Re: [GRRN] Refillables

Pat Franklin (
Fri, 21 May 1999 08:26:55 -0700 (PDT)

RE: beer and soft drink sales in deposit law states lower than in
non-deposit states

Picking up on Helen's and Bill's recent emails. . . . . If Jerry has
evidence of this, I too, would like to see it. It is true that the per
capita consumption of beer and soft drinks is lower in the two regions where
most of the bottle bill states are located (northeast - 5 states and pacific
- 2 states). Here are some possible influencing factors:

* cooler climate in the northeast region and in Michigan
* higher rate of consumption of wine and fruit beverages in northeast and

I will try to get historical information on beer/soft drink consumption bbb
(before bottle bills).


At 09:44 PM 5/20/99 -0700, Helen Spiegelman wrote:
>At 11:04 PM 5/20/99 -0500, Bill Carter wrote:
>>Jerry Powell wrote to me:
> the literature shows that all other things being equal, beer>and >soft
>drink sales in deposit-law states are lower than in non-deposit >environs.
>please cite for us the 'literature' that shows this. I recall a Canadian
>Soft Drink Association Annual Report a few years ago which, surprisingly,
>showed no correlation whatsoever between sales and deposit environs.

Jerry, Thank you for the clarification and analysis -- I am sharing it with
the list. I am particularly interested in your information about how
deposit systems have had the effect of reducing the (over)consumption of
the affected beverages.
However, I was not talking about why the glass industry hates bottle bills,
but about why it doesn't particularly like refilling systems. I was just
suggesting, as a footnote to my comments on refillables, that given the
hammering glass is taking in the disposable container markets, the industry
might begin to cast a fond eye toward the come-back of refillable glass
bottles. --Bill
Pat Franklin, Executive Director
Container Recycling Institute
1911 Ft. Myer Drive Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22209
703/276-9800 fax 276-9587