor operations. However, a study of data from the State Auditor’s Office on municipal liquor operations in Minnesota concludes that cities would notice little effect on their budgets if wine is sold in grocery stores. If wine sales in municipal stores decreased by 15 percent, the city would observe only a 0.17 percent loss in total city revenues.

Claim: Liquor stores do a better job of restricting underage access to alcohol.
Here are the facts: The facts show that grocers do as good a job if not better than liquor stores in restricting underage access to alcohol. According to 2000 FBI statistics, states without wine in grocery stores had an average of 8.2 youth DUIs per 100,000 residents, while states that allowed wine in grocery stores had an average of 6.8 per 100,000 residents. The statistics also showed that Wine With Dinner states had an average of 21.7 fewer youth liquor violations per 100,000 residents than states without wine in grocery stores.

Minnesota grocers have extensive experience selling products that require restricted access. If given the authority to offer wine in grocery stores, grocers will enforce a "zero tolerance" policy with respect to underage access. Grocers will not only comply with the same laws that regulate liquor stores, but have also pledged to adopt the toughest standards in the country for selling wine.

Claim: Grocers really want to sell strong beer and hard liquor.
Here are the facts: The Wine With Dinner proposal is a response to the needs of grocery customers, who have told us they want the choice, convenience and cost savings that will result from being able to buy wine with other dinner items in grocery stores. No wonder Minnesota consumers support the Wine With Dinner proposal by a greater than 2-to-1 margin.

The Wine With Dinner proposal would allow only full-line grocery stores of 8,000-plus square feet to sell wine. Grocers are not seeking authority to sell regular beer or hard liquor.