A death has already been confirmed in methanol poisoning in, and. Three bars were banned, hundreds of bottles of gin, vodka and whiskey without origin were seized.
Methanol is an industrial solvent, could never be in the human consumption circuit. The priority now is to identify those responsible, to punish and correct the inspection failures that allowed this product to reach the glass of consumers. But while investigations advance, it faces a crisis of confidence that affects guilty and innocent.
Who bought without checking the origin took risk and. But bars that maintain purchase protocols are also paying the price of a widespread suspicion. Some establishments not related to incidents, but isolated gestures may not be enough to contain distrust. The consumer has no way to separate, on the counter, who acts rigorously from those who neglect. When the risk is invisible, distrust spreads.
After all, from the client’s point of view, the dilemma is simple. Those who ask for a drink cannot test what is in the glass. In uncertainty, the reaction is to retreat: better not risk. This retraction penalizes the entire industry and who depends on it to survive, regardless of those who adulted. For the consumer, the bar reputation of the bar, the fear weighs more.
Literature helps to understand what to do in this context. In consumer experiments, Dawar and Pillutla have shown that recognizing failures and offering repair reduces confidence losses. Silence, on the other hand, is interpreted as complicity. Therefore, for bars and restaurants, it is not enough to say that they are not to blame. It is necessary to show where the inputs come from and which controls are applied.
In the automotive sector, Rhee and Haunschild analyzed vehicles between 1975 and 1999. Largest companies suffered harder falls at the beginning of a crisis, but were able to recover faster when they adopted transparency and corrective measures. The lesson is worth here: known bars can be the hardest hit now, but they are better able to recover if they react clearly.
Real cases of contamination reinforce this pattern. Van Heerde, Helsen, and Dekipe studied a sudden fall in apple juices in the United States after an outbreak of poisoning. Advertising and discounts had no effect. The resumption came only when the company presented reports and security protocols. The message is straightforward: slogans do not restore confidence, evidence of reliability yes.
Even when it comes to methanol poisoning, Brazil is not the first to face the problem. In 2012, more than 40 people died and hundreds were intoxicated after consuming adulterated alcohol, which led the government to temporarily suspend the sale of high -alcohol -content drinks and harden surveillance. In Irkutsk, in 2016, about 70 people died after drinking a bath lotion sold as a vodka substitute, also tampered with methanol. In both episodes, the recovery of the market only occurred with firm acting of the public power and clear safety mechanisms.
The beverage, bars and restaurants distribution sector is facing a test. Those who have tampered with and those who bought without checking need to be punished. The state has to correct the inspection failures that made room for the tragedy. But bars can’t just wait either. In confidence crises, silence is confused with omission. Each tampered bottle was a Russian roulette for the consumer. Only auditable practices can return to the glass what it should be: drink, not risk.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
