You've probably heard or read the news: Michigan United Conservation Clubs kicked off a campaign to expand the bottle bill.
The organization wants water bottles and non-carbonated beverage bottles to require a deposit. More would be recycled. Less would go to a landfill or become litter.
It's not a bad idea. Michigan's existing bottle bill has done good things. But it may not be the best approach today. A lot has changed since Michigan adopted the bottle law in 1976.
Ninety-seven percent of 5.5 billion pop bottles and cans get recycled now, according to Dennis Muchmore, executive director for MUCC. Those are the bottles and cans with deposits.
But only 20 percent of the non-deposit water and other bottles get recycled. More than 1.1 billion were thrown away in Michigan in 2005, according to the Container Recycling Institute.
"We have a terrible record in the state on recycling," said Muchmore. "Part of the problem is we don't have a statewide recycling program.
"If we did, we would have a totally different view. We see a great opportunity to take a billion bottles and get them into a recycling system."
Michigan's bottle law has been touted as a good thing by most. It is most often cited as the reason Michigan's roads and highways are as clean as they are. But it is not a panacea.
"The existing bottle bill has been successful doing what it was intended to do, reduce litter," said Mary Dechow, the chairman for the Michigan Recycling Partnership. "There is no denying that we are much cleaner than other states without a bottle law."
MRP is a coalition of grocers, beer and wine wholesalers and other trade groups that oppose expanding the bottle bill.
Dechow, also director for government and regulatory affairs for Spartan Stores, said MRP members "feel strongly that the grocery store is not the place to bring trash."
"The stuff MUCC is asking people to take back to stores is stuff they can currently put out at curbside and recycle," he said.
"We believe that is where those belong. Back in 1976, we didn't have curbside recycling programs. Now they are available."
At issue for grocers is the need to handle the increased flow of bottles and cans. Many are dirty. Health issues arise. The industry also loses 3 cents on every return that is handled, according to Dechow.
Expanding the bottle bill will end up costing the consumer more, she said.
Dechow anticipates that the bottle handling industry will want another nickel on top of the 10-cent deposits now.
"If you already have recycling, will you be a happy consumer paying an extra 15 cents per item and have to take it back to the grocery store when it is already recycled and free?" she asked.
The answer, of course, is no. Dechow thinks the solution to bottle, and other litter, is a more comprehensive statewide recycling program. But that's not all. More public education is needed along with more teeth in litter laws and enforcement.
"We need to see more personal responsibility," she said.
Meaning: people need to pick up their trash.
Dechow and some pals decided to see what drivers were tossing out on the highway. They visited the Kent County Landfill where they tore open the trash bags used in the Adopt-A-Highway Program.
"We went through a ton of litter collected from highways and found as many deposit bottles as non-deposit bottles," she said.
"Those were a minuscule amount compared to the other items."
Muchmore readily acknowledges the food safety problems for grocers. He concurs that a statewide recycling program is needed.
"If we had a comprehensive program we would all be better off," he said. "But it needs to be brought forward by the business community or it becomes viewed as a tax proposed by conservationists.
"We're not going to fall into that trap. We are just trying to get bottles off the roadside and not raise taxes."
The new bottle campaign has another purpose too -- protecting the status quo. The legislature is working on bills dealing with fraudulent bottle deposits. Conservationists fear that some of the bills will try to gut the existing bottle law.
"There are those who would piecemeal it," Muchmore said.
If anything is clear in the debate on this issue, it is that the bottle bill we know has done good work. It should not be touched unless there is a suitable and effective alternative put in place.
Meanwhile, other alternatives need to be explored before the law is expanded.
Both sides agree that developing a comprehensive state-wide recycling program is crucial.
Both suggest it would render the bottle problem moot while also dealing with other trash and litter problems.
Perhaps the path is clearer than most people think.