Andrea Felsted: Dry January is the least of big booze’s problems

posted in: News | 0

Dry January may already be a distant memory, but the problems for big booze are far from receding.

The U.S. surgeon general’s advisory on the link between alcohol and cancer, the rise of weight-loss drugs that can dampen demand for a drink, young people preferring the gym to a gin, and now the prospect of tariffs have left brewers and distillers with a nasty hangover. While they can plausibly defend their business with low- and no- alcohol alternatives, it’s enough to drive investors to drink.

The new year got off to a bad start when U.S. surgeon general under the Biden administration Vivek Murthy issued an advisory — a public statement that draws attention to a critical health issue — for alcohol. He recommended that drinks carry warnings about their links to cancer.

This sets alcohol on the same path as tobacco: increasingly in public-health crosshairs. The danger is that this could be the start of greater restrictions, from curbing advertising to adding rules on where products are sold, Duncan Fox, analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence, told me.

If the trajectory follows that of cigarettes, then there may be a drop of comfort: If history is anything to go by, companies should have time to prepare. The Trump administration might push the timeline out further; Murthy’s term has ended. But surgeon general’s warnings are hard to ignore, and there is enough of a narrative around alcohol and cancer for this issue to remain in the spotlight.

In the meantime, there are more pressing matters for the booze business: While drinking is falling out of favor across  all generations, the most notable drop since the end of 2021 has come from Millennials, according to a new report from Morning Consult. Gen Z’s aversion to alcohol is also well known. At the same time, there is a growing body of evidence to back up anecdotes that GLP-1s reduce cravings not only for food, but also for alcohol.

Debra Crew, chief executive officer of Guinness and Gordon’s owner Diageo Plc, said it was difficult to identify the distinct effects of weight loss drugs from the broader trend toward moderation.

But U.S. alcohol volumes are only gradually recovering from their post-pandemic dip. That indicates that these drugs — as well as the demographic shifts and economic pressures driving consumers to purchase mini bottles of spirits, for example — are taking their toll.

Add in (delayed) 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada, and the glass is half empty. Constellation Brands Inc., brewer of America’s favorite beer, Mexican import Modelo Especial, cut its full-year sales outlook in January and widened the range of potential outcomes. Meanwhile, 25% tariffs on aluminum imports to the U.S. are another blow: A lot of beer comes in cans.

But in one way, brewers and distillers are better set up than tobacco manufacturers: They have wisely already moved into low- and no- alcohol beverages.

This is comparable to the latter’s development of alternatives such as electronic cigarettes and devices that heat rather than burn tobacco. Yet some of these products still contain nicotine, hence the concern about young people vaping or using Philip Morris Inc.’s Zyn pouches, particularly if they move on to cigarettes.

That shouldn’t be a risk for low- and no- alcohol drinks, which offer consumers a way to moderate their intake while still having a social experience. The amount of alcohol in these beverages is so small that it’s hard to see a “Nonqueray” being a gateway to the real thing. Of course, people might switch between the two. But given mounting evidence of the links with certain cancers, if that cuts consumption, it should still offer health benefits.

So far, Europe is ahead of the U.S. in terms of low- and no- alcohol beers gaining traction, points out Sarah Simon, analyst at Morgan Stanley. The market for non-alcoholic wines and spirits is even more nascent.

But America is catching up fast. Not only has Athletic Brewing Co. become the largest non-alcoholic beer brand in the U.S., but brewers including the world’s biggest, Anheuser-Busch InBev SA, and Diageo through Guinness 0.0 are placing major bets. The Budweiser owner recently launched a non-alcoholic version of its popular Michelob Ultra, appearing in its Michelob Ultra pickleball-themed Super Bowl ad.

Sales of non-alcoholic beers in grocers — the most advanced retail channel — have been growing around 25%-35% per annum over the past few years, according to an analysis of NielsenIQ data by BUMP Williams Consulting. However, it remains small.

Margins are higher than for alcoholic drinks, Diageo said, which is helpful. Profits may be eroded as competition intensifies, but economies of scale should kick in as production ramps up.

When it comes to weight-loss drugs, selling a lower volume of better quality alcohol, which commands a higher price point, is another option.

Alternatively, with some young people choosing “California Sober,” companies could look to legal cannabis. Some, such as Constellation Brands, Molson Coors Beverage Co. and AB InBev, have dabbled in this market. But it is yet to become a major avenue of growth, partly because products still can’t be sold everywhere. And if there are health concerns around alcohol, surely the risks of cannabis, about which far less is known, are even greater?

So while big booze might raise a toast to low- and no- alcohol, this market remains in its infancy. Until it challenges the mainstream or another strategic bet pays off, it’s far too early to say cheers.

Andrea Felsted is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering consumer goods and the retail industry. Previously, she was a reporter for the Financial Times.

 

Tyler Cowen: What’s the best way to reveal a government secret?

posted in: Politics | 0

House Republicans last week announced their “Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets.” This follows an executive order issued last month by President Donald Trump ordering the release of records about the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. The broad idea is to get the federal government to reveal all its information about these assassinations as well as topics like Jeffrey Epstein, the origins of COVID-19 and UAPs (formerly known as UFOs).

Rather than speculate about whether Trump and Congress will follow through, I would like to focus on the question of how this disclosure process should work.

The first and arguably most important question is who exactly has the authority to order the declassification and publication. Ideally, the head of the congressional task force should be a credible and independent person trusted by the bureaucracy and by the national security establishment. That person should be able to declassify documents without requiring approval from the president. On first glance, the current arrangement does not seem to allow that.

The risk is that Trump would hoard the most sensitive information and disclose selectively, to manipulate the news cycle or to distract attention from other events. It also could give him more political weapons to use against what he calls the “deep state.” The president himself is hardly a model of transparency, whether the questions concern his tax returns, his medical exams or the possession of classified documents after leaving office.

But again, the issue is governmental disclosure, and so far, Trump’s record is 0 for 1. Before assuming office, he suggested that the U.S. military knew more than it was letting on about the drones that had been sighted above New Jersey and other Northeastern states. Then, after Trump took office, his press secretary said only that they were “authorized” by the government “for research and various other reasons.” There has been no subsequent attempt to clarify matters. Personally, I am more confused than I was a month ago.

Perhaps there are good national security reasons for this silence. The point is that it is foolish to expect full and open disclosure from the president, no matter what his executive order says or what he has earlier promised.

One way to improve the process would be to appoint some independent auditors on a bipartisan basis, perhaps selected from Congress. Ex post, those auditors could judge whether disclosure, with transparent explanations, had actually occurred. They could grade the degree of disclosure, but they would not have the power to prevent it. Otherwise, there is a risk that — to choose an example not quite at random — evidence favoring the “two gunmen” hypothesis for JFK’s assassination is released, but conflicting evidence for the “lone gunman” hypothesis is suppressed. The auditors would issue a report saying whether disclosure was unbalanced or unfair.

The Republican heading the task force, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, is well suited for the  job in the sense that she has had a strong interest in disclosure and transparency, and she is not building her career by courting establishment approval.

On the other hand, she is not the most credible spokesperson for the cause of disclosure. She has a partisan and contentious political history, recently introducing a bill to have Trump’s face carved into Mount Rushmore. The letter she sent soliciting information for disclosure slams President Joe Biden’s administration, hardly a move designed to build a consensus in favor of the process or its outcomes. The cause of transparency is best served when it is not partisan.

Another problem with the task force is that it is authorized for only six months. Bureaucracies are by nature slow-moving, and can be even more so when they wish to be. A six-month deadline creates incentives to wait things out. Trump could threaten to extend the mandate, and perhaps he will. But then the disclosure campaign would turn out to be just a bargaining chip, rather than a genuine attempt to bring the truth to light.

Mostly I favor this new policy, if only because so little progress has been made under the status quo. Above all else, I am a curious human being, and if handled properly, this task force could be revelatory. But there are also plenty of ways it could go wrong, so I am also curious to see how it all plays out.

Tyler Cowen is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, a professor of economics at George Mason University and host of the Marginal Revolution blog.

 

Letters: Never before have I seen the Democrats in this hot a mess

posted in: News | 0

This is how Democrats plan to win?

Never before have I seen the Democrats in this hot a mess.

And what is their master plan for taking back Congress in 2026?

Try to save the careers of hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats hiding out in the partisan Democrat deep-state, and accuse Musk of being an unelected president despite the fact he openly campaigned with Trump and everyone knew what the dynamic duo would do?

Meanwhile, they throw temper tantrums in committees, sue Trump in every liberal court they can find, denounce popular efforts to trim trillions in waste, threaten violence in the streets, conspire against ICE, and write stupid protest songs they can’t sing on-key.

Is this how Democrats plan to win next time? This? What a gift to taxpayers.

Mark D. Overholser, South St. Paul

 

Elon Musk, Bureaucrat in Chief

Over the past few years, I have written various times on this page questioning actions of Democrats who are beholden to “Progressives,” or the extreme wing of the party. I have generally written from a centrist and critical perspective of “this is why people vote for Donald Trump.” Well, Trump once again occupies the White House, and I feel it is time to shift attention.

Since his inauguration, the Trump administration has done so many profoundly problematic and destructive things that it is difficult to know where to focus. However, I will address one element of his administration: The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

DOGE as it is being implemented is based on deceit and questionable legality. The official DOGE website can be found at www.doge.gov. This is a very unusual website for a government agency in that it shares so little information about the agency. Under the “About” tab, the only information provided pertaining to DOGE is Trump’s executive order which created DOGE. It is a very short and generalized document, yet it provides the legal basis and justification for all DOGE actions. It has only one Purpose clause, which reads: “This Executive Order establishes the Department of Government Efficiency to implement the President’s DOGE Agenda, by modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.”

“The President’s DOGE Agenda” is not defined anywhere in the order. DOGE supersedes the former US Digital Service (renamed by the executive order as the US DOGE Service).

The US Agency for International Development (USAID) was created in 1961 to provide humanitarian assistance around the world, and to promote goodwill towards the US, countering similar aid/development programs by other foreign powers (most notably the USSR). This agency has indisputably saved and/or improved many millions of lives over the years. One can debate the validity and/or efficiency of this agency. However, to gut and functionally eliminate USAID under a program whose legally defined purpose is to modernize technology and software is absurd. I am not a lawyer, but it seems very questionable from a legal perspective. It precludes any sort of public debate (i.e. transparency and accountability). This is just one of many examples of wrecking-ball actions being implemented by DOGE under Elon Musk.

Trump and his supporters have long railed against unelected bureaucrats who they claim have too much power. How ironic, now, that Musk is functionally the Bureaucrat in Chief. He has never run for office of any kind, yet he is arguably the second most powerful man in the United States, given his unchecked political power as the in-fact administrator of DOGE combined with his vast economic and communications clout.

Peter Langworthy, St. Paul

 

Joe’s reasoning needs a tweak

Joe Soucheray’s article about transgender people participating in women’s sports this past Sunday needs a little tweaking.

It’s true that biological men normally out-compete women. What gives men this advantage is their testosterone. It makes their muscles larger and stronger. However, if a transgender person is taking a testosterone-blocking agent together with a feminizing estrogen, as most of them do, this advantage is lost. According to my reading, (easily found on the internet), testing repeatedly shows that cis-women consistently compete well against trans-women in all feats excepting for hand-grip strength. They can actually jump higher, and have better lung function than trans-women.

Like Joe, I don’t have a dog in this fight, excepting that I wouldn’t mind seeing Minnesota prevail in its resistance to the bullying we are seeing from Washington.

G.J. Mayer, Lino Lakes

 

Handing the field to Goliath

Ukraine vs Russia is the David and Goliath, good vs evil, story of our time. I am sad, worried and angry that at a time when the United States should be standing with democracy against a cruel dictator we have just taken the stone from David’s sling and handed the field to Goliath. This level of capitulation is right up there with Neville Chamberlain declaring peace in our time after meeting with Adolf Hitler. We all know how that turned out.

Ukraine has put up quite a fight against our mortal enemy, putting Putin the dictator in a weakened state. Why in the world are we abandoning our allies and throwing Putin a lifeline?

Greg Kvaal, Mendota Heights

 

A puddle of tears?

I’m responding to Wednesday’s New York Times report of federal funding being cut to the CDC, FDA and National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Hold it right there, Mister. While all that sounds like a done deal, our Attorney General, Keith Ellison, has co-led a 22-blue-state lawsuit against the federal administration for “unlawfully cutting (NIH) funds that support cutting-edge medical and public health research at universities and research institutions across the country.”

And, Massachusetts District Court Judge Angel Kelley has wagged her finger in Elon Musk’s puffy little face. She is one of Joe Biden’s 2021 picks.  It’s only a temporary reprieve and a further hearing is scheduled for Feb. 21.

Here’s the kicker: The pause is limited to the 22 blue states that enjoined the lawsuit. The red states have been left sitting in a puddle of their own tears.  For those of you who enjoy the schadenfreude

Regina Purins, St. Paul

 

Oh, that T-Bird

Thank you for the supplement to the 14 Feb.25 Pioneer Press, “A Ford assembly plant story.

My father had been a Ford car owner for most of his life.  In 1955, I was 11 years old, we as a family drove from southern Minnesota to St Paul to take a tour of the Ford plant.

Parked in front of the main office building was a brand new 1955 Ford Thunderbird, black with a red and white interior.  Awesome! I don’t remember much about the tour but I do remember telling my father that someday I would own a Thunderbird like the 1955 model we saw at the plant.

In 1971, I found a 1956 Ford Thunderbird (1955 and 1956 models were almost identical) on a Ford dealership used car lot.  No hesitating, I bought it and made arrangements to drive it home.

I spent many wonderful hours over the years overhauling the 312 CID V8, its transmission and its running gear.  I still have it and marvel at its beauty everyday.

A Ford Thunderbird lover,

Gary Schraml, Lindstrom

 

Let’s make a deal — for your pennies

There’s been recent discussions about the lowly penny. How now, It costs about three and a half cents to mint one penny.

There seems to be a faulty assumption that once a penny is spent or received as change, the pennies are tossed away in the trash never to be seen again, which is absurd thinking.

The reality is that many pennies are recycled again and again and often for many years. To be used again and again in multiple purchases or to be received as change.

There’s another reality. Pennies do get lost and need replacing. Or they get saved ( hoarded). You’ll hear about some people saving (hoarding) pennies over many decades. Sometimes you read about people out of vengeance or malice choosing to pay off debts off with thousands of pennies. Sometimes you read about people showing up at a bank to convert decades of savings pennies in a wheel barrow. That becomes newsworthy and an attention getter.

I would suggest that every once a while, when the US Treasury needs more pennies, instead of minting more pennies, to instead institute a buying plan to pay the hoarding savers one and a half cents to two cents for each penny they turned into an authorized bank to be converted to cash. The same idea goes with nickels.

I’m sure a plan can be worked out. It has to be a plan with a very defined and closed window of opportunity to work.

There are probably millions, maybe billions of pennies that are now entrapped at homes and businesses across the USA that needs to be released. Hopefully a buy-back program would save some taxpayers money.

Barry Siebert, St Paul

 

Republican-backed bill fails in first floor vote in Minnesota House

posted in: News | 0

A Republican-backed bill before the Minnesota House aimed at opening more records at the state attorney general’s office failed on party lines Thursday in the chamber’s first floor vote of the legislative session.

The measure would have changed the wording of a state statute to open more of the attorney general’s investigative records. Many of those are private because of a 2022 state Supreme Court decision that regarded the records of groups and organizations as subject to the same protections as individuals.

House Majority Leader Harry Niska, R-Ramsey, told reporters at a Thursday news conference that the decision gives Democratic-Farmer-Labor Attorney General Keith Ellison special protection against public scrutiny other state agencies don’t enjoy.

“This should be an obvious gimme vote for everybody; to say we are for transparency,” he said. “We are for the government not hiding what it’s doing when there’s no privacy interest that needs to be protected of an individual person.”

It’s worth noting: The Minnesota Legislature has protections of its own. Lawmakers’ records are exempt from the Minnesota Data Practices Act. Niska said he didn’t think that exemption should change.

The 2022 Supreme Court decision came as the result of a lawsuit filed by Energy Policy Advocates against Ellison seeking information about outside groups believed to be funding positions helping the office with its lawsuit against the petroleum industry.

Justices narrowly sided with Ellison 4-3, with Justice Paul Thissen in his dissent describing the majority’s interpretation of state open records law as “somewhat Orwellian” for applying a different definition to the attorney general’s office.

DFL Attorney General Keith Ellison said the push was tied to his office’s ongoing litigation against oil companies like Exxon Mobil for allegedly misleading the public that fossil fuels aren’t linked to climate change.

Ellison and DFL lawmakers said they doubt Republicans’ declared intent of helping government transparency. They instead tied the bill to the ongoing legal battles.

“This is bad legislation motivated by the fossil fuel industry,” Ellison said.

Further, Ellison said the bill would potentially expose sensitive information held by his office, including the trade secrets of corporations his office is suing.

The potential for exposure of sensitive information could make other states less likely to invite Minnesota to multi-party consumer protection lawsuits, Ellison said. One example he pointed to was Minnesota’s involvement in a settlement with pharmaceutical companies blamed for causing the national opioid addiction crisis.

Bill isn’t dead

Despite the failed House floor vote Thursday, the bill could come back in a different form later in the session. Republicans voted to table the bill after it failed.

Right now, House Republicans are using their current one-seat majority at the Capitol to advance bills to the floor, using what could be a temporary advantage over their DFL colleagues before the chamber potentially returns to a 67-67 tie next month after a special election in a Roseville-area district.

Even though Republicans have an organizational majority, they are one vote short of the 68 needed to pass bills. Republicans say a big part of the reason they brought the bill to the floor Thursday was to get DFLers’ votes on the record.

“It was important to us that we move this bill forward while we have the procedural ability to do that,” said Niska, who told reporters there would be more similar Republican-backed measures on the floor in the coming weeks.

Related Articles

Politics |


DFL lawmakers, Ellison back legislation to purchase, then forgive, Minnesotans’ medical debt

Politics |


Senate GOP files new ethics complaints against Nicole Mitchell, state senator facing felony burglary charges

Politics |


Trump moves on budget, policy spill over to Minnesota Legislature

Politics |


SPPS Board of Education to vote on cell phone policy Tuesday

Politics |


Minnesota GOP files first petitions aimed at unseating DFL House members