Reducing the Use of Polystyrene Through

Effective Policy Changes

Matt Dawson
Professor Babcock
RCL 138H
16 April 2017
Abstract
Expanded Polystyrene foam (EPS), better known as styrofoam by those in the United States, is
a petroleum-based plastic that is used for insulating food and shipping packages. Businesses use
EPS because it is lightweight and has a low manufacturing cost, but it poses a threat to human
health and the environment. In the manufacturing of EPS, workers are exposed to harmful
chemicals that lead to a myriad of chronic health issues. For day to day use, styrofoam leaches
into food and has been linked to cancer after long-term exposure. President Trump has cut the
Environmental Protection Agencies budget, which leaves state and city governments
responsible for any restrictions or bans on polystyrene. These local governments should consider
adopting legislation similar to laws proposed in Maryland and San Francisco, where EPS has
been eliminated in the food industry. Under this bill, businesses would be required to switch to
an alternative, such as recycled paper. Recycled paper is renewable, biodegradable, and easily
recycled. Another policy to reduce the use of polystyrene is government subsidies for recycled
paper. If the subsidies made the price of recycled paper comparable to sytrofoam, then
businesses would be incentivized to make the switch. Changing from EPS to recycled paper
would benefit public health and reduce litter. Litter reduction would save city and state spending
to offset the governmental cost of the subsidy. Therefore, governmental policy at the state and
city level to reduce polystyrene usage benefits the public and the environment without a major
financial burden on business or local governments. Considering the effects of styrofoam on
public health and the environment, restrictions on styrofoam usage should be implemented
through a comprehensive ban of polystyrene or a subsidy on recycled paper.
Expanded Polystyrene Foam
Styrofoam is a trademarked brand name for extruded polystyrene foam (XPS), but when most
Americans talk about styrofoam, they are referring to expanded polystyrene foam (EPS). EPS
is petroleum-based plastic used for insulating food products and shipping packages.1 Companies
use EPS because its cheap to purchase and lightweight, but at what cost to everyone else?
Insulators that use EPS, such as disposable coffee cups or takeout containers, contaminate food
with styrene, which is the main chemical in the makeup of polystyrene and has been linked to
cancer, vision problems, and chronic nervous system issues.2 From the start of production to the
final disposal, polystyrene foam harms the environment and its natural habitats. These food
insulating products are used once and thrown away in a landfill, where they take millions of
years to disintegrate, or littered into the ocean, where they pose a choking hazard to marine life.
Banning expanded polystyrene foam would increase manufacturing costs for businesses, but
reduce chronic disease risks to humans and eliminate a portion of waste along with toxins in
landfills. Because of the lack of ability to recycle polystyrene foam and the threats it imposes on
peoples health and the environment, the local and state governments should impose a ban on
polystyrene products in the food industry.

Figure 1: XPS vs EPS at the Microscopic Level

The Environment and Polystyrene

The technology to recycle EPS exists, but the demand and practicality of recycled polystyrene is
non-existent. Polystyrene recycling is not closed loop, which means that recycled styrofoam
cups is turned into a different product, such as a tray or package filler.3 This seems like an
insignificant detail, but it makes EPS recycling inefficient. To add to the problems, most EPS
used with food products are deemed not clean enough to be recycled. According to a 2004 study
by the California Integrated Waste Management Board, only 0.8% of polystyrene products are
recycled compared to only 0.2% of polystyrene food packaging is recycled.4 Since EPS cannot
be recycled in most cases, it ends up in a landfill. Polystyrene is inert, which means that it
doesnt react particularly well in either acidic or basic solutions5. This means that in nature,
polystyrene will not decompose and could even sit for over one million years 6. Since the
polystyrene is thrown away rather quickly and not recycled by most recycling centers, it provides
a waste problem for the United States. By volume, polystyrene accounts for between 25 and 30
percent of space used in landfills in a country that generates the most waste in the world7.
Banning or significantly reducing styrofoam production and usage would be a nice start for
reforming a flawed system.

A look at the waste collected of each country.

Figure 2: Municipal Waste Collected by Each Country

People and Polystyrene

Polystyrene causes a myriad of health issues that starts with the manufacturing process and
continues with the use of its products. Studies have shown that polystyrene causes cancer and is
linked to cancer in humans.8 In humans, cancer develops more slowly, so it is near impossible to
pinpoint the many contributing factors. For that reason, styrofoam has been listed as a probable
cause of cancer.9 The FDA sets the safe intake level at 90 milligrams per day, but most people
are unaware they consume any styrene through polystyrene10. Styrofoam cannot be microwaved
as it melts into the food, but the chemicals in polystyrene can also leach into hot, acidic, and fatty
foods in normal circumstances.11 For example, a hot coffee in a EPS cup would melt the
polystyrene and contaminate the coffee. Occasionally usage would cause no harm; however, long
term exposure has been linked to an increased chance at leukemia and lymphoma, along with
neurological and reproductive problems. Workers in an EPS factory are exposed to these
chemicals regularly and are at a greater risk of the dangers of polystyrene. During the making of
polystyrene workers breath in chemicals, such as styrene, xylene, and acetone.12 Some added
side effects include an increased risk of lung cancer and other respiratory issues and more
neurological complications, such as loss of memory, concentration problems, and slowed
reaction times.13 EPS threatens the health of not only the workers, but also the daily users.
Fortunately, some alternatives to styrofoam have no side effects to humans and the environment.

Recycled Paper as an Alternative to EPS

Just because companies are using alternative to expanded polystyrene does not mean it is an
environmentally conscience option. A good alternative is renewable, biodegradable, and easily
recycled. Paper checks off all three of these requisites and has a much higher recycle rate at 63%
in the United States.14 To add to the benefits, every ton of recycled paper saves about 12 trees per
year, eliminates 1087 pounds of solid waste, and saves 1,976 lbs. of greenhouse gases.15
Increasing the amount of post-consumer recycled paper would be an all-around improvement
over expanded polystyrene. While it may cost more for companies in the short term, the state
governments should incentivize the use of recycled paper due to the immense benefit it provides
in litter reduction. A tax break to encourage companies to use recycled paper and offset some the
cost of making the switch would entice businesses to switch.

Figure 3: Source of Papermaking Materials

The Trump Effect

Styrofoam is composed of about 95% air and is extremely light weight, which keeps production
cost low for companies.16 The product is used as an insulator, mostly for food in the form of a
takeout box or tray. If a business is not environmentally conscious, they will be unlikely to
switch to an alternative, as it would increase costs a few cents per unit. President Donald Trump
has a background in business and ran a campaign calling for fiscal breaks on small businesses.
While he has not taken a stance on styrofoam, like many politicians, he would not be likely to
ban or even tax styrofoam, as it would increase expenses for a business that currently use that
product. Besides speculating on Trumps stance on styrofoam, President Trump cut the
Environmental Protection Agencys budget by nearly a fifth.17 The cut may seem gloom and
doom for environmentalists, but it puts environmental regulations in the hands of state
legislation. Scott Pruit, the EPA administrator, supported this idea by saying the new EPA is
focused on supporting states and tribes as the primary enforcers of environmental laws.18 With
all this in mind, any change in federal law against the use of styrofoam will not be enacted by
President Trump and his business-oriented and non-intervention policies. Regulations on
styrofoam must occur at the state and city level and is more likely to get passed in heavily
democratic areas.

Precedent: Major Cities Around the US Ban EPS

New York City became the first major city in the United States to ban styrofoam when former
Mayor Michael Bloomberg passed a regulation on EPS in 2013.19 A judge overturned this law in
2016, but still caused many companies to switch alternative products.20 San Francisco imposed a
ban on EPS food ware products in 2016 and over 3,000 businesses complied.21 No businesses
filed for financial hardships, which was an option under the citys ordinance.22 One year after
implementation of the San Francisco ordinance, San Franciscos litter audit showed a 36%
decrease in EPS litter.23 Companies can afford an increase in marginal cost, and a ban or
reduction on polystyrene reduces litter, which saves the city money in litter collection. Other
cities, such as Seattle, Portland (Maine and Oregon), and Minneapolis, have since implemented a
partial or full ban on EPS.24 The domino has fallen and more cities and local governments should
follow suit.

Figure 4: States with Full or Partial Bans on EPS

Looking Forward
With President Donald Trumps business roots and his non-intervention policy with
environmental regulations, a ban on EPS must come from local and state governments. Cities
with Democratic leadership, such as Pittsburgh, Chicago, and many others, should enact a ban
for single-use EPS products in the food industry similar to the legislation proposed in Maryland.
The bill in Maryland defined the outlawed material as a product made of expanded polystyrene
that is used for selling or providing food.25 Under this bill, companies facing financial hardships
can opt out of the bill, but most businesses would be forced to comply. If they didnt comply,
they would have three months to correct the violation before receiving a $250 fine, and a year
before a $1,000 fine.26 A recurring fine of this magnitude is an incentive for businesses to switch
to an alternative, such as non-virgin paper products. An alternative to banning styrofoam would
be a subsidy on recycled paper. The government would pay businesses part of the cost of
recycled paper, making it fiscally competitive to polystyrene. An important factor in getting
businesses to switch is keeping the cost of the two products similar after the subsidy. Although
this will cost a city or state money in taxes, the city or state will benefit in reduced litter due to
the biodegradability of paper.
Summary
From the start of production to the final disposal, polystyrene harms the environment and
threatens public health. In natural conditions, styrofoam can take millions of years to
disintegrate. To add to the concern, polystyrene foam is a probable carcinogen with humans and
long-term exposure can cause leukemia, lung cancer, loss of memory, concentration problems,
and slowed reaction. In order to protect the environment and public health, local legislatures
should enact a ban similar to the legislation proposed in Maryland. This ban of styrofoam food
products would fine business $250 after three months of misconduct, along with a repeated
$1,000 fine every year. If local governments want to ensure businesses use a biodegradable
alternative, a subsidy on recycled paper should be passed in these areas. Recycled paper is
biodegradable, renewable, and more easily recycled compared to polystyrene foam. The only
implication is increased governmental cost of the subsidy, but money saved from reduced litter
mitigate any new expense. Progressive cities like San Francisco and states like Maryland have
set the bar in EPS regulations and proven the feasibility of such laws. Although a uniform law
from the federal government is not possible at this time, every local government restriction on
EPS, makes the United States a bit healthier and more environmentally friendly. Heavily
democratic cities, like Pittsburgh, should not have an issue passing some restriction on
styrofoam, but most cities would reject legislation, as styrofoam is still being studied by
scientists. As America gets more progressive with time and new implications of styrofoam are
discovered, more cities will become aligned with these progressive ideals and local regulations
will increase. Once these regulations become local norms, the United States will be ready for an
uniform ban nationwide.
 Endnotes

1
"Polystyrene Foam Report." Earth Resource Foundation. Web. 03 Apr. 2017.
2
Lucas, Alesia. "Styrene and Styrofoam 101." Safer Chemicals. 26 May 2014. Web. 03 Apr.
2017.
3
Rogers, S.A. "Recycle Styrofoam Cups: Is It Possible?" Mother Nature Network. Mother
Nature Network, 28 June 2015. Web. 10 Apr. 2017.
4
"Facts about Styrofoam Litter (Expanded Polystyrene Foam)." Clean Water Action. Web. 3
Apr. 2017.
5
"What Is Polystyrene?" Chemical Safety Facts. 28 July 2016. Web. 10 Apr. 2017.
6
"Find Your Ecological Footprint." Fun Stuff and Fast Facts. Web. 03 Apr. 2017.
7
Little, Mark. "Facts About Landfill & Styrofoam." Livestrong. Leaf Group, 05 Oct. 2015. Web.
03 Apr. 2017.
8
Iallanardo, Tony. "Styrene Officially Linked to Cancer." Safer Chemicals. 29 July 2014. Web.
16 Apr. 2017.
9
Ibid.
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
12
What Is Polystyrene
13
Ibid.
14
"Paper Recycling." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 10 Apr. 2017.
15
Find Your Ecological Footprint
16
Polystyrene Foam Report
17
Eilperin, Juliet, and Brady Dennis. "White House Eyes Plan to Cut EPA Staff by One-fifth,
Eliminating Key Programs." The Washington Post. WP Company, 01 Mar. 2017. Web. 10 Apr.
2017.
18
Casselman, Ben, Anna Berry-Jester, and Maggie Koerth-Baker. "TrumpBeat: I Realized It's
Not So Easy." FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, 14 Apr. 2017. Web. 15 Apr. 2017.
19
"Making a Green City Even Greener." Styrofoam Ban. Environmental Protection Agency, 30
Dec. 2013. Web. 03 Apr. 2017.
20
Mueller, Benjamin. "Judge Strikes Down New York City's Ban on Foam Food
Containers." The New York Times. The New York Times, 22 Sept. 2015. Web. 10 Apr. 2017.
21
Reilly, Katie. "San Francisco: Foam Products Banned in the City." Time. Time, 29 June 2016.
Web. 03 Apr. 2017.
22
Ibid.
23
Facts About Landill & Styrofoam Litter
24
Rosengren, Cole. "Bill May Ban Foam To-Go Containers in Maryland." Waste Dive. The
Associated Press, 30 Jan. 2017. Web. 10 Apr. 2017.
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid.

Figure 1: "Selecting Polystyrene Foam Where Moisture Exposure Occurs." Construction

Specifier. Web. 16 Apr. 2017.
Figure 2: "United Nations Statistics Division - Environment Statistics." United Nations. Web. 16
Apr. 2017.
Figure 3: "Frequent Questions | Paper Recycling." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. Web.
16 Apr. 2017.
Figure 4: Ryan, Kelsey, David Wright, Quentin Anthony Anderson, and Michelle Moore. "MAP:
Which Cities Have Banned Plastic Foam?" Groundswell. Web. 16 Apr. 2017.