U.S. Foam Bans on the Rise
Customers line up in their cars, waiting patiently to go one-by-one into the Recycle Ann Arbor
Drop-Off Station. Each one drives slowly into the warehouse, unloads his or her recyclables that are not accepted in curbside bins, then continues on with their day. Every few minutes the forceful whir of the Styrofoam baler breaks the silence, compressing the lightweight material into 200-pound cubes. The foam takes up too much space; it has to be condensed quickly to continue allowing cars to make their way through the building.
Expanded polystyrene foam (EPS), commonly known by the Dow Chemical trademarked name Styrofoam, is a plastic product frequently used in food service, as packaging material, and as insulation. However, due to environmental and health concerns, bans on foam products used in food service have been on the rise in the United States. Although cities in California were banning polystyrene as early as 1988, the number of bans has been increasing and spreading throughout the country in recent years. Of the 100 U.S. cities and counties that have bans on foam products, 32 adopted them from 2012-2014. Now, more communities are considering stricter regulations on foam.
“This is largely an emotional issue,” says Michael Westerfield, Corporate Director of Recycling Programs at Dart Container Corporation, citing why polystyrene bans may be increasing. “But there’s a lot of ignorance out there,” he adds.
A Drop-Off Station employee compresses polystyrene foam in a foam-only baler.
All of the current bans only cover foam used in food service, which Westerfield says “is a small percentage of all foam – not meat packing, not egg cartons, not block foam for packaging.”
Still, in Northampton, Massachusetts, local lawmakers have started pushing for bans on plastic and foam products, because issues surrounding these materials have become better known in recent years.
“If we brought this up three years ago, it would have been more controversial. Now when we bring it to the City Council we have a shot at a unanimous vote,” says Paul Spector, the Northampton City Councilor behind a multi-part ordinance to ban single-use plastic bags and, in 2016, foam products. “When we do introduce the ban, it’s not going to be called a ban. It’s going to be a requirement to use compostable or biodegradable materials,” he says.
Many supporters of bans on foam products say getting rid of foam is part of becoming environmentally friendly.
Silvio Medoro, owner of Silvio’s Organic Pizza in Ann Arbor, Michigan, says he has “the target of being the greenest possible.” The boxes he uses for salads and pasta, a large part of his menu, are compostable.
“Using foam is about ten times less expensive,” says Medoro. “But to follow your philosophy you have to make the extra cost.”
Others support bans on foam products because the material is hard to recycle.
“If you’ve ever held Styrofoam in your hands, it breaks apart really easy. The little Styrofoam beads cling to everything,” says Christine Chessler-Stull, Outreach and Zero Waste Coordinator for Recycle Ann Arbor. She explains that when foam is crushed during the recycling process, it becomes a contaminant that reduces the value of more easily recyclable materials, such as glass, metal, and paper.
Public health concerns are yet another reason for banning foam products from food service.
A 2013 study by researchers from the University of Maryland published in the journal Food Additives and Contaminants found the chemicals in foam products have “the potential to migrate…into the food” and may be hazardous to human health. Polystyrene foam contains both styrene and benzene, toxic substances that could contaminate the food packaged inside, especially when heated in a microwave.
“Styrene itself has been linked to a lot of different carcinogens, cancer causing agents, and terrible pollution in general when it’s manufactured,” says Chessler-Stull.
Of course, there are those who advocate for the continued use of polystyrene foam.
Westerfield says that foam made for food service, such as the products Dart Container manufactures, are different than foam used for packaging or insulation and can be included in curbside recycling programs.
“Food service foam is usually made for liquids, so we have to fuse it together really well. It does not break down in the recycling process,” says Westerfield.
Spector also sees value in keeping foam around for a little while longer. “The substitutes that are often used in place of polystyrene, which are better in some ways environmentally, actually are worse in terms of carbon footprint,” he says. Polystyrene foam is 98% air and does not degrade naturally, which results in fewer greenhouse gas emissions and less waste by volume.
Spector adds that alternative materials can be costly, up to 70 cents more per container, and may be prohibitive for some local business owners. “We don’t want to force these things down people’s throats, especially when it’s an educational shift” to get business owners eager to stop using foam.
The health risks of foam products may not live up to researcher’s claims either.
The U.S. FDA designates styrene as “Generally Recognized as Safe” to be used in the food industry, and a toxicological profile of styrene by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry says that current exposure levels pose “minimal risk to humans.”
Furthermore, bans on foam in food service have little effect on polystyrene used in other industries.
“A lot of the bans have been at the local level. It has not affected anything on the large scale. If anything, it prompted newer and more creative recycling efforts,” says Diana Gentilcore, Managing Director of Advocacy for the EPS Industry Alliance.
“The key is that they’re used in such different markets,” says Darrell Boverhoff, Global Product Sustainability Leader at Dow Chemical Company. “Our Styrofoam is used only in building and construction.”
Boverhoff adds that Dow Chemical tries to break associations between Styrofoam and the polystyrene foam used in food service. “We do go to lengths to protect our name,” he explains.
These arguments do not seem enough to slow down the bans. Many activists believe it is better for health and the environment to decrease foam use, rather than try to increase recycling.
“Styrofoam overall is a terrible type of material,” says Chessler-Stull. “There are a lot of reusable options coming out nowadays, or even compostable products. If you have those options available I don’t know why you would continue to use Styrofoam.”
Back at the Ann Arbor Drop-Off Station, a man empties a garbage bag full of foam trays into the Styrofoam pile. As for the city implementing a ban on foam products, “if Ann Arbor could come up with a mandate that all restaurants have to use, and a collection system, it could work,” says Drop-Off Station Manager Becky Andrews, “but it’s a long ways off.”
A closer look at the types of foam accepted at the Recycle Ann Arbor Drop-Off Station.
Photos by Marley Kalt