This message was sent to ECOFEM, but didn't get through the server. I'm forwarding it now. Stefanie > FOR RELEASE: SEPTEMBER 28, 1994 > > INFORM REPORT DOCUMENTS OPPORTUNITIES TO SLASH WASTES AND > SAVE MONEY AND RESOURCES WITH REFILLABLE BOTTLES > Points to policies and options to revive this strategy for > sustainability > > NEW YORK -- A report to be released today by INFORM, Case Reopened: > Reassessing Refillable Bottles, concludes that refilling bottles, > considered a method of the past, is a strategy for a better > environmental future. Use of refillable beverage containers can > slash waste, conserve energy, and reduce water use and air and > water pollution as well. > > The study by the national nonprofit research organization documents > the environmental advantages of reusing versus recycling or > discarding the billions of beer, soft drink, milk, wine, and liquor > containers used by US residents each year. It also reviews the > practical obstacles to expanding refilling in the United States and > analyzes options for conquering those obstacles. The study > describes in detail current corporate case histories of successful > refilling operations. Currently, beverage containers make a > significant contribution to the US municipal solid waste stream: in > 1990, beverage containers comprised 5.5 percent by weight of the > total, including more than 120 billion beer and soft drink > containers. > > Refilling offers greatest potential among source reduction options > for beverage waste > INFORM's report focuses on refilling as a strategy for reducing > waste at the source, before it is generated and prior to recycling, > treatment, or disposal. Source reduction is the preferred > environmental strategy for reducing the growing stream of solid > waste in the United States. > > According to the report, if refillable glass or plastic bottles > make enough trips (from the beverage company to the consumer and > back again), they use less material and generate less solid waste > (by weight) that must be recycled or disposed of than their single- > use counterparts. Today's refillable beer, soft drink, and milk > bottles can withstand at least 25 trips, enough to realize most of > the environmental benefits of the strategy. > > INFORM's study flags three main source reduction options for > beverage containers: designing lighter weight containers, designing > larger containers that deliver more beverage per unit of container, > and refilling bottles. The first two options have been undertaken > to some extent by industry, but maximizing refilling offers the > greatest potential for reducing solid waste of these three options, > INFORM reports. Refilling, a complex, controversial strategy, > offers additional benefits, including reducing the amount of raw > materials used, reducing the energy needed to extract those > materials and make them into containers, and reducing pollution > associated with those activities. Evaluating the total system > environmental impacts of reusable and single-use products, however, > is a complex endeavor with trade-offs that must be considered on a > case-by-case basis. In general, the energy saved in container > manufacturing outweighs the additional energy used in washing and > distribution of refillable bottles, the report concludes. > > INFORM scenarios describe how refilling can cut US beverage waste > by millions of tons > > INFORM reports the significant potential benefits of refilling in > a number of analytical scenarios. Refilling beverage containers 25 > times or more can: > > Reduce solid waste by 70% or more: If packaged beer and soft drink > consumption in the United States were to remain constant, then > packaging all beer and soft drinks in refillable bottles that make > 25-35 trips would reduce the weight of beer and soft drink > container waste by 80.3 percent from 1990 levels, or 6.26 million > tons. > > ~ If the 1990 market share of aluminum cans remained constant > and all glass and PET bottles were refillable and made 25-35 trips, > the weight of beer and soft drink container waste would be reduced > by 73.6 percent, or 5.14 million tons, from 1990 levels. > > content is the same for refillable and single-use bottles, > refillable 12-fluid-ounce glass beer bottles that average 25 trips > will consume 93 percent less energy for raw materials extraction > and manufacturing than would be required to make enough single-use > bottles to deliver the same amount of beverage. > > uses between 47 and 82 percent less water than is needed to > manufacture new single-use glass bottles for the delivery of the > same amount of beverage. > > "Preventing the generation of waste is a crucial task if we are to > create a truly sustainable society," says INFORM president Joanna > D. Underwood in her preface to the book. "Yet each slice of the > waste stream requires its own solutions. Over the last decade, US > residents have shown an impressive commitment to recycling beverage > containers . . . But refilling has gotten short shrift." > > Refilling can improve recycling programs > Case Reopened finds that refilling and recycling are complementary > strategies; refillable bottles in systems with high return rates > tend to be recycled at higher rates than single-use containers > collected for curbside recycling. This is because broken or damaged > bottles will usually be culled from a beverage company's supply of > bottles at the beverage plant and separated for recycling. The > stream of materials thus collected for recycling is a cleaner, > higher-quality, more uniform stream of materials than post-consumer > glass collected from curbside recycling programs in which materials > are mixed together. > > "Refilling actually helps curbside recycling programs by reducing > the oversupply of certain secondary materials on the market, which > makes for better recycling economics," says research associate > David Saphire, who wrote INFORM's report. "But refilling and > recycling differ in one critical way. Recycling does not address > the generation of waste at its source and of how much material is > used. Refilling does." > > Refillables largely abandoned in the United States after World War > II > > Since World War II, the US beverage industry has largely dismantled > its infrastructure for collecting and refilling bottles. "Before > World War II, virtually all beer and soft drink bottles in the US > were refilled," says Saphire. "Today, just 5 to 7 percent of beer > and soft drinks are sold in refillable bottles, and less than 5 > percent of milk. This is in stark contrast to many countries in > Europe and Latin America, where refilling has remained strong. In > Germany, for example, 83.6 percent of beer containers and 75.9 > percent of soft drink containers were refilled in 1992." > > INFORM's report describes the social, economic, and technological > trends that contributed to the declining use of refillable bottles > in the post-war era, including the availability of new packaging > materials, in particular, plastic and aluminum; the rise of > supermarket chains that preferred to handle single-use containers > and avoid handling returns, and industry's promotion of recycling, > rather than refilling, as the most desirable way of addressing > container litter and waste concerns, and consumer convenience. > > Refilling succeeds today in four types of settings > > The chief motive for companies that do refill today is to save on > packaging, the single largest cost in making and distributing beer > and soft drinks. Companies may also respond to consumer preferences > for refillables, and to community interest in solid waste > prevention. For example, a coalition of recyclers and community > groups helped convince Rainier Brewing Company in Seattle to resume > refilling after a hiatus. Rainier is the subject of an extended > case study in Case Reopened, as is Stewart's Processing Corp., > owner of the Saratoga Dairy in Saratoga Springs, NY, and of 200 > convenience stores. > > In the United States, refillable bottles are used today for beer, > soft drinks, milk, juice, and water, usually in one of four > settings that may overlap: > ~ Nine states with deposit laws: Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, > Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Vermont have > mandatory deposit systems, primarily for recycling, but these > systems have helped to preserve a refilling infrastructure for some > beverages. The average market share for refillable beer bottles in > deposit-law states was 13.2 percent in 1991, compared to 3 percent > in non-deposit states; > ~ On-premise consumption in restaurants, taverns, and > cafeterias: Beverages are purchased and consumed on-site. The top > five US brewing companies package 5-10 percent of their beer in > refillable bottles for on-premise sales. Several dairies sell milk > in refillable plastic bottles to schools and other cafeterias; > ~ Simplified distribution systems: Systems in which the number > of parties handling empty bottles is small. This may involve a soft > drink bottler or a dairy that produces and delivers beverages > directly to its own retail operations (e.g., Stewart's) or to > retail customers. In 1991 Stewart's sold 30 percent of the milk it > sells packaged in half-gallon containers in refillables, or 3.3 > million half-gallons. Stewart's also reports high return rates for > its bottles: 97.5 percent for half-gallon milk bottles, and 92 > percent for soft drinks in quart bottles, due in part to a steady > clientele; > ~ Local loyalty to a brand sold in refillables: Ale 8-One > Bottling Company in Winchester, Kentucky, a small bottler that > makes soft drinks, is an example of a popular local brand with a > tradition of refilling. Nearly 80 percent of its products are sold > in refillable glass bottles. > > According to INFORM's study, conditions that allow refilling to > become a winning proposition for a beverage plant vary depending on > the type of beverage, the distribution pattern for that beverage, > and packaging costs. Case Reopened cites a 1985 survey of New York > State brewing companies that found that some companies that > switched from single-use containers to refillable bottles saved > between $4 and $15 a barrel (one barrel contains 31 gallons). > INFORM's case history of Rainier shows that the company saves an > average of $.37 per case by refilling its bottles compared with > using bottles just once. > > INFORM reveals two key opportunities for expanded refilling > Refillable PET bottles, widely used in northern and central > Europe and in Latin America, offer soft drink companies the > opportunity to benefit from refilling without losing the features > of single-use PET (polyethylene terephthalate) bottles: light > weight, large sizes, and unbreakability. If an expanded market for > refillable PET bottles led to a drop in their price, and if bottles > made 20 trips, INFORM's analysis of industry data suggests that > soft drink companies would save nearly $.04 per 1.5-liter bottle > per trip over time by switching from single-use to refillable > bottles. > Refillable milk bottles present another immediate opportunity. > Single-use milk containers contributed nearly a million tons to the > US municipal solid waste stream in 1990. This included 17.6 billion > paper cartons and 5.6 billion high-density polyethylene bottles. > The milk industry's logistics lend themselves to refilling for > three reasons: 1. Milk is usually delivered directly from the dairy > to the store, simplifying the return of the bottles to the dairies. > 2. Even milk that is packaged in single-use containers is shipped > in reusable shipping crates that are returned to the dairies. 3. > Shipping distances for milk rarely exceed 200 miles. Stewart's > estimates that it saves $.025 per bottle per trip (or about $83,000 > in 1991) when it uses half-gallon refillables instead of paper > cartons. > "When milk is consumed on-site in institutional settings -- in > schools, cafeterias, hospitals, prisons, corporate dining rooms -- > use of refillable containers could both reduce tons of waste and > offer institutions, and dairies, significant savings," according to > Saphire. In addition, he notes, "Schools that use refillables in > their cafeterias would do more than save money and waste; they > would send an important message to their students about the urgent > need to conserve precious resources and how we can all play a part > in that effort." > > INFORM identifies policies and initiatives that could promote > refilling > > Creating a widespread refilling infrastructure in the US would > require some form of deposit legislation in combination with other > public policies and industry initiatives, according to INFORM's > report. Case Reopened describes and analyzes 11 government policies > and eight industry initiatives that could be and/or have been used > to promote refilling in the United States and abroad. The study > examines the goals, limitations, and advantages of each of these > options, and the results of and reactions to those that have been > tried. The policies and initiatives specified by Case Reopened are > detailed on a fact sheet accompanying this press release. > > United States must search for waste solutions: INFORM president > "The United States is one of the most wasteful nations in the > world," says INFORM president Underwood. "The 196 million tons of > solid waste US residents generated in 1990 represent 4.3 lbs. per > person, the highest per capita rate in the world and twice our own > rate of 30 years ago. Despite two recent global conferences, in Rio > and Cairo, that called for less wasteful consumption patterns by > industrialized nations, our own EPA projects US wastes to go on > rising. > > "As one of the world's richest nations, we must provide leadership, > and use this country's technical ingenuity and political will to > show that we can live better while conserving resources. We must > identify and examine ways to reduce our own waste stream. Case > Reopened looks at five percent of it, that is, at beverage > container waste, and finds that exciting opportunities abound." > > > > Case Reopened: Reassessing Refillable Bottles was sponsored in part > through a cooperative agreement with EPA's Risk Reduction > Engineering Laboratory in Cincinnati. To purchase a copy, send $25 > + $3 S/H. Canada $5 S/H. All other countries, surface: $8.00; > airmail: $20. All payments must be made in US funds drawn on a US > bank and must accompany all orders. > > > INFORM is a national nonprofit environmental research > organization that examines business and municipal practices that > threaten our environment and public health, assesses changes > businesses and government are making to improve their > performance, and identifies new business strategies and > technologies moving the United States toward an environmentally > sustainable economy. INFORM's research currently focuses on > strategies to reduce industrial and municipal wastes and preserve > air and water quality. > >
