To the Editors of the Crimson:
I wish to respond to the advertisement recently printed here claiming that the Bottle Bill could cost the average family $100 per year.
The ad cites "industry and EPA" studies, but the EPA itself says the ad is misleading and has requested opponents to remove the EPA's name from their advertising. A study by the respected Federal Reserve Bank of Boston indicates that beverage prices will be lower if Question 6 passes.
The opponents' own background sheet exposes the flimsy basis for their claim. They choose to assume that we'll return fewer than half our empties for refunds, but the actual experience in Oregon and Vermont, where bottle bills are working, is that 90 to 95 per cent are returned.
They blame beverage price increases in Vermont on that state's bottle bill, without mentioning that prices have gone up just as much in the 48 states without bottle bills. It is my experience that where beverages in resusable bottles can be bought in Massachusetts, they cost less than the same beverages in throwaway bottles.
Bottle Bill opponents, financed mostly by out of state container and beverage makers, are spending over a million dollars to try to defeat Question 6. Can this heavily financed and misleading campaign really be in Massachusetts consumers' best interests? Richard Goldhor