It so inconvenient to bring recycling with deposits back to the store to get your money back, especially when you can put the cans and bottles out for town pickup along with the glass, newspaper, cardboard and other plastic. Often I have to go to two separate stores (food store and the liquor store) to return all the deposits. Much of the time I just put them out at the curb with the rest of recycling to eliminate the hassle. I bet the state appreciates that since they get to keep the money from the original deposit. Covering more bottles will no doubt increase the state's windfall from all these unclaimed deposits. It's not an environmental issue- it seems like most everyone recycles within their towns. It's just another way for the state to produce revenue.

Existing policy amounts to diversion of city and Town taxes to subsidize food and beverage producers and their distributors. Even when recycled and assuming there is no additional cost for disposal, cities and Towns must pay substantial fees to haulers to collect water bottles and other beverage and food contauners. Producers package their products in these and by rights should pay for ALL costs of their collection and return. The Expanded Bottle Bill is step in that direction. It's only problem in my view is that the deposit fee should be 25 cents not 5 cents. Funds from unredeemed containers help pay for the Massachusetts Clean Environment Fund. Don't we subsidize big business enough? We need the Expanded Bottle Bill!

Actually, the main benefit is the people who patrol the shoulders of the roads and the streets with big plastic bags looking for deposit bottles and cans. They do the work that would take hundreds of government employees, if you could find enough people who would want the job. I have to pay the deposit on a can of root beer or cola, so why shouldn't I have to pay it for a bottle of Snapple? It puts all the bottlers on an even playing field.

The current bottle bill has done a great job with soda and beer cans/bottles, but the market has changes since it was created. It needs to expand to cover water and juice drinks. We can't just keep throwing these on the side of the road. Maybe we could call empty water bottles "highway beautification". "4,000 jobs at risk" absolute BS.

You are just worried about your profits. The streets are littered with plastic water and juice bottles. Maybe people will start drinking more tap water which on par and better than bottled water. A 5 cent deposit is nothing compared to the dollar a bottle people are alrready wasting.

These arguments are nearly identical to those used when the original bottle bill was on the ballot. Since the consumer gets the refund he/she loses nothing, and if he/she chooses to throw away the bottle he/she self imposes the "fine" of a nickel per bottle. Business interests griped about the cost of collection back in the 70's when the firs bill past. While I do not have proof, I strongly suspect that when people walk into your store to return bottles they also do some shopping. Quit crying, it's for the greater good.

Chris Flynn forgot to mention the "Green Slime. That's what will happen if the bottle bill becomes law" argument.

Chris- It's not a tax, unless of course you are willing to call what the grocer give back to me when I return the bottle, a "tax." The governmen only gets the money on bottles that aren't returned, as well they should since it's the government that has to pick them up.

Let's see - I pay $65/qtr to have my trash & recycling picked up curbside. I faithfully recycle all of my water bottles here. I do not leave any on the side of the road. Under this bill, I am going to be penalized $.05 a bottle for doing the right thing OR forced to store empty, dirty bottles somewhere in my house so I can drive them to a store and insert them into a smelly machine to get back my money. Explain why I'm supposed to think this is a good idea!?!? And worse, I don't believe it will change the behavior of the "toss the bottle" person. Yes, it will be increased revenue for the Commonwealth. But I just don't feel like giving any more.

Put a bottle that's redeemable into your recycling bin and go check if it's there right before pickup. It's usually not. People make some good money picking cans and bottles. Those same people will gladly collect any bottle they see to get that $0.05. It's worth it if you ask me.

Awwww. You mean the whining little baby might have to take a bottle back to the store to get his precious nickel back. I feel so sorry that my coffee is salty. If your nickel is so precious, you always have a choice of not buying bottled or canned drinks, don't you?

They can avoid the money out of the pocket by either returning the bottles or not buying them in the first place. If they're hurting from an additional nickel then they're buying too many bottled drinks. Get real. 20 bottles will cost an additional dollar even if you throw the empties on the side of the road.

I was intrigued by the headline but stopped right in the first paragraph: so, Massachusetts "landed" at 28th from last year's sixth place rating ... well, what is the difference between the two positions ?? sounds dramatic but it could be slight. and I am supposed to believe that an effort to get those damned bottles out of the gutters of the Commonwealth will cause some economic cataclysm ?? this is more appropriate for Drudge or Glenn Beck than a daily newspaper in a state plagued by litter. please save your 'sky is falling' shrieks for things that matter. is "anti-Massachusetts" even a coherent adjective?

to HHKitchner2- I doubt those who view this as an economic stimulus meant for it to increase the income of those who go out and collect bottles and cans in trash cans and on the streets. Putting a deposit on the trash so that those of lower income will remove it from our street? Sounds a bit elitist. Why don't we slap a deposit on cigarette butts, and diapers left in the park, and discarded newspapers? The money and effort needs to go into more comprehensive recycling programs and educating the public, so people aren't discarding their Gatorade bottles in the first place.

In my opinion this is nothing more that a tax in disguise for the hard working citizens of the Commonwealth. This is supported by the fact that surplus deposits $$ are always planned for in the state budget and I am sure the additional $20 million surplus from water bottles... has already affected budget planning. Aside from the financial implications, this method of encouraging recycling has to be one of the most illogical and inefficient ways to effectively promote recycling. It is such a major hassle to return bottles and cans, that I NEVER do it. Yes, I do recycle all these products at my local transfer station, no curbside here. While still a major hassle, at least I do not have to make many stops. If the legislature insists on thinking bottles deposits are the solution, at least they should require that all surplus deposits support curbside recycling programs, recycling receptacles for town centers, educations efforts to encourage recycling, and to discourage purchase of products that carry a deposit. Not One Penny of the surplus should go to anything but recycling implementation, education, and outreach. That may be a solution I can support.

to HHKitchner2- I doubt those who view this as an economic stimulus meant for it to increase the income of those who go out and collect bottles and cans in trash cans and on the streets. Putting a deposit on the trash so that those of lower income will remove it from our street? Sounds a bit elitist. Why don't we slap a deposit on cigarette butts, and diapers left in the park, and discarded newspapers? The money and effort needs to go into more comprehensive recycling programs and educating the public, so people aren't discarding their Gatorade bottles in the first place.

>>so people aren't discarding their Gatorade bottles in the first place.<< And exactly how are you going to accomplish that. I don't think anyone who discards a bottle on the side of the road is the least bit worried about recycling. Do you have some magic formula for changing human nature? I see people out picking up cans and bottles every day. It's a fact. Is it elitist to say what is? Or would you prefer that we say what you want to believe?

Half truths, deceptions and fear mongering are rampant here in Mr. Flynn's diatribe on the Updated Bottle bill.Mr. Flynn,a Paid lobbyist, is simply protecting the interests and profits of supermarkets at any cost, and he doesn't bother to let the truth get in the way. They are clearly terrified that the Senate actually passed the Bottle Bill as an amendment to the Jobs Bill. This is the first time in 14 years that it has gotten past a Committee. Expanding the bottle bill is good for the economy and creates jobs. Thousands of people are employed by the recycling industry in Massachusetts. Adding deposits to more containers would provide work for more people and help small local businesses, including the 140 redemption centers across the state. This is a fully refundable bottle deposit, not a tax. You get the nickel back when you return the container. According to MA DEP data an updated bottle bill would save communities an estimated $7 million per year in combined trash collection and disposal. More than 200 cities in towns support the expanded bottle bill. Mr. Flynn is parroting the same tired, discredited, self serving arguments that ensure that all costs are pushed squarely on the backs of communities, giving his industry a free pass. If he was truly interested in maximizing recycling efforts then he would be supporting the expanded bottle bill, as a compliment to curbside recycling, which is the best solution Having both programs is proven to work to maximize recycling efforts

Flynn want us to pay for his garbage disposal. Nice.

I couldn't have said it better. I've witnessed people opposed to the added deposit fee toss trash out their car windows. And I know them personally. It's all about the wallet and someone else picking up their mess.