Beacon Hill Contemplates Strengthened Plastic Ban Amidst Public Support

A decade ago, Massachusetts had the opportunity to lead the nation in taking decisive action against disposable food containers made from polystyrene, but according to a prominent leader of an environmental advocacy group, progress on this issue has been slow and frustrating within the state's legislative corridors.

Jess Nahigian, the political director of the Massachusetts chapter of the Sierra Club, emphasized the urgency of addressing the polystyrene problem during a recent hearing at the Joint Committee on Public Health. Nahigian pointed out that while more than 10 states and 60 municipalities within Massachusetts have already enacted bans on polystyrene, the state itself has lagged behind in adopting similar measures.

Polystyrene, commonly found in the form of hard plastic or foam, is a material notorious for its negative environmental impact. Nahigian described it as unsustainable and toxic, highlighting that it is essentially a synthetic petrochemical that does not naturally degrade. Furthermore, polystyrene contributes to the proliferation of microplastics in the environment, contaminating the air, water, soil, and even marine life such as shellfish. One of the major challenges with polystyrene is that it cannot be effectively recycled, compounding its environmental footprint.

In response to these concerns, Representative Marjorie Decker and Senator Michael Barrett have introduced legislation aimed at restricting the use of polystyrene in single-use disposable products. The proposed bans would encompass a wide range of items, including plates, cups, bowls, hinged or lidded containers, straws, cup lids, and utensils.

Under the proposed legislation, restaurants, and other food establishments would be prohibited from offering polystyrene containers to customers starting in August of the following year. Additionally, retailers such as grocery stores and convenience stores would also be subject to these restrictions. However, the legislation does allow for a potential delay in implementation if food establishments can demonstrate an "undue hardship," which is defined as a situation where there are no viable alternatives to polystyrene containers and complying with the provision would result in significant economic hardship.

During the legislative hearing, Representative Decker expressed her frustration with corporate opposition to the proposed bans, particularly targeting the American Chemistry Council, which she characterized as an industry lobbying group. She argued that these businesses were prioritizing profits over the health of the environment and the well-being of the population.

In a written testimony submitted to the committee, the Plastics Industry Association, representing 750 companies, voiced its concerns regarding the bills put forth by Decker and Barrett, as well as a similar proposal from Representative Dave Rogers. The association argued that these measures would increase costs for small businesses and consumers. Instead of outright bans, the Plastics Industry Association recommended a focus on strengthening recycling efforts and implementing polystyrene take-back programs as a more balanced approach to the issue.