The Industry’s Unified Voice

KBA represents its members at the federal, state and local levels of government and provides a forum for members to consider issues of interest, while maintaining their traditional spirited competition in the marketplace.

The Association also serves as a liaison between the industry, government and the public, serving as a unified voice in legislative and regulatory matters.

The Beverage Industry & Beverage Container Deposits

Comprehensive recycling programs are one of the best mechanisms for helping the environment. However, instead of expanding these programs, some critics instead support mandatory deposit programs or “bottle bills.” When it comes to bottle bills, however, three decades of data and practical experience have undeniably demonstrated that imposing mandatory deposits on beverage containers is a poor way to increase recycling and address solid waste issues.

Mandatory deposit programs, more commonly known as “bottle bills,” share several common elements:

• Impose a mandatory, pre-paid fee on certain beverage containers

• Force consumers to drive containers to designated locations to reclaim their fee

• Require retailers or redemption centers to take back returned containers

• Require significant new infrastructure (equipment, staff and facilities) to manage beverage containers separately from other products and packaging

Eleven states have enacted forced deposit programs – all but one of which was implemented prior to 1987. In fact, in 2002, the nation’s only municipal deposit ordinance was repealed in Columbia, Missouri. These deposit programs were all established to help reduce beverage container litter. In recent years, however, deposits also have been advertised as a way to increase beverage container recycling.

The Drawbacks of Mandatory Deposits

Deposit systems simply don’t work as advertised. They are a misguided policy choice because they:

• Cost much more than comprehensive recycling or litter control programs, which accomplish the same goals

• Penalize and hinder more efficient recycling programs

• Are inconvenient, particularly compared to curbside recycling programs

• Do little to help the environment as they target such a small part of the waste stream

• Create new environmental burdens from increased fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions to return and collect containers

• Impose a hidden, regressive tax on consumers in the form of higher prices