FAQ

---

Statement

The trend in the beverage industry is toward lightweight packaging, to minimise impact, Container Deposit Legislation favours refillable bottles which are heavier, using more resources.

These statements are illfounded. Container Deposit Legislation was initially introduced to control the States most visual form of litter, the beverage container. This was later extended to glass, refillable and non refillable containers. It does not favour either and both are treated in the same manner. Because of washing and refilling, refillable bottles do use more resources but are used many times with associated energy savings.

Question

What is the public's thoughts of the legislation in South Australia?

Over the years many surveys have been undertaken. In all of these, close to 80% of respondents have stated that they support Container Deposit Legislation and would like to see it extended to include other beverages and products.

Statement

South Australians pay more for their beverages due to Container Deposit Legislation.

This statement is not true. Surveys undertaken have shown that beverage prices, net of deposit, are comparable to those elsewhere in Australia.

Statement

The Beverage Industry Environment Council do not favour, "Container Deposit Legislation".

True. Manufacturers and fillers have spent millions of dollars to prevent Container Deposit Legislation being set up Interstate. They refuse to accept any responsibility for the litter problem which their products contribute to in Australia. Most of the negative publicity aimed at our successful Container Deposit Legislation is initiated by these manufacturers and fillers who are yet to demonstrate a more equitable (user pays) or successful system.

Industry Says

CDL undermines recycling programs

In fact. The opposite is true. CDL would improve the economic viability of currently unsustainable recycling programs by reducing the enormous subsidy ($70 - $100 m/year) paid by Councils and ratepayers across Australia to maintain uneconomic recycling programs.

Industry Says

In South Australia, beverage container litter is only marginally less than other states.

In fact. The reduction of litter in South Australia is dramatic. SA is the least littered State in Australia, a fact often commented on by interstate and overseas visitors.

Industry Says

CDL contradicts litter prevention strategies by sending a message to the broader community that "someone else will clean it up after you".

In fact, CDL creates a real incentive for people to clean up after themselves, reinforcing rather than distracting from other littering strategies. CDL sends a clear message to consumers that they themselves are responsible for ensuring that the container they purchased is returned or they forfeit their deposit.

Industry Says

Refillable containers are bad for the environment.

In fact. Independent studies (3) have shown that refillable bottles consume significantly less energy over their life cycle, simply because they are used many times. They also result in less pollution. By comparison, the continuous manufacture and disposal of single-fill containers involves large amounts of energy and pollution. In fact single-use containers are popular with industry because their full cost is subsidised by the environment, Councils and the community.

Industry Says

CDL addresses only 10% of litter items, leaving 90% of litter unaffected.

In fact. Beverage containers dominate litter because they are larger, more visible and longer lasting than other items. Container deposits result in a dramatic reduction in litter. Based on U.S. experience, NSW could experience a reduction of beverage container litter of 70 - 90% and a reduction of total litter of 50%.

Industry Says

CDL discriminates against the beer and soft drink industries, which do more than any other to be environmentally proactive.

In fact. Single-use beverage containers continue to cause serious littering and other environmental problems and threaten the viability of kerbside recycling, despite industry claims that they are protecting the environment. Container deposits are nothing new to the beverage industry in Australia. The 'Cash for Cans' scheme, for example, has been successfully operated by the aluminium industry and, until the 'wasteful eighties', container deposits and refillable containers were the norm, as they still are in many places around the world.

Industry Says

Government enquiries have found that the costs of CDL to consumers, industry and government far outweigh any environmental gain.

In fact. BIEC frequently cites one industry funded report to support their case. However, according to the Centre for South Australian Economic Studies (an independent organisation of Adelaide and Flinders Universities) many of the conclusions of this report are questionable on the basis of the data alone. The Centre also found that the claimed high cost and price impact of container deposit legislation was largely unsupported by either overseas experience or by hard local evidence.

Industry Says

Where CDL refunds are made at point of sale, retailers bear most of the costs.

In fact. In the South Australian system only soft drink glass containers can be returned to retailers. Most containers go to special industry funded collection depots. This system avoids additional costs on retailers.

Industry Says

Where kerbside services are available, CDL imposes a second cost on consumers.

In fact. Consumers strongly support container deposits. Two 1993 surveys of South Australians showed 95% support for the system. CDL reduces the costs to Councils and ratepayers of operating kerbside services by freeing up much needed funds to deal with other waste materials.

ONE FACT the beverage industry does not disagree with is that CDL is an effective way to avoid dumping drink bottles in landfills, as the following table of returns shows:

	SA 2004	National Average
Glass	85%	36 %
Aluminium	82%	63 %
PET	74%	36 %

 

Back