Running head: POLYSTYRENE FOAM BAN 1

Food Service and Packaging Waste Reduction:

A Ban of Polystyrene Foam

Kaylee Carr

Mountain View High School

POLYSTYRENE FOAM BAN 2

Abstract

Under San Francisco’s Environment Code – Food Service and Packaging Waste Reduction

Ordinance the sale of food service wear and other products, such as packaging materials, cannot

be made from polystyrene foam or other materials that are non-recyclable or non-compostable. It

was enacted because polystyrene foam is a hazardous, non-compostable, non-recyclable material

that is detrimental to both humans and the environment. This ordinance follows San Francisco’s

previous Environmental Code that banned the use of polystyrene foam take out containers, and

was successful economically and environmentally. This ordinance is projected to be a success as

well, but there is no data yet because it was recently passed. The main disagreement surrounding

polystyrene foam is whether to ban it completely or to implement recycling programs throughout

more cities. The recommendation is that the City of Meridian adopts the same legislation that

San Francisco currently upholds because it is more effective than recycling, better for the

environment, and will protect human health.

POLYSTYRENE FOAM BAN 3

Policy Identification and Explanation

San Francisco’s Environment Code – Food Service and packaging Waste Reduction File

No. 160383 Ordinance No. 140-16 is an ordinance that prohibits the sale of specific materials

that are made of polystyrene foam, or that are not recyclable and compostable. This

comprehensive ban covers almost everything, including food service ware, packing material,

coolers, ice chests, pool or beach toys, dock floats, mooring buoys, egg cartons, and meat or fish

trays (File. No. 160383, 2016). This is a more encompassing amendment to a previous

environmental code, which only banned the use polystyrene foam food service ware. It was

enacted in order to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, and to help meet the

cities goal of Zero Waste by 2020 (File. No. 160383, 2016).

This ordinance falls under the jurisdiction of San Francisco’s Department of the

Environment, and is enforced by its director, who is currently Debbie Raphael (San Francisco

Department of the Environment, 2014). A person who is found to have violated the ordinance

will be punished accordingly. For the first violation, there can be a fine of up to $100.00; for a

second violation that transpires in the same year, there can be an additional fine of up to $200.00,

and for a third violation that occurs in the same year as the first two, there can be a fine of up to

$500.00. The Director of San Francisco’s Department of the Environment will have a list of

acceptable alternative compostable or recyclable products that can be used in place of

polystyrene, and will update it regularly in order to help food vendors comply (File. No. 160383,

2016).

This Ordinance only affects the San Francisco county and city. It does not ban the

shipment or packaging of materials made of polystyrene foam outside of city boundaries. It is not
POLYSTYRENE FOAM BAN 4

meant to regulate inter-city or interstate trade. It also cannot be applied in a way that causes

conflict with any federal or state law (File. No. 160383, 2016).

Policy History and Background

The Food Service and Packaging Waste Reduction Ordinance lists many explanations for

the ban of polystyrene foam. First, it is not recyclable in the city of San Francisco due to it being

economically infeasible and nearly impossible to recycle. However, many packaging and food

service companies use this cheap foam regularly, which creates a lot of waste (File. No. 160383,

2016). The Ordinance also states that studies have found a heavy build up of polystyrene foam in

waterways. A recent study, run by the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association

and Caltrans have discovered that eight percent to fifteen percent of the plastics pulled out of San

Francisco storm drains are made of polystyrene foam. Another more recent study found that in

Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers, the microplastics are composed of 71 percent polystyrene

foam (File. No. 160383, 2016). This is a significant percentage of the

The effects of these polystyrene foams and its microplastics getting into the waterways

and ocean are harmful and disruptive to the aquatic ecosystem. Polystyrene is non-

biodegradable. These means, that it never truly breaks down; instead it develops into tiny

microscopic flecks called microplastics (Kinhal, n.d.). These become a permanent part of the

ecosystem, wherever they go, because polystyrene will never break down any further. Marine

life will often ingest these microplastics through the water they ingest, or because they believe it

is food. This is very toxic for marine life, and the humans who eat the infected aquatic animals

(Kinhal, n.d.).

An additional hazard that influenced the Food Service and Packaging Waste Reduction

Ordinance is the fact that polystyrene foam is also harmful to human health. The International
POLYSTYRENE FOAM BAN 5

Agency for Research on Cancer has listed styrene, a huge component of polystyrene, as a

possible carcinogen in 2002. An additional study from the National Toxicology Program in 2014

finds the same exact same results (Kinhal, n.d.). A 1991 Louisiana Agricultural Experiment

Station studied the effects of polystyrene foam packaging on the percentage of styrene in eggs.

They discovered that the eggs that had been packaged in polystyrene foam containers were more

likely to contain styrene than eggs that had been packaged in non-polystyrene material (Miler,

Mohazzebi, Pasewark, & Fagan, n.d.). This is proof that styrene can contaminate food by

leeching out of polystyrene foam food ware containers.

The first city in the United States to create a law banning polystyrene foam was Berkeley

California in the 1980s. Many cities have followed suit, such as Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles,

and Minneapolis, as well as San Francisco. In fact, more than 100 cities in California alone have

partial or complete bans of polystyrene foam (Brendix, 2016).

POLYSTYRENE FOAM BAN 6

Figure 1

(Ryan, 2014). This graphic clearly illustrates which states already have cities that have banned

polystyrene: California, Oregon, Washington, Texas, Minnesota, Florida, New York, New

Jersey, and Maine; which states have cities that are considering it: Hawaii, Illinois, and

Pennsylvania. The rest of the states do not have cities with Styrofoam bans, or ones that are

considering it. Of all the states shown, California has the highest number of cities, most likely

because it is a largely democratic state that is near the coast, and is highly impacted by

environmental issues.

The democrat’s political platform typically believes that the environment should be put

over the economy while the republican’s view has been the exact opposite. This is why

legislation for polystyrene bans have mainly been passed in predominantly democratic states as

opposed to republican ones. However, the main advocates for polystyrene foam bans are
POLYSTYRENE FOAM BAN 7

environmental groups who lobby the government, such as San Diego Coastkeeper and the

California Restaurant Association (Heverly, Lu, Middleton, & Ghai, 2017). Board of Supervisors

President London Breed was the person who introduced this new Ordinance to the City of San

Francisco in 2016 (Sabatini, 2016).

Current Situation

The polystyrene foam ban went into effect on January first of 2017, with an extension for

fish and meat trays until July first of 2017 (File. No. 160383, 2016). This means that there has

not been time to complete any studies on the effect that this Ordinance has caused to the

environment and the economy. However, the effects of this ban are expected to expand upon the

effects of the previous 2006 legislation. After that passed, on the economic side of things, many

owners of businesses in San Francisco said that cost for packaging and food service wear was a

little higher, however, not enough to put places out of business (Miler, Mohazzebi, Pasewark, &

Fagan, n.d.). The business compliance rate went from 80 percent in its first year to 98 percent in

2012, which was due to the outreach that San Francisco performed to help its businesses. Litter

audits that were completed in the three years after the first ban was enacted discovered that there

was a 41 percent decrease in polystyrene foam litter from 2007 to 2009 (Heverly, Lu, Middleton,

& Ghai, 2017). This is a significant decrease.

After the 2016 Food Service and Packaging Waste Reduction Ordinance was passed by

the city of San Francisco, there was both criticism and applause from the community. Groups

such as the Small Business Commission, and the Commission on the Environment placed

support behind the ordinance, along with key figures such as Jack Macy, a zero waste

coordinator for the Department of the Environment, and Environment Commissioner Johanna

Wald (Sabatini, 2016). However, the new proposition also faced some backlash because it does
POLYSTYRENE FOAM BAN 8

not address inter-state trade and is therefore ineffective. Attorney Trenton Norris, representing

the EPS (expanded polystyrene) Alliance, stated that polystyrene foam is recyclable and that it is

a waste to ban it when the ban will not address polystyrene foam coming in from out of state, and

it would just go to the landfill (Sabatini, 2016). He does not realize that it is not within the

powers of the City of San Francisco to override interstate trade. City legislation cannot affect

state legislation, and state legislation cannot effect federal legislation. In order for all shipping to

ban the use of polystyrene foam, the federal government would have to pass legislation.

The rapid amount of new polystyrene foam bans has caused the issue to be pushed out

into the open and to the public. More and more cities have realized the dangers of polystyrene

foam to the environment and to humans themselves, as the movement gains momentum.

Figure 2

(Storm, 2014). This political cartoon pokes fun at the dangers of polystyrene, and also proves

that this is becoming a more widespread issue that all people are paying attention to, not just
POLYSTYRENE FOAM BAN 9

extreme environmental groups. Just last year, a state wide ban in California was proposed, which

would have banned polystyrene foam take-out containers across the state. It did not pass;

however, environmentalists are building the pressure. By passing legislation in a multitude of

cities, the state will be forced to pass state legislation in order to make them all the same, with no

differing policies in different cities (Rosenhall, 2017).

Differing Expert Viewpoints

The first expert on the issue of polystyrene bans is Patty Moore. She is an expert because

she is the principal of Moore Recycling Associates. She believes that it is more economically

feasible to recycle polystyrene foam than to ban it out right. She becomes frustrated when cities

outright ban it instead of realizing that “[polystyrene foam] is a very visible item. The public has

… chosen it as one of the poster boys of terrible things. People don’t want to be educated to the

fact that the alternatives [to EPS] are worse for the environment. They want it easy, and

politicians want it easy” (Earth911, 2016). She advocates that there is a real market for

postconsumer polystyrene foam and that it is possible to recycle. Many people cite

contamination as a big deterrent to recycling polystyrene foam, but she points out that

contamination is a problem in all recycling, not just polystyrene foam (Earth911, 2016). Another

barrier that is hard for people to overlook is that the upfront costs of recycling are extremely

high. For example, many of the essential pieces of equipment, such as the densifier, typically

cost in the range of $20,000 to $30,000. However, Patty Moore believes that this will eventually

be worth the costs (Earth911, 2016).

Another expert on the topic of polystyrene foam is Conor Johnston, the Chief of Staff for

San Francisco Supervisor London Breed. He is an expert because he introduced the ban in the

first place. He believes that recycling is not a viable option to combat the negative effects. He
POLYSTYRENE FOAM BAN 10

defends his stance that “the only way to get to zero waste is to stop producing [polystyrene foam]

in the first place” (Brendix, 2016). He also believes that EPS Industry Alliance only cares about

recycling polystyrene foam because they can make a profit off of it. He stated that “we met with

the EPS Industry Alliance multiple times. I don’t think they can fundamentally rebut the

argument that the product they make is harmful to the environment and to the Bay Area”

(Brendix, 2016). Johnston wants to remove the harmful effects of polystyrene foam from the bay

area where he works and because the previous ban showed progress, he thinks his new ban will

as well.

These two experts have different views on the solution to the same fundamental problem:

polystyrene foam is bad for the environment, so the world needs to have a solution to fix it. In

the end, their goals are the same. They want to keep polystyrene foam out of the environment

where it can cause harm. Moore is a recycling expert who believes in saving the environment

and Johnston is a Politian who wants the same thing. The only difference is that Moore believes

it would be better for the economy and the environment to recycle it because polystyrene foam is

cheap and hurts the environment less in the long run. This is because she believes that the

alternatives to polystyrene foam use more energy and water than polystyrene foam does to

manufacture (Earth911, 2016). Alternatively, Johnston believes it would be better for the

economy and the environment to ban polystyrene foam because it is not economically feasible to

recycle it because the market isn’t big enough, and he believes that a ban would more effectively

remove the harmful material from the environment (Brendix, 2016).

Policy Recommendation

Based upon the research, the recommendation for the policy is that it should be enacted in

Meridian, Idaho. Numerous restaurants across the city use polystyrene foam containers as their
POLYSTYRENE FOAM BAN 11

take out containers, and they are even used in schools, such as Mountain View High School,

serving as their lunch containers. This would benefit the Meridian community because it would

reduce pollution in the city and in the natural environments such as the Boise River, just as San

Francisco’s previous bill has done. There are two main reasons why it would be better for

Meridian to have a ban on polystyrene foam rather than just try to recycle it: the lack of market

for recyclables, and the health hazards.

Unfortunately, the City of Meridian recently cut back on their recycling program. Instead

of recycling numbers one through seven as they once did, they are now only accepting numbers

one and two (Blanchard, 2018). This is because China, who world’s biggest importer of

recyclables isn’t willing to sort through our contaminated recyclables any longer. Many cities

across the U.S. have just been bundling up any and all recycling that comes through their system,

then shipping it off, without sorting or cleaning them (Blanchard, 2018). This makes it very

difficult to recycle anything. Therefore, there is no market for recyclables, so the City of

Meridian is accepting less and Republic Services has even told people that “When in doubt,

throw it out” (Blanchard, 2018). There is no room for polystyrene foam in this already anti

recycling market. If polystyrene foam no longer has a market to be recycled in, then the only

other environmentally safe option is to ban it entirely.

Additionally, polystyrene is bad for people’s health. Even if recycling was an option, it

isn’t going to change that fact. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has listed

styrene, a huge component of polystyrene, as a possible carcinogen in 2002. A study from the

National Toxicology Program in 2014 lists it as a carcinogen as well (Kinhal, n.d.). The egg

study done in 1991 by the Louisiana Agricultural Experiment previously mentioned proves that

styrene can contaminate food by leeching out of polystyrene foam food ware containers (Miler,
POLYSTYRENE FOAM BAN 12

Mohazzebi, Pasewark, & Fagan, n.d.). No one wants to be eating out of a container that could

cause cancer. Despite its convenience, polystyrene foam is dangerous and should be banned.

Shifting away from polystyrene foam in Meridian’s packaging is economically feasible.

It has been done in hundreds of other cities across America, so it isn’t a stretch to assume that it

would work here, in Meridian. There would be some cost to businesses, but not enough that they

could not manage. In San Francisco, after the 2006 ordinance passed, many business owners

with in the city said that cost for packaging and food service wear was a little higher, however,

not enough to put places out of business (Miler, Mohazzebi, Pasewark, & Fagan, n.d.). A little

bit of rearranging the costs and expenditures is worth helping the environment. Polystyrene foam

is made out of Petroleum, which, as a non-renewable resource, will run out eventually anyway,

so economically, it is smarter to start replacing it now (Kinhal, n.d.).

The political feasibility is where this policy would run into more trouble. Idaho is a

predominantly republican state, so not many politicians would support legislation that put the

needs of the environment over the needs of businesses. It most likely would not cost businesses

that much, however, any rise in costs to businesses would be seen in a very negative light

(Republican views, 2014). In order to sway more Republicans to support of this legislation, there

would have to be more studies on the negative effects of polystyrene foam, and a readily

available alternative that is not more expensive. Despite the political setback, it is pertinent that

the environment and humans need this legislation. The environment is one of a kind. If people do

not begin to fight to protect it, it may not be there in the future.

References
POLYSTYRENE FOAM BAN 13

Bendix, A. (2016, July 14). Where foam bans stand in the fight for zero waste. Citylab. Retrieved

from https://www.citylab.com/life/2016/07/san-francisco-polystyrene-foam-ban-

recycling/491363/

Blanchard, N. (2018, January 02). Thanks to a new rule in Ada County, you may not be able to

recycle these plastics. Idaho Statesman. Retrieved from

http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/article192528134.html

Earth911. (2016). Debate over expanded polystyrene recycling gets weighty. Retrieved from

https://earth911.com/business-policy/polystyrene-recycling-debate/

Environment Code – Food Service and Packaging Waste Reduction Ordinance [File. No.

160383] of 2016, Ordinance. No. 140-16

Heverly, S., Lu, J., Middleton, A., & Ghai, S. (2017, March). Recommendations for reducing or

banning foam food service containers. Retrieved from

https://energycenter.org/sites/default/files/Guide_for_Polystyrene_Reduction_Policies.pd

Kinhal, V. (n.d.). How Styrofoam is Bad for the Environment. LoveToKnow. Retrieved from

http://greenliving.lovetoknow.com/How_Styrofoam_is_Bad_for_the_Environment

Miller, A., Mohazzebi, S., Pasewark, S., & Fagan, J. M. (n.d.). Styrofoam: More harmful than

helpful. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/Kaylee/Downloads/rutgers-lib-38329_PDF-1.pdf

Republican Views. (2014). Republican views on the environment. Retrieved from

https://www.republicanviews.org/republican-views-on-the-environment/

Rosenhall, L. (2017, June 14). Foam fight: As California balks at state ban, activists target local

level. Calmatters. Retrieved from https://calmatters.org/articles/foam-fight-california-

balks-state-ban-activists-target-local-level/
POLYSTYRENE FOAM BAN 14

Ryan, K. (2014, July 15). MAP: Which cities have banned plastic foam. Groundswell. Retrieved

from https://groundswell.org/map-which-cities-have-banned-plastic-foam/

Sabatini, J. (2016, May 27). SF’s proposed styrofoam ban picks up support amid industry

opposition. Examiner. Retrieved from http://www.sfexaminer.com/sfs-proposed-

styrofoam-ban-picks-support-amid-industry-opposition/

San Francisco Department of the Environment. (2014). Debbie Raphael, Director. Retrieved

from https://sfenvironment.org/article/debbie-raphael-director

Storm, G. (2014, November 23). Thoughts for pennies. Colorado Boulevard. Retrieved from

https://coloradoboulevard.net/thoughts-for-pennies-112314/