Issues of Concern - Forced Deposits or Bottle Bills
It has always been the position of the Soft Drink Industry that forced deposits on our product containers limits our marketing or packaging options. In lieu of forced deposits on non refillable beverage containers as a method of eliminating litter, reducing solid waste and conserving energy, we support broad based programs designed to clean up litter and that promote public education about litter problems. In addition, we are actively engaged in encouraging comprehensive recycling and solid waste management.

What's wrong with forced deposits?

Forced deposit legislation, or bottle bills are usually touted as solutions to the litter problem, a significant reduction in the amount of solid waste stream and the answer to conservation of natural resources. In fact, none of this is true.

Soft drink containers account for less than 1% of the natural waste stream. Other drink containers add another 2%. Even if a deposit law were to eliminate all used beverage containers from the solid waste stream, the impact on the state landfills would be virtually unnoticeable.

The Government Resource Conservation Committee reported that in l992 that a national deposit law would reduce solid waste by only 2%. No bottle bill has ever been implemented in a state that has a comprehensive recycling program in place, because it would cut deeply into the scrap revenue stream, making the program more costly to operate, less convenient, and more dependent on taxpayer subsidy. A bottle bill would not solve our problems. The last stateside survey of highway litter indicated that beverage containers made up only 8% of roadside trash and litter.

Even if a bottle bill successfully removed every used beverage container from the highways, 91% of the trash would remain. Forced deposits do not lead to significant reductions in roadside litter clean up costs. They are not a cost effective means of solving the litter problem. Bottle bills create some minimum wage jobs for those who must be involved in the collection process to redeem, sort and store empty containers. These jobs have increased costs and do not contribute to the economy.

At the same time, the bills have resulted in layoffs and staff reductions among bottlers caught by increased costs. In Michigan, 800 skilled employees were lost in the first year of the bottle bill. In Oregon, more than 200 jobs were lost due to the bottle bill.

We know generally that the average litterer is a male between 18 to 35 years of age with a high school education or less, driving a pickup truck. The solution to litter lies in an education program aimed at the target audience.