The chewing gum industry believes the introduction of a tax is unworkable and likely to be ineffective. Education would be a better approach, writes Geoff Beggs
The chewing gum industry is broadly supportive of the recommendation to the Department of the Environment of a negotiated agreement between the Department and the industry as a means to tackle the issue of chewing gum litter but strongly believes that the other option of a tax is unworkable and likely to be ineffective.
The recommendation is contained in the recently published consultant's report on tackling litter problems associated with chewing gum products, fast-food packaging, and ATM receipts, "A Study on the Application of Economic Instruments on Specified Materials/Products".
The chewing gum industry is already a partner with the Department of the Environment in promoting education and awareness through its sponsorship of An Taisce's National Spring Clean and Green-Schools Programme, and Eco, UNESCO and Foróige initiatives. The chewing gum industry proposes to extend significantly these commitments to a fully integrated, measurable and timed programme of initiatives to address the issue of gum littering in the most effective and sustainable way.
It is proposed to form a Gum Litter Action Group, comprising the gum industry and other partners such as the Department of the Environment, Department of Education, local councils, NGOs, and retailer associations.
The overall objective of the group will be a significant reduction in gum litter through a measurable and sustained change in attitudes and behaviour. The group will be managed and run by a full-time executive entirely funded by industry for the first year of operation.
This group will manage a fully integrated programme of initiatives. These will include extensive research into current gum litter behaviour; mounting a number of pilot programmes aimed at reducing the level of chewing gum litter; establishing a partnership with local councils to develop community litter education initiatives; sponsoring a pilot "Litter Warden Scheme" to deliver increased resources to the local authorities in the fight against litter; and the continuation of existing sponsorships. It is also proposed to add new and innovative disposal messages to all gum media advertising, including TV, print, and point of sale materials. Retailers will also be provided with communication material instore to promote good gum disposal.
All of these initiatives will be funded by the chewing gum industry.
The industry advocates enforcement as a very effective method of dealing with those who will not be persuaded by education and awareness initiatives to dispose of litter responsibly. These people, and not those who dispose of the product responsibly, are the real polluters and as such should pay accordingly.
The industry acknowledges there is still a scarcity of litter wardens in certain areas and those that are in place have low visibility, reducing their impact as a deterrent. Inadequate training resources have also been identified as an impediment to proper enforcement. The industry proposes to make a financial contribution towards both of these areas.
The industry plan represents a significant opportunity to tackle the litter problem as a whole. A strong communications and awareness programme of the type proposed by the chewing gum industry has the potential to reduce litter of all types.
The chewing gum industry is willing to incorporate all of these proposals into a formally negotiated agreement with the Department of the Environment.
This will ensure that proper measurement and monitoring systems are put in place to gauge the effectiveness of actions taken.
This is clearly a far better option than the alternative proposed, a levy on chewing gum products. Paying more for a product which has proven health benefits (most dentists recommend sugar-free gum as an effective means to reduce tooth decay) is not necessarily going to make people think twice about how they dispose of it.
Indeed, independent research carried out by Lansdowne Market Research on behalf of the chewing gum industry has shown that it may actually lead to increased littering.
Over a quarter of people surveyed said a tax would increase the level of gum littering by making people "more likely" to dispose of chewing gum irresponsibly, as they believe they would already have paid for someone else to clean it up. In the same survey, two-thirds of people said a tax would make no difference to behaviour, or indeed might make it worse.
It is generally agreed that the removal of chewing gum from the streets is prohibitively expensive and that the problem must be tackled with efforts concentrated on changing behaviour rather than on cleaning up the results of poor behaviour.
Indeed, the consultant's report points out that a negotiated agreement would be more economically efficient than a levy.
This is also confirmed by the survey results, which reveal that just 15 per cent of people believe a levy would offer a solution to the problem while 30 per cent are in favour of stricter enforcement and fines, 28 per cent are in favour of more education and awareness-building programmes on proper disposal of gum litter; and 23 per cent believe that more litter bins will offer a solution.
Geoff Beggs is managing director of Tennant & Ruttle, distributors of food/confectionery