Fgis «grain» as a Legal Institution: Between Traceability and Quasi-Licensing of Turnover

Introduction. The Federal State Information System for Traceability of Grain and Grain Processing Products (FSIS "Zerno"), enshrined in Articles 17.1–18.2 of the Law of the Russian Federation of May 14, 1993 No. 4973‑I "On Grain," is positioned by the legislator as an information and analytical tool for recording grain turnover volumes. However, the actual legal effect of this institution extends beyond its accounting function and generates a system of risks for agricultural producers. This article is devoted to a critical analysis of the legal design of this institution. Materials and methods. The study is based on a doctrinal analysis of the current version of the Grain Law (as amended by Federal Law No. 304-FZ of July 31, 2025, as of March 1, 2026), as well as on an analysis of law enforcement practice, including the official response of the Department of Digitalization and Technological Development of the Ministry of Agriculture of Russia dated May 28, 2026. Formal-legal, systemic-structural, and teleological methods of interpretation were applied, along with elements of the economic analysis of law. Results. A structural contradiction was identified between the declared information and accounting function of FSIS "Zerno" and its actual role as a market access instrument. It was found that combining information-monitoring and turnover-authorization circuits within a single normative act leads to a situation where any technical or personnel failure in digital document processing formally places quality products in the position of goods subject to seizure. It is shown that this design disproportionately burdens small agricultural producers, reinforcing their dependence on large intermediaries, and generates a "digital risk discount" in grain pricing. Discussion. A concept of four legislative amendments is proposed, aimed at separating the legal consequences of violating information obligations from those of violating quality and safety requirements. It is argued that the proposed changes do not weaken the traceability system but enhance its resilience by eliminating the internal contradiction between the declared support for producers and the mechanism of compulsory seizure of property for late filing of an electronic document.