|
Suffolk County, NY, Bans Plastic Food Containers -- First In Nation
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #76 9may88
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944
Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net
* Back issues available by E-mail; to get instructions, send
E-mail to INFO@rachel.clark.net with the single word HELP
in the message
* Back issues also available via ftp from ftp.std.com/periodicals/rachel
and from gopher.std.com and from http://www.monitor.net/rachel/
* Subscribe: send E-mail to rachel-weekly-request@world.std.com
with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It's free
Suffolk County, NY, on March 29 passed a law banning the use of
plastic grocery bags and other plastic food containers starting
in July, 1989. The law forbids the use of polystyrene foam (PS
foam) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) for food packaging in restaurants,
bars, delis, roadside stands, grocery stores, and other retail
food establishments. PS foam is used in coffee cups, egg cartons
and meat trays. PVC film is used as food wrap and for grocery
bags.
Suffolk's is the most far-reaching law of its kind in the nation.
In 1987 the city of Berkeley, CA, outlawed PS foams containing
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the Freon-type gases that are destroying
the earth's ozone shield in the upper atmosphere (see HWN #60
and #70). According to the NEW YORK TIMES (4/30/88, p. 1), dozens
of similar laws to ban plastics are pending in cities, counties
and states around the nation. The Suffolk law is expected to build
pressure for passage of these other laws.
The Suffolk law does not affect goods shipped into Suffolk county
already wrapped in plastic, such as prepackaged meats.
The law was vigorously opposed by Mobil Corporation and Amoco
Corporation, both major producers of plastic bags and foam food
containers. In ads in major magazines in February, 1988, Amoco
called "foam fast food containers the scapegoat, not the
problem." (For example, see TIME magazine 2/29/88, p. 30.)
In those ads, Mobil says the solution to the solid waste crisis
is "more recycling, siting of new landfills, and construction
of new incinerators."
The Mobil ads pretend to compare the advantages of PS foam to
paper, and they conclude PS foam is better, or at least no worse.
However, Mobil omits most of the relevant facts about PS foams.
Diane de Coninck, a student at University of Vermont, spent the
last year studying the environmental effects of PS foam vs. paper,
so a good deal is known about the relative hazards of these products.
Judged against facts presented by Ms. de Coninck, the Suffolk
County law is definitely a step in the right direction, though
not a large enough step.
Polystyrene foam can be made two ways: with CFCs (which deplete
the earth's ozone shield 10 miles or higher in the sky) or with
hydrocarbons (n-pentane, isopentane, and n-butane). PS foam food
packaging made with CFCs in the U.S. released 3.9 tons of CFCs
in 1985 (nonfood-related polystyrenes released an additional 3.9
tons).
The use of hydrocarbons in PS foam manufacture releases the hydrocarbons
into the air at ground level; there, combined with nitrogen oxides
in the presence of sunlight, they form ozone --a serious air pollutant
at ground level. According to the EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency) more than 100 million Americans currently live in areas
that fail to meet air quality standards for ozone. California,
the Texas Gulf Coast, the Chicago-Milwaukee area, and the Northeastern
U.S. all have "serious ozone air quality problems,"
according to EPA. Ozone is definitely a dangerous pollutant. The
EPA says:
"Healthy individuals who are exercising while ozone levels
are at or only slightly above the standard can experience reduced
functioning of the lungs, leading to chest pain, coughing, wheezing,
and pulmonary congestion. In animal studies, long-term exposure
to high levels of ozone has produced permanent structural damage
to animal lungs while both short and long term exposure has been
found to decrease the animal's capability to fight infection."
In other words, prolonged exposure to atmospheric ozone above
legal limits might be expected to damage the immune system. In
its ads, Mobil does not mention this side effect of foam coffee
cups.
Furthermore, PS foam is made from petroleum. Are coffee cups the
highest and best use of this dwindling resource? Four-fifths (80%)
of all the oil discovered in North America has already been used
up. Current proven reserves in the U.S. total 36 billion barrels--enough
to supply U.S. needs for only eight years at current rates of
consumption. This is one reason the U.S. is so heavily involved
in the Middle East-- to keep Mobil supplied with raw material
for coffee cups. There were 54 billion plastic food service products
sold in the U.S. in 1986.
The aim of the Suffolk law is to force a switch to paper products
instead of plastic. Paper products use less energy in manufacture,
they pollute less, they are biodegradable, and they are made from
a renewable resource (cellulose). On this basis, paper is clearly
a better choice. Moreover, since some fast food companies already
use paper, everyone knows paper can do the job.
However, as Ms. de Coninck's report shows, the vast majority of
paper used in the food industry is virgin paper, not recycled.
Some dry foods (e.g., breakfast cereals) are packaged in recycled
paper, but most food is not. Recycled paper uses less energy in
manufacture, creates less pollution, and employs more workers.
However, even recycled paper is second best. Ms. de Coninck reminds
us that the best food service material is still china. We should
discourage disposable food service products wherever possible.
Where china won't do (e.g., when food is to be taken out) we should
use recycled paper. Lastly, we should think of what's needed vs.
what's cute. As Ms. de Coninck points out, in England fish and
chips are served in tissue paper wrapped in newspaper. Who needs
Ronald McDonald's colorful face?
In response to the Suffolk law, a spokesperson for the Society
of the Plastic Industry said plastic products were being singled
out as scapegoats by local governments desperate to solve the
solid waste crisis. The Society is considering a legal challenge
to the Suffolk law.
For its part, Suffolk (like all other jurisdictions on Long Island)
is being forced to close all landfills by 1990 because the NY
Department of Environmental Conservation has concluded there is
no way to prevent landfills from polluting groundwater. Incineration
is being urged as an alternative, but residents fear air pollution.
Patrick G. Halpin, the Suffolk county executive who signed the
new law April 30, said it should "send a clear message to
the plastics industry that the time is now to begin an aggressive
and comprehensive recycling program."
The Suffolk law can be obtained from County Clerk, Suffolk County
Administration Building, Riverhead, NY 01901; phone (516) 360-5423.
Diane de Coninck's excellent report, "A POLICY ANALYSIS OF
FAST FOOD PACKAGING", (117 pgs) is available for $10 from
Environmental Program, University of Vermont, 153 South Prospect
St., Burlington, VT 05437.
--Peter Montague
Descriptor terms: polystyrene; food; pvc; ny; suffolk county,
ny; legislation; cfcs; mobil; amoco; recycling; incineration;
diane de coninck; hydrocarbons; air pollution; epa; air quality;
ozone; plastics; groundwater; patrick halpin;
NOTICE Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic
version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge
even though it costs our organization considerable time and money
to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service
free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution (anything
you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send your tax-deductible
contribution to: Environmental Research Foundation, P.O. Box 5036,
Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do not send credit card information
via E-mail. For further information about making tax-deductible
contributions to E.R.F. by credit card please phone us toll free
at 1-888-2RACHEL. --Peter Montague, Editor
|
