4 ms·
the issue with NA beers are that we still pay "taxed beer prices" on what amounts to fizzy yeast water. The pricing model is ridiculous...the alcohol companies
by an_aparallel 3y ago
the issue with NA beers are that we still pay "taxed beer prices" on what amounts to fizzy yeast water. The pricing model is ridiculous...the alcohol companies know that people who've found themselves in the misfortune of not being able to drink will pay it.
- NavinF 3y agoIsn't that because non-alcoholic beer is a much smaller market and moves way less volume? Same reason why buying aluminum extrusions and matching fasteners costs the same as buying an entire 3D printer and dismantling it to recover the same parts
- SOLAR_FIELDS 3y agoMost NA beers are actually harder to produce than regular beers. The process is essentially “make regular beer, then remove the alcohol”
- SOLAR_FIELDS 3y agoI mentioned in a sibling comment that NA beers are actually harder to produce than regular beers. That would explain the pricing of NA beers, if the production cost of beer was at all related to the actual price of beer. In many jurisdictions, it very much is not. I think your comment is valuable in pointing out that the taxation scheme and law of beer often encompasses NA beer as well, when it shouldn’t, and in the end that very often hurts the adoption of and distribution possibilities of NA beer. In other words, if NA beer was treated like a soda it would have a lot less pain in its GTM segment. NA beer can have some low amount of alcohol, but then again so can kombucha. Where I live (Austin, TX), kombucha is regulated like a soda, but NA beer is not. They are fundamentally quite similar (very low ABV fermented beverages) but regulated quite differently. They shouldn’t be - from the perspective of the governing body, NA beers should be treated as bioactive sodas, exactly how kombucha is currently treated. There is no justifiable reason to treat them otherwise