When the agencies spread the news that in the summer of 2012, sellers and producers may need a beer license, the suppliers of this low-alcohol drink immediately expressed their disagreement with this question. Since this issue concerns not only sellers, but also consumers, the main emphasis was placed on the fact that the buyer will lose as a result of the proposed changes. In general, opinions on whether a beer license is needed, as is usually the case on all controversial issues, were divided.
Beer has been known to mankind since time immemorial, this alcoholic drink has won a huge army of fans, and every year their number only multiplies. Of particular note is the merit of television and other media in popularizing this foamy drink.
The price of a drink directly depends on which source of raw materials the manufacturer chooses, natural beer, naturally, is more expensive. A huge selection of different varieties on the shelves is amazing, what kind of beer is not available! Light and dark, strong, light and non-alcoholic, and even “live”, they sell it in bottles, in cans and on bottling.
They make the beer that we buy in stores, either from hops with barley or from concentrate. Recently, Duma deputy Viktor Zvagelsky said that more than 90% of all beer in Russia is not beer, since it is produced from concentrate, which means it must be labeled as “Beer Drink”. The Brewers' Union immediately sued him, but lost the case.
Silence and grace in a cozy market for the sale and consumption of beer was broken in 2011, when for the first time an attempt was made to introduce licensing for the retail sale of beer. But jointly, beer makers beat off this attack. In the summer of this year, lawmakers tried to complete what was started to the end, from July 22 it was planned to introduce compulsory licensing for all those involved in the production and sale of low-alcohol products, but this norm was extinct from the draft amendments to the law.
The Brewery Union, which, as mentioned above, categorically opposed it, said: “a beer license will create a spiral of corruption and kill Russian brewing,” “licensing is harmful to any transparent business,” etc.
Other manufacturers pointed out the obvious circumstance that obtaining this document does not pose any problem for them, and indeed, for large enterprises, a beer license is not a serious waste, and the law does not apply to small enterprises; for them, the Duma was going to make an exception.
But the Union continued to bend its line, according to the brewers, the idea of the deputy Zvagelsky, from the filing of which this whole story was twisted, contradicts the course announced by the Russian leadership on improving the climate for business. In general, according to the brewers, a beer license will not protect against counterfeit goods, and it will cause huge losses to honest producers. According to the calculations presented by the Union, 50% of the factories participating in the production of beer, in case of adoption of the law, will be completely paralyzed for an indefinite period.
According to some specialists from brewing, enterprises will have to do tremendous work in preparing the documents necessary for obtaining a license for beer. The bureaucratic machine will return these papers in case of revealing the slightest inaccuracies back and so on in a circle, and enterprises at that time will incur losses.
But sober-minded members of the Brewers' Union point out the obvious fact that the giants, which control up to 80% of the market, will be able to get all the licenses without particularly straining, but those small factories that work in the regions may find it hard. In this case, in their opinion, "the consumer may not receive a high-quality product."