Bloomberg's Next Target: Foam Food Packaging

A judge may have struck down New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s ban on large sugary soft drinks this month, but Bloomberg already has his eyes set on his next target: polystyrene foam food containers.

The proposed ban is part of an overall initiative to double the city’s recycling rate to 30 percent by 2017, and a brain child of Bloomberg’s “recycling czar” Ron Gonen, deputy commissioner for recycling and sustainability. While Gonen justifies the decision on the grounds that the merits are “obvious” and argues that the city’s recycling machine “wasn’t really built to handle Styrofoam,” Bloomberg has flatly claimed that the material “is virtually impossible to recycle and never bio-degrades.” The idea is not new, and several localities in the United States have imposed polystyrene bans, with proponents invoking the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s conclusion that the material “can have serious impacts on human health, wildlife, and the aquatic environment.”

While the ban has the backing of environmentalist groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council in New York, and petition drives in its favor are beginning to pop up on websites like Change.org, it is also meeting strong opposition. To some extent, that is because New Yorkers are getting fed up with the Mayor’s social engineering campaigns, over the course of which he has gone after smoking, soft drinks, trans fats and salt. Largely, however, it is because, as several risk experts have termed it: “justifications cited by ban advocates are either the result of an incomplete real-world analysis or are simply based on incorrect information.”

Recycling technology does exist for polystyrene, which is often (and mistakenly) referred to under the brand name Styrofoam. In California, curbside foam packaging recycling options are available, and foam recycling centers operate all over North America. While Polystyrene, which by the way only accounts for roughly 0.5 percent of the city’s overall waste, is currently not accepted by NYC’s Department of Sanitation’s recycling program, industry has already offered to work with the city to develop an effective recycling mechanism.

As for environmental impact, it is worth noting that polystyrene cups have been determined to be far more energy- and water-efficient than paper cups, the purportedly “green” alternative. A peer-reviewed life-cycle assessment by Franklin Associates has found that polystyrene cups use about a third less energy and emit a third less greenhouse gases than its sleeved paper peers. At the same time, they require 20 to 30 percent less water. Moreover, paper cups, most of which are lined with plastic, also do not biodegrade easily in modern landfills, which are designed to discourage biodegradation as it emits greenhouse gases and leachates. 

Aside from the fact that polystyrene has been deemed safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a cautionary note on the unintended consequences of plastic bans under the banner of environmentalism and public health may be in order: Researchers have found spikes in hospital emergency room treatments due to E. coli and other bacterial infections in San Francisco and other areas after plastic bag bans were imposed. It is for good reasons that plastic products have prevailed in the marketplace: aside from their energy efficient profiles and insulating properties, foam products are known to be sanitary, and to minimize exposure to bacteria and other foodborne pathogens compared to reusables.

However, according to the mayor, polystyrene is “not just terrible for the environment. It’s terrible for taxpayers.” Sure, as it is not presently covered by the city’s recycling program, it needs to be picked out of recycling bins when improperly disposed. Littering is a problem that comes with a price tag, but banning polystyrene would do nothing to nothing to reduce litter – in fact, as polystyrene creates less waste by volume and weight, it might actually increase the overall problem.

Once again, it is small businesses, and particularly restaurant owners and street vendors, who find themselves at the crosshairs of Bloomberg’s efforts – a position to which they, sadly, may have almost grown accustomed over the course of his 11-year tenure. Already reeling from previous bans and mandates, they would be forced to shell out between two and five times more for alternatives to foam food packaging – an additional burden they undoubtedly would have to pass on to customers.

Meanwhile, as the city’s “Banner-in-Chief” campaigns against polystyrene, New York City is in dire fiscal straits. City spending has skyrocketed, and as Manhattan Institute fiscal analyst Nicole Gelinas notes, the mayor’s last months in office will be marked by what he calls “non-controllable” expenses (health and pension costs) outpacing “controllable expenses” (city services) for the first time ever. Talk about “terrible for taxpayers.”

Arguably, New York City has bigger fish to fry, but then again, that might take some trans fats.