Styrofoam, we use it to package our goods in the mail, to protect our electronic devices and to keep our food fresh while transporting it from restaurant to home.  It is a material that insulates heat, isolates the product, protects and stores.  It is cheap and readily available in most restaurants around the world, but can be overwhelmingly found in the United States.  While this product may be a godsend to business owners, it has become a burden onto our environment.  There is no opportunity to reuse or recycle Styrofoam food containers; in fact they are so accepted because of their ability to be disposed of without regard.  And after disposal Styrofoam will not break down during our lifetime, our children's lifetime, or our grandchildren's lifetime.  Our "to-go" container will take at least 500 years to decompose.  Styrofoam does more unnecessary harm to our planet than what it is worth and our generation needs to work toward putting in place biodegradable alternatives. 

            The first step is to understand the reason why this product needs to be taken off the market.  In order to do that we have to examine the production and the materials used to create such an unsustainable container.  Realizing the impact of the product does not just begin and end with the manufacture but rather with the design and disposal.  This is the life cycle, beginning with energy and materials and ending with a product and waste material. 

            Styrofoam is made from foamed polystyrene.  Its name, Styrofoam, was created by Dow Chemicals when they took hold of the material and made it in into a marketable product.  It can be used for "to-go" containers, cafeteria food trays, beverage cups, egg packaging, meat trays, and to transport fruit and vegetables.  It was recognized for food transportation because it is sanitary and protects food from bacteria spoilage.  However, the production of polystyrene is not as logical as its use.  To create such a transportation device ethylene and benzene must be produced by distilling crude oil.  It is then treated with hydrogen to remove existing sulfur, hydrogen and nitrogen.  To obtain the ethylene, heavy hydrocarbons are cracked into lighter alkane molecules.  By mixing the sulfur, hydrogen and nitrogen with hydrogen, heating it to 495-525 Celsius and feeding it through a reactor, benzene is recovered.  Styrene is then manufactured by reacting the benzene with the ethylene and dehydrating the ethyl benzene in a reactor at 550-680 Celsius in the presence of steam.  The styrene is then polymerized in a solution creating polystyrene.  Extrusion then takes place to obtain the polystyrene in sheets and it is thermoformed to be molded into its final desired shape (Zabaniotou, Kassidi 2003).  

The raw materials used in the production consist of fuel, natural gas, iron mines, calcium carbonate, bauxite, mine salt and alkaline.  Polystyrene compared to that of recycled paper containers require way more energy for production and causes obscene amounts of air and liquid waste. The energy feedstock needed for production consists of fuel, natural gas, lignite, coal, hydro electrical energy and diesel for transportation.  This contributes to the greenhouse effect, acidification, winter smog and summer smog, all causing an extremely high environmental impact (Zabaniotou, Kassidi 2003).   

Because of the process by which it takes to create polystyrene, people have feared that their daily dietary intake of food that has come in contact with polymers might be at risk.  Through contact with food stock trays, egg cartons, cups, containers and single service plates, there is panic that toxic carcinogenic residue might create health problems.  This type of exposure has been studied for years and it has been estimated that people in the United States are exposed to 3ppb of styrene daily.  The residents of the United Kingdom are exposed to two times less than that.  These percentages are so low that there is no clear evidence of carcinogenic response related to styrene exposure.  However, the health effects of workers exposed to polystyrene should not be grouped in this category.  For that is another review of a different caliber (Lickly, Breder and Rainey 1995).  This can lead us to conclude that the vast majority of harm due to polystyrene is on the environment, from production emissions to the decomposition, or lack thereof.

The increasing landfill costs and decreasing landfill space has forced alternative options for disposing polystyrene materials.  Polymers compose of about 8% by weight and 20% by volume of landfills and these numbers are constantly increasing (Stein 1992).  The alternatives for disposal are incineration, bio and photo degradation, composting and recycling. 

Incineration is used quite frequently in Asia due to the limited space for landfills but is not exactly popular in the United States due to the highly toxic fumes released.  A principal product of incineration is carbon dioxide and with improper incineration comes hydrochloric acid (Stein 1992).

Bio and photo degradation is modification of the polymers to increase their degradation rates.  The problem with this is when a product degrades carbon dioxide is released causing obscene amounts of toxic residue to be unleashed.  Not only that, but when degradable material is added to the polymer, the polymer does not disappear; it just breaks down into small bits.  Which does not solve any problem and in fact if these small bits are exposed or run into our waterways, wildlife confuses the pieces with food and inevitably end up dying (Stein 1995).

Composting of polystyrene could only be carried out under controlled conditions with centralized facilities. There are currently studies underway examining how this could be done (Stein 1995).

The final way to decompose of polystyrene is through recycling.  It is important that the product is reused several times before the material needs to be recycled.  However, when it comes to polystyrene food containers, reuse is not exactly a feasible option.  And when it comes to recycling, the process of recovering the waste is more expensive than virgin plastic, not to mention the transportation costs (Garcia et al. 2009).   However there are a few places that collect used polystyrene foam products.  The University of Miami Food Service Department collects as well as the Dade Paper Company in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida which than sells the product for recycling to the Dart Container Company in Plant City, Florida.  Of the 12 billion pounds of polystyrene produced in 1988, only 3% was recycled (Stein 1992).  It is actually quite difficult to find a company that will recycle polystyrene food containers because of the process by which it goes through.  It requires sorting, cleaning and participation of restaurants and schools to do so.  One of the main companies found that recycles polystyrene material is the Alliance of Foam Packaging Recyclers or AFPR; however, they do not accept meat trays, cups, eggs cartons or other disposable foodservice items for recycling.  There are also extreme regulations as to which polystyrene products can be recycled.  Granted there are about 38 states that have expanded polystyrene drop off locations.  So recycling their product depends on whether the person lives in the state or near the city that has a drop off location and obtains the right kind of polystyrene.  Otherwise they may be stuck paying a fee to mail it to the location, that is, if the person follows through to pay $1.50 to $9.00 based on weight and volume.  At this point the people have to decide for themselves if this rat race is worth it.  As for other objects such as polystyrene loose fill 'peanuts', those are to be sent to locations designated by the Plastic Loose Fill Council or PLFC (Alliance of Foam Packaging Recyclers 2009).  Source reduction and recycling are the preferred alternatives, granted polystyrene food container recycling is extremely limited. However, land filling as a means for disposal should be last resort when none of the other preferable methods are applicable (Stein 1991).

Options for alternative disposal of polystyrene food containers are limited. Incineration is too toxic, bio and photo degradation just breaks the polystyrene apart releasing carbon dioxide and contributing to a toxic food supply for our wildlife. Composting is still under review and recycling on a large scale is unable to get the job done when it comes to polystyrene food containers.  It can be concluded that the alternatives are not much of an alternative.  And it is time to start thinking about eliminating polystyrene food containers out of the picture indefinitely.  Society as a whole needs to come together to realize that we cannot keep adding unnecessary waste and toxins into our environment when there are other solutions readily accessible. 

Landaal Packaging Systems started using the expression "green is the new brown" when describing their new recycling friendly container.  Based in Flint and Bay City Michigan, Landaal and partner KTM Technologies have developed a cornstarch based Styrofoam substitute called Green Cells which will decompose in, rather than fill up, landfills (Banas 2009).

In Ohio, a group of people formed a company called Green Globe EcoPak in order to import one manufacturer's products from China.  The manufacturer, Su Binglong of Quanzhou has been making containers made of sugar cane and corn waste, which is biodegradable or compostable.  Green Globe EcoPak hopes to market the product to central Ohio restaurants, delis and groceries making them available to consumers.  Similar products are also available from Sysco Central, U.S. Food Service and Gordon Food Service (Chronister 2009).

Foodservice is also predicting big changes in the near future.  There is a growing demand for foodservice disposables and with that comes the emphasis on developing sustainable packaging that will promote economic and environmental health.  Also there is more emphasis on using recycled raw materials as much as possible; this has caused a load of biodegradable products to enter the market in the past few years all in the name of sustainability (Business Wire 2009).

Businesses are not the only ones joining the biodegradable food container bandwagon.  Cities and counties around the United States are realizing the environmental impact that Styrofoam has on the planet and one by one they are joining the fight against polystyrene.  So far, thirty-one cities throughout California have banned the use of polystyrene food containers.  Restaurants and food vendors in San Francisco, Millbrae, Oakland, Santa Cruz, Santa Monica, San Mateo County, Seattle and Portland are prohibited from using disposable containers made from expanded polystyrene (Koskey 2009).  San Bruno also has a voluntary ban that is slated to become mandatory in 2010.  In Richmond California a ban was just recently passed  requiring businesses to use biodegradable or compostable containers and forcing them to use up their stock of Styrofoam by July1, 2010 (The Lompoc Record 2009).  This reigns true for San Marin County as well, which will begin enforcing a ban on polystyrene and all plastic food packaging on July 1, 2010.  This ban not only includes restaurants and food vendors but also supermarkets.  The prohibited products include plastic bowls, plates, trays, cartons, cups and straws that are not intended for reuse.  This will encourage retailers to use durable and reusable products and if durable containers are not feasible, then biodegradable packaging must be used (Halstead 2009). 

When the polystyrene ban progressed in 2007 mixed reactions were met with local restaurant owners and some city officials.  Some people were ecstatic about tightening up on environmental regulations and others were concerned with how sustainable products would impact the bottom line.  Restaurants had a year to put the ban in effect and faze out their Styrofoam containers.  More than two-dozen restaurants in Santa Monica received warnings of violations since the ban went into effect in 2008; patrons reported most of which.  The first citation is a $100 penalty, increasing to $250 for succeeding offenses.  After the ban was adopted, the city of Santa Monica hired a former chef to help restaurants make the shift from polystyrene and also met with distributors about expanding their "to-go" products (Hanatani 2009). 

In February of 2009, assembly bill 1538 was introduced that would have made California the first state in the United States to ban disposable Styrofoam food containers.  It passed the house appropriations committee on May 28^th and in June Peninsula Assemblyman Jerry Hill had the bill pulled.  The ban would have prohibited all restaurants and food vendors in the state from using expanded polystyrene food containers in an effort to encourage sustainable, recyclable, biodegradable alternatives.  Apparently legislators who opposed the bill were worried that the bill would have an adverse impact on California businesses that manufacture Styrofoam.  However, the consequence of not passing this bill is the contribution of pollution in streams, bays and oceans by a highly toxic material.  California would have been the first innovator of banning this environmentally unfriendly material and New York and Hawaii are considering following suit (Koskey 2009). 

Most restaurants fear the cost differences that they will face by switching from Styrofoam to a biodegradable package.  Styrofoam is very inexpensive in cost but very expensive on environmental cleanup.  It is approximately $18 for every 100 Styrofoam containers compared to that of $44 for cardboard containers.  Because other forms of packaging are about three times more expensive than Styrofoam, businesses are worried and hesitant to jump on a sustainable alternative (Koskey 2009).  However, some businesses have found different ways to cope with the change; that is charging customers for their "to-go" container.  This is actually a great idea.  Looking back on bans of plastic grocery bags, many countries started with taxation.  Ireland for instance began taxing plastic grocery bags, which ultimately eliminated plastic bag use by 90% within one year.  This was a huge success, and although some citizens may have felt annoyance from the ban they were forced to think in more sustainable means.  As with alternative food containers, by charging the consumer for the disposable product this could ultimately reduce unnecessary waste dramatically.  This would create awareness amongst the consumer forcing them to acknowledge the amount of waste he or she is contributing to the environment. 

In conclusion, the life cycle of the polystyrene food container is harmful and unrealistic.  As previously stated, the effect of polystyrene does not just begin and end with the manufacturer; it begins with energy and materials and ends with a product, waste materials and more energy.  If we want to make any progress toward a more sustainable environment we have to take steps to ensure sustainability.  This means becoming globally aware of what causes greenhouse emissions and acknowledging the process it will take to eliminate the effects.  If we know that polystyrene will take at least 500 years for decomposition and releases noxious gases during production, our society can no longer play the ignorant card.  Environmental problems do not just disappear, the solution begins by recognizing that there is a problem and the problem is in need of fixing.  Polystyrene is a burden on the planet in which we live and is killing our animals and marine wildlife.  By supplementing polystyrene waste, we are contributing to the death of thousands of grazing animals, sea turtles, fresh water fish, and mammals every year.  By taking little steps to reduce global warming we are creating a habitable planet for generations after us.  Looking at the Earth as a single use place for ourselves is a selfish act.  As a society we can either invest the funds to save the future of our world or we can be frugal and single-handedly destroy our surroundings and everything in it.  There is no question that polystyrene is a curse on our environment; the question is whether you, as a citizen of the United States, as a citizen of the world, will continue to indulge in a hazardous product; a product that does not even compare to its biodegradable alternatives.  Its time to make a sustainable difference and we must take it one step at a time.  So let's begin with eco-friendly food containers.

This article is submitted courtesy of Celeste Femia.