A petition signed by over 20,000 people in favor of updating the Bottle Bill, also known as the Beverage Container Recovery Law, will be delivered to the statehouse by scores of MassPIRG students on Oct. 27. The Bottle Bill, commonly understood as the five-cent deposit, was first passed in 1982. The current bill enables consumers to redeem beer cans and carbonated soft drink cans for five cents.

Updating the bill would mean the bottles and cans that did not exist when the bill was first passed would become redeemable. Containers not covered in the original bill include bottled water, Nantucket Nectars and PowerAde.

Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) is a national organization that works to solve social problems ranging from the environmental to the economic. MassPIRG is the local faction of the organization and is student-directed and student-funded.

Calla Bonanno, MassPIRG Campus Organizer for UMB, said that they work on a range of issues, from global warming to textbook rip-offs, and try to “concern [themselves] with issues that affect students and the community.”

MassPIRG created a fact sheet that lists what they see as the potential benefits of expanding the Bottle Bill, including a healthier environment, cleaner and safer communities, a boost in the number of bottles recycled, and job creation in the recycling sector.

MassPIRG has been championing an updated Bottle Bill for 14 years. Bonanno stated that PIRG’s efforts have been focused on showing that Massachusetts residents support expanding the bill.

“A statewide poll conducted by [The MassINC Polling Group] found that 77 percent of Massachusetts residents are in favor of expanding the bill,” Bonanno said. “Eighty legislatures have co-sponsored the bill. We also gathered endorsements from over 200 cities and towns in Massachusetts.”

The bill does have its opponents, the most influential of them being the Real Recycling for Massachusetts coalition. The coalition is made up of several businesses like Lowell Coca Cola, Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Worcester, Massachusetts Food Association, Shaw’s, Stop and Shop, as well as citizens and community organizations.

Chris Flynn, President of the Massachusetts Food Association and a member of Real Recycling for Massachusetts has spoken out against updating the bill, calling it costly and ineffective.

“An expanded bottle bill would have almost no impact on the state’s recycling rate,” he stated on the Real Recycling for Massachusetts website. “Yet the cost is huge: higher prices; a new burden on small businesses; and good-paying beverage industry jobs placed in jeopardy.”

The Real Recycling for Massachusetts coalition website states that the five-cent redemption value placed on new bottles will be passed on to the consumer. The site also states that the cost of processing the containers that would be covered by the Bottle Bill would be passed onto bottling companies.

“Most beverages covered by expansion are sold through a different distribution system than beer and soda,” Flynn said on the website. “Therefore, putting deposits on additional containers will require establishment of a new, separate system for acquiring empty bottles and cans from retailers and restaurants all over the state. In 2009, a much more limited bottle bill expansion in New York resulted in plant closures and job losses to the state.”

MassPIRG and Real Recycling for Massachusetts are far apart in their suppositions concerning the expansion’s potential effect on recycling trends. The coalition estimates a growth in recycling of one-eighth of 1 percent.

MassPIRG reports that 80 percent of the bottles covered by the bill are recycled. 22 percent of bottles not currently covered by the bill are recycled, and expansion of the bill, MassPIRG believes, will increase that percentage significantly.

The bill is now waiting to be approved by the Telecommunication Utility and Energy Committee. If it is approved, it will then proceed to the State House floor to be voted on. According to Bonanno, the goal of the Oct. 27 petition delivery is to show members of state Congress that this bill is important to the people of Massachusetts, and should be voted on.

“For the last 14 years, we have worked on this,” Bonanno said. “It is ridiculous that nothing has been done in that time to move the bill forward.”