Home    All News Topics    All Bottled Water News    IBWA law suit story

NEWS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Polar Beverages Urges Court to Review Law Controlling Carbonated Beverage and Bottled Water Sales

May 19, 2009

Worcester, MA – Polar Beverages CEO Ralph Crowley, Jr. released the following statement regarding a request that the courts review the constitutionality of New York’s Returnable Container Act:

“Polar Beverages can trace its roots back over 100 years, yet today it is still family owned and operated. We are proud of our long history and the tradition that has made our company a dependable bottler, a good employer, and a conscientious member of the community.

“We take no pleasure in bringing this legal action, but the immensity of the Returnable Container Act’s flaws forces our hand. We have always gone beyond what is required by law to provide our consumers with the best products possible. In return, all we ask is that the rules be fair and fairly applied to all.

“The new Bottle Bill amendments were enacted in April, leaving less than 60 days to comply with its extreme changes. In that time, carbonated beverage and water bottlers are expected to create new labels, secure government approval, and establish a whole host of new procedures and processes for distribution and accounting, all in order to segregate and restrict specific products for sale in New York only. This is an enormous task even under reasonable deadlines. But reasonable, this deadline is not.

“Even more troubling is that all these efforts are to be made to comply with an unconstitutional mandate. It has been clear since our country’s founding that regulation of interstate commerce is the exclusive province of Congress. Adherence to the law is critical to being able to run a business effectively and to keep jobs secure. Yet, the state legislature has passed a law prohibiting sales of carbonated soft drinks and bottled water with New York UPC codes in other states. Even if it were not a violation of the Constitution, this would be a bad policy and we would urge the legislature to reconsider. While we hope the legislature does reconsider, the fact that is does violate the law of land requires that the courts stop it even if our elected officials won’t.”

-30-