State report offers case for expanding bottle law

Used N.H., Maine to compare costs

July 20, 2011|By David Abel, Globe Staff

Assertions by critics that expanding the bottle law would cost $116 million a year are “inflated’’ and “debunked by objective facts,’’ according to a report by state officials comparing redemption laws in Massachusetts and neighboring states.

“There appears to be no evidence to support claims that updating the Massachusetts [bottle law] will result in increased costs or reduced consumer choices,’’ the authors wrote in the report, which is to be released today by the state Department of Environmental Protection. A hearing on a bill that would expand the law is slated for a hearing this morning on Beacon Hill.

For years, opponents of the landmark bottle law that took effect three decades ago have argued that expanding the law requiring a nickel deposit on each bottle of carbonated soda, beer, and malt beverages to include bottled water and other beverages would increase consumers’ costs, reduce their choices, and impose significant new burdens on retailers.

The report - which compared sales in supermarkets in Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire - found that beverages frequently cost more in New Hampshire, which does not have a bottle-redemption law. It said supermarkets with regional operations have “remarkably consistent beverage pricing for both deposit and nondeposit beverages across states.’’

The report also found that “contrary to opponents’ predictions that an updated bottle law leads to less consumer choice, the presence or absence of a deposit did not appear to influence the availability of that beverage at all.’’ It pointed out that in Maine, which recently added a deposit for containers of bottled water, there is a wider range of products available than in Massachusetts.

“Store size appears to be the major determinant of product availability, not bottle deposits,’’ according to the report.

It also found Massachusetts has sufficient capacity to handle the increase in redeemed bottles, there would be minimal changes needed to expand the law, and there were “no additional administrative issues’’ in states that added noncarbonated drinks.

“Our review suggests that an updated bottle bill that excludes bottles larger than 3 liters and juice bottles of all sizes could be easily implemented in Massachusetts stores with the existing infrastructure,’’ the authors wrote.

Opponents of the bottle law have argued that its expansion would amount to an unfair tax, promote fraud by encouraging cross-border sales of bottles, and curb efforts to expand other recycling programs. They argue the state would do better to encourage curbside recycling, which exists in fewer than half of its 351 communities.

Advertisement
Advertisement
|
|
|
|