Proposition 65 Warnings in Food: Avoid These Chemicals

Grocery store aisle, showing shelves of processed foods in colorful packages on the left and right, with dairy coolers at the back. — Photo by Franki Chamaki on Unsplash.

Food should never have a Proposition 65 warning on it. However, some foods do have these warnings, so we should avoid them. According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), “more than 10,000 food additives are allowed for use in food sold in the U.S.” Many of these additives are preservatives, while others are used for color, shine, or stabilization of artificial flavors.¹

Following is a list of the types of substances to avoid. Remember, all the substances listed cause cancer, developmental problems in children, or reproductive issues.

Acrylamides

French fries on brown paper with a container of ketchup and parsley sprinkled across. — Photo by Pixzolo Photography on Unsplash.

Acrylamides form in french fries, potato chips, other fried and baked snack foods, roasted asparagus, canned sweet potatoes and pumpkin, canned black olives, roasted nuts, roasted grain-based coffee substitutes, prune juice, breakfast cereals, crackers, some cookies, bread crusts, and toast. It is a chemical formed during cooking or processing at high temperatures (frying, roasting, grilling, baking) since it converts sugars and other naturally occurring substances in these foods to acrylamide. Boiling and steaming foods do not create acrylamides.²

“When you fry or cook potatoes and certain other foods at high temps, a substance called acrylamide forms through a chemical reaction between the sugars and amino acids. An analysis of 32 studies found that among non-smokers, dietary acrylamide consumption was associated with an increase in endometrial and ovarian cancers. It’s what makes potato chips and french fries taste so damn good. But…is it worth the danger?” -Darin Olien, Fatal Conveniences³

Arsenic

Rice, rice cereal, some edible seaweeds, seafood, poultry, and mushrooms can absorb arsenic from the environment. According to the Food and Drug Administration, “arsenic levels are higher in certain soils and rocks and where arsenic-containing pesticides were once used on food crops or from the current use of those pesticides on non-food crops, and pollution from mining, fracking, and coal-fired power plants.”⁴ The World Health Organization (WHO) states that the main source of arsenic contamination is polluted groundwater used for drinking, crop irrigation, and food preparation.⁵ Chronic arsenic poisoning often leads to cancer.

BPA (Bisphenol A)

Blue tub of cans of Coca Cola, Diet Coke, and bottled water on ice. — Image by Kenny Holmes from Pixabay.

BPA (Bisphenol A) is a chemical that manufacturers use in plastic linings in cans (both the type for vegetables and beverages), jar lids, polycarbonate plastic bottles (#7 resin code), and bottle caps. It leaches into food. It is an endocrine disruptor and has been linked to developmental and health problems in children (such as Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD)); anxiety and depression; early puberty in girls; diabetes; obesity; and heart disease.⁶

BHA (Butylated Hydroxyanisole)

Plate of charcuteries and cured meats such as salami and prosciutto, with cheese and pickled vegetables. Two silver forks at left. — Image by Gabriele from Pixabay.

BHA is a preservative used in cured and preserved meats and other foods. The substance is also found in certain rubber, plastics, and glues. Both the National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer list it as a suspected carcinogen. Further, “the European Union classifies BHA as an endocrine disruptor because of its ability to lower testosterone and thyroid-hormone thyroxine.”⁷

BHT (Butylated Hydroxytoluene)

Red box of Cap'n Crunch cereal with the Captain eating a bowl of the cereal on the box design.

BHT is a preservative used in cereals like Cap’n Crunch and Apple Jacks. It causes hormone disruption and harms the reproductive system. The European Food Safety Authority indicated that it may disrupt endocrine function by causing thyroid changes and affecting development.⁸

Cadmium

Cadmium is in certain fish, shellfish, organ meats, mushrooms, oats, root crops, and some leafy vegetables grown in cadmium-rich soils.⁹ A study from 2023 found that age groups 6–24 months and 24–60 months old were the most exposed to cadmium in foods. “American infants and young children of these age groups who regularly consumed rice, spinach, oats, barley, potatoes, and wheat had mean [cadmium] exposures exceeding maximum tolerable intake level was set by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).”¹⁰ It can cause renal failure and is a human carcinogen.

Flame Retardants

Flame retardants, particularly PBDEs (Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers), are known carcinogens that can also cause brain defects and hormone interference. These harmful chemicals are found in some farm-raised fish. Additionally, similar chemicals are used in certain ovenproof or microwavable plastic trays and plastic water bottles, which can lead to the leaching of chemicals into food and beverages. Several studies have documented the migration of chemicals from food packaging to food.

Lead

Theo Chocolate bar packaging — Many brands of chocolate, even organic, have high levels of lead and cadmium.

Lead is found in certain dietary supplements, balsamic vinegars, and imported spices such as turmeric and chili. Lead, along with cadmium, is also found in many types of chocolate. Exposure to lead is particularly harmful to children’s development, causing issues with hearing, speech, brain and nervous system damage, slowed growth, and learning and behavioral problems.¹¹

Mercury

Seafood counter, many types of seafood on a counter of ice. — Photo by Jonathan Noack on Unsplash.

Mercury is in many types of fish: king mackerel, shark, tilefish (from the Gulf of Mexico), swordfish, marlin, bigeye tuna, bluefin tuna, and orange roughy. Nearly all fish and shellfish contain traces of mercury, but the largest fish accumulate the most in their bodies. Mercury causes neurological and behavioral disorders such as tremors, insomnia, memory loss, neuromuscular effects, headaches, and cognitive and motor dysfunctions.¹² Refer to Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch for the safest seafood, linked under Additional Resources.

Phthalates

Phthalates are chemicals in plastics that can leach into food and beverages, especially when heated. They have been found in dairy products, meats, seafood, fruits and vegetables, and fast foods.¹³ Phthalates are hormone-disrupting chemicals that have been linked to many reproductive, developmental, and endocrine-related health problems.

PFAS (polyfluoroalkyl substances)

When waterways or environments are contaminated with PFAS, also known as “Forever Chemicals,” they can contaminate the food supply through plants and animals that are grown, raised, or processed in those polluted areas. Additionally, PFAS can migrate into foods through food packaging, certain types of take-out containers, food processing, and Teflon or nonstick cookware. This chemical family (PFAS, PFOA, PFC, etc.) can lead to issues such as altered metabolism and body weight regulation, increased risk of childhood obesity, reduced immune system function, and cancer.¹⁴

Potassium Bromate

Potassium bromate is added to the flour of many packaged noodles, baked goods, bread, tortillas, and other foods made with flour.¹⁵ It is a possible human carcinogen according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Multiple countries have banned it, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Brazil, and the European Union – but not the United States. The substance is also used in industrial cleaning agents, bombs, and photo-developing solutions.¹⁶

Propyl Parabens

Stack of flour tortillas on a cloth napkin, and a fork and spoon at left. — Image by Martin Diaz from Pixabay.

Propyl parabens are a preservative in processed foods like pastries and tortillas. But they’re also found in batteries, floor cleaner, and glue. When present in food, this chemical acts as an endocrine disruptor and can lead to developmental and reproductive harm.¹⁷

Styrene

Styrene and benzene from “Styrofoam” polystyrene take-out packaging can leach into food and beverages, especially with hot or reheated foods. Styrene is a known carcinogen and exposure increases the risk of leukemia and lymphoma and is a neurotoxin. Benzene is also a known carcinogen. Avoid take-out containers by bringing your own metal or glass leftover containers.

Synthetic Food Dyes

Caucasian person's hand holding a red bag of Skittles. — Photo by Jonathan J. Castellon on Unsplash.

Manufacturers use synthetic food dyes in many foods and beverages. And especially candy! But these same colorants are also used in household cleaners, wood stains, pesticides, and even blue jeans. While not all food dyes are toxic and not all are on the Proposition 65 list, we know that certain dyes are carcinogenic. Others affect development and cause behavioral difficulties in children.¹⁸

Avoid Toxic Ingredients

Avoid the ingredients listed above, as they are the most toxic. If any food has a Proposition 65 warning, either put it back on the shelf or return it. No food should contain that type of warning.

Remember to avoid processed food as much as possible. Try to limit your consumption of seafood and meat, and minimize your use of food packaging. Processed foods include crackers, bread, canned goods, frozen or packaged meals, cereal, etc. In general, the less processed the food, the better it is for you. Always check the ingredients list. If it contains a chemical-sounding word or something you can’t pronounce, it’s best to avoid eating it.

I hope this helps! Thank you for reading, please share and subscribe!

“It’s better to pay the grocer than the doctor. And smarter to trust the farmer than the pharmacist.” -Darin Olien, Fatal Conveniences¹⁹

Additional Resource:

Website, Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch.

Footnotes:

Article, “Common food additives in Cap’n Crunch and Apple Jacks cereal may harm human health,” ewg.org, October 6, 2021. ↩︎
Page, “Acrylamide,” Proposition 65 website, Updated February 2019. ↩︎
Book, Fatal Conveniences: The Toxic Products and Harmful Habits That Are Making You Sick―and the Simple Changes That Will Save Your Health, by Darin Olien, Harper, New York, 2023. ↩︎
Page, “Arsenic in Food,” Food and Drug Administration, accessed September 16, 2024. ↩︎
Page, “Arsenic,” World Health Organization, December 7, 2022. ↩︎
Page, “Bisphenol-A (BPA)/Bisfenol A (el BPA),” Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, accessed September 16, 2024. ↩︎
Article, “Common food additives in Cap’n Crunch and Apple Jacks cereal may harm human health,” ewg.org, October 6, 2021. ↩︎
Article, “Common food additives in Cap’n Crunch and Apple Jacks cereal may harm human health,” ewg.org, October 6, 2021. ↩︎
Page, “Foods,” Proposition 65 website, May 2021. ↩︎
Article, “Dietary exposure to cadmium from six common foods in the United States,” Food and Chemical Toxicology, Volume 178, August 2023. ↩︎
Page, “Lead Exposure Symptoms and Complications,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, April 10, 2024. ↩︎
Fact Sheet, “Mercury and health,” World Health Organization, March 31, 2017. ↩︎
Page, “Phthalates,” toxicfreefuture.org, accessed September 19, 2024. ↩︎
Page, “Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS),” National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, update September 3, 2024. ↩︎
Page, “This cancer-causing chemical may be lurking in your bread,” ewg.org, May 4, 2022. ↩︎
Article, “From baguettes to bombs: Surprising industrial uses of common food chemicals,” ewg.org, June 6, 2024. ↩︎
Article, “From baguettes to bombs: Surprising industrial uses of common food chemicals,” ewg.org, June 6, 2024. ↩︎
Article, “From baguettes to bombs: Surprising industrial uses of common food chemicals,” ewg.org, June 6, 2024. ↩︎
Book, Fatal Conveniences: The Toxic Products and Harmful Habits That Are Making You Sick―and the Simple Changes That Will Save Your Health, by Darin Olien, Harper, New York, 2023. ↩︎

August 22, 2024August 31, 2024

What Is Proposition 65?

Last updated on August 31, 2024.

Proposition 65 warning label in English and Spanish, yellow triangle with exclamation point at left and orange Warning label on right above text.

Almost every time I see a Proposition 65 warning label on a product I’m considering purchasing, I don’t buy it. My spouse often asks, “Is it really a big deal?” I say, yes, it means the product has chemicals known in the State of California to cause cancer.

If they cause cancer in California, they cause cancer everywhere.

We’ve had friends over the years who had lived in California. When we asked about Proposition 65, they shrugged and indicated that California’s just ‘overly cautious.’ I quietly disagreed. I didn’t know enough to debate the matter. So I decided I’d learn about it.

Google terrain map screenshot of California and Nevada. — Courtesy of Google Maps.

“California tends to be the pioneer of protecting consumers from harmful chemicals in everyday products.” – Darin Olein, Fatal Conveniences¹

Cancer on the Rise

As I was writing this article, a new study came out indicating that Generation X and Millennials have a higher risk of getting certain types of cancer when compared to earlier generations. “Researchers from the American Cancer Society (ACS) studied 34 of the most common cancers. They found that cancer incidence rates continued to rise in progressively younger generations in 17 of the cancers, including breast, pancreatic, and gastric cancers.”²

While that study does not point to a cause, Generation X and Millenials have been exposed to far more chemicals than previous generations. We know many chemicals are linked to cancer,³ so overexposure to those chemicals is an obvious explanation.

Read on to learn how Proposition 65 warnings can help us.

Diamond shaped sign with skull and crossbones, "Poison", all black and white. — Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay.

What is Proposition 65?

It is a right-to-know law. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), which administers the Proposition 65 program, defines it as such: “Proposition 65, officially known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986…requires businesses to provide warnings to Californians about significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.” These warnings can be in products, homes, workplaces, or the environment. It also protects the state’s drinking water sources from being contaminated with these chemicals.⁴

“A Proposition 65 warning is telling you that using a product or entering a location can expose you to a significant amount of a chemical that causes cancer, harmful effects on a developing baby, or other harmful effects on reproductive health.”⁵

What else does the legislation do?

Proposition 65 requires California to publish a list of these chemicals which must be updated annually. It includes over 1000 chemicals.⁶

For this list, California recognizes the International Agency for Research on Cancer (part of the World Health Organization), the U.S. National Toxicology Program, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as authorities on carcinogens. The State of California can also make its own determinations about specific substances. As the American Cancer Society notes, “This means that not every chemical on the list has been proven to the worldwide scientific community to actually cause cancer in people.”⁷

But, if certain chemicals are suspected of causing cancer in California, that’s good enough for me to avoid them.

The List

More than one thousand chemicals make a very long list. The Proposition 65 website has a page called “Fact Sheets” that lists chemical groups, rather than individual chemicals, making the risks easier to read and understand. However, it is not nearly as comprehensive so I recommend viewing both. I’ve linked them under Additional Resources below.

The list includes toxic substances such as lead, asbestos, and hexavalent chromium; industrial solvents; and toxins like carbon monoxide and tobacco smoke. It even includes BPA (Bisphenol A), a toxic substance used in plastic and metal can linings; as well as Styrene, used in many polystyrene take-out containers we incorrectly but commonly call Styrofoam.

White polystyrene container with food sitting open, against a white background. — Photo by Vitalis Arnoldus on Flickr, Creative commons license (CC BY 2.0).

Proposition 65 Labels

Product labels can be unclear as they only indicate if a product contains chemicals that may cause cancer or reproductive problems. They are required to list one specific chemical in the warning. However, they are not required to list every chemical, their amounts, or how a person may be exposed to them.

“By law, a warning must be given for listed chemicals unless exposure is low enough to pose no significant risk of cancer or is significantly below levels observed to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm.”⁸

Products Sold in Other States

Products sold outside of California are not required to have a warning label even if they contain those toxic chemicals. “Some companies that sell products all over the United States only label those sent to California, even though all their products contain the same compounds.”⁹ Online sellers to all states must include warnings on their products, such as those listed on Walmart, Amazon, Lowe’s, and others.

Changes Brought by Proposition 65

Many sources don’t find the Proposition 65 warnings helpful, including Wirecutter, the consumer product review arm of The New York Times. I’ve often found their reviews and recommendations helpful because they independently test and review many products. But even they say Proposition 65 isn’t a big deal to worry about because the labels don’t indicate the amount or methods of exposure. However, they do acknowledge that the law has brought change to a variety of consumer products. “Prop 65 has resulted in changes in product formulation to remove or reduce potentially harmful chemicals, including in things like Wite-out and herbicides. Awareness raised by Prop 65 led Coke to change its use of 4-MEI, a potential carcinogen found in some caramel coloring.”¹⁰

The law has successfully raised awareness. Here are some of other the changes it has helped with:

“Proposition 65 has helped reduce or eliminate the use of lead in a wide variety of products, including hair dye, toothpaste, ceramic ware, foil caps on wine bottles, children’s jewelry, and even some types of cookies and candy. Levels…with acrylamide levels in major brands of potato chips and french fries. Proposition 65 has also led to the removal of several chemicals harmful to the developing baby during pregnancy from many nail care products, and has encouraged manufacturers of paint strippers to develop alternatives that do not contain methylene chloride or NMP.”¹¹

Controversy

Others argue that Proposition 65 is overly cautious, while others believe it is too broad and meaningless. In fact, on a lot of forums, many people completely disregard the warnings. Some say they are on ‘everything in California;’ others indicate that they just don’t think it’s a big deal. One person wrote, “California puts that on literally everything, they’re idiots.” On another forum where someone asked why a golf towel has a Proposition 65 warning, another responded: “We live in an age where it wouldn’t be out of place to put a warning sign on a water bottle saying ‘could cause drowning.’ Don’t think anything of it.”¹²

But do think something of it. That golf towel likely has formaldehyde or PFAS in it, which are toxic. Why are harmful chemicals allowed in our products? The reason is that the amount in each item is often limited, making small amounts in products seem acceptable.

But here’s the thing.

If these chemicals were just in our couches or clothes or shampoo, it would be limited exposure. But they are in EVERYTHING. These chemicals are in our food, make-up, skin care products, shampoo, soap, clothing, furniture, carpeting, vinyl flooring, mattresses, bedding, drinking water, household cleaning products, cookware, vehicles, pharmaceuticals, hair dye, take-out containers, drapery, building materials including windows and blinds, plastic food containers and packaging, camping tents, shower curtains, electrical items…etc. We are surrounded by these toxins in our homes, in our showers, in the workplace, and in our schools. If we encountered a single chemical occasionally, it likely would not pose a significant threat.

But we are constantly bombarded with these chemicals in every facet of our lives. We are inundated with these chemicals and cumulatively, it harms us. This raises our chances for reproductive and developmental problems, cancer, and other health issues such as rashes, headaches, and allergies. This is likely why cancer is on the rise.

Graphic illustration of a woman doing yoga, surrounded by bottles of a product, yoga mat, towel, plants, and cup of tea. — Image by Евгения from Pixabay.

Protecting Our Health

We are poisoning ourselves with these toxins. As consumers, we must avoid them whenever possible to protect our health. Let’s refuse to purchase items that contain these harmful chemicals. This collective action will drive companies to make necessary changes.

I hope this information helped! Please check out my next article about products with Proposition 65 warnings. Thank you for reading, please share and subscribe.

Additional Resources:

List, “Proposition 65 List of Carcinogens or Reproductive Toxicants,” Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), State of California, December 29, 2023.

“Fact Sheets,” Proposition 65 website.

Article, “Prop 65 was meant to protect residents from toxic water. How did warning stickers end up on everything?” Vox.com, updated October 31, 2019.

Footnotes:

June 20, 2023June 24, 2023

Discussing Plastics, Paper Towels, and the Journey to Living Thoughtfully with Eve O. Schaub, author of Year of No Garbage

Underwater image of fish swimming near floating plastic trash. — Photo by Naja Bertolt Jensen on Unsplash.

After reading the new book, Year of No Garbage: Recycling Lies, Plastic Problems, and One Woman’s Trashy Journey to Zero Waste, I had the pleasure of interviewing author Eve O. Schaub. She was fun to speak with and very passionate about the subject matter. I loved the way our conversation flowed between funny and serious.

Seriously, she’s great to talk to. She’s very relatable, enthusiastic, and extremely knowledgeable. She explains complex matters in an honest and open way. We’ve all experienced conundrums with garbage and recycling at times, some of which have no resolution. She makes the reader understand that we aren’t alone in this. Plus, the book is quite an entertaining story!

The Beginning

Schaub has written three books within this paradigm: Year of No Sugar, Year of No Clutter, and Year of No Garbage. I wanted to know how it all started and how it transpired from No Sugar to No Clutter to No Garbage. She had seen an online talk by a pediatric endocrinologist, Dr. Robert H. Lustig, who associates sugar with many of the most common western diseases. “I was captivated by this. I mean, I’m not in the habit of sitting around and watching 90-minute medical lectures,” she laughed. But she found that his findings made so much sense. “It was like I had been given a new pair of glasses. I saw the world in a completely different way.” Schaub decided to make this a writing project. “What could be more important than the health of our families and the food that we put on our table?”

What would it take to eliminate sugar? Schaub thought that it couldn’t be that hard, so she convinced her family to live for one year without consuming added sugar, with a few exceptions. She drew inspiration from authors, such as Barbara Kingsolver (Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A Year of Food Life) and Morgan Spurlock (Super Size Me), who created a set of rules for a specific period and then reported on it. As she would come to find out, it is actually very difficult to eliminate sugar because it’s in everything.

After finishing her first book, Schaub said Year of No Clutter felt like a very natural next project. She stated it was more of a personal project for her because the root of the clutter in her home was her. “As the self-confessed polar opposite of Marie Kondo, I spent a year confronting my inner hoarder and wrote a book.”⁹ This journey led to the idea of Year of No Garbage.

Large, full yellow dumpster with all kinds of trash and debris. — Image by Nathan Copley from Pixabay.

No Garbage

The idea of garbage and what happens to it had captivated Schaub since childhood. Trash is a given thing in our culture, and most people never give it a second thought. “Trash is like weeds. Right? Weeds are only plants that are in the wrong place…that’s the same with trash. There’s no such thing as trash, it’s just whatever we say it is. It’s in the wrong place, it’s inconvenient, we don’t know what to do with it,” she said.

What’s more impressive is Schaub did this during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. While many actually found it significantly harder to have less trash that year than any other, her family managed to do it by following a pre-established set of rules. She said it was a good distraction during a time when we were forced to slow down, and she felt it provided a good opportunity to reset and rethink.

“I kept trying to remind myself that the very fact that trying to live without garbage is super difficult—and at times virtually impossible—was the whole darned point: if it were easy there wouldn’t be much to write about, and everyone would probably already be doing it, and the earth would be a happier, less trashy, more equitable, less cancer-filled, less disaster-prone place. The End.”¹¹
Photo by Gary Chan on Unsplash.

Plastics

Plastics are the hardest type of garbage to deal with, and there’s so much of it. Schaub acknowledged that it’s nearly impossible to avoid buying food without plastic packaging. “You’d have to live in a cave and grow all your own food in the ground, and drink from a stream. I mean, that’s how hard it is…That’s how ingrained it is.” But if we know this, we can work to turn off the plastic tap and think about ways to use less.

Most people don’t realize that plastic is made from oil and chemicals. Big Oil is openly planning to triple its plastic production by 2050. “And they’re proud of it!” Schaub exclaimed. “Do we need three times the amount of plastic in our lives than we already have now?! No, I don’t think anybody thinks that. But they are looking for new markets. They’re trying to increase profits, especially in the wake of people buying [and] turning to electric cars, for example. They’re going to be selling less oil in other departments because of environmental initiatives.” Capitalism drives everything in our culture, and Big Oil is one of the most aggressive industries. Those are the forces we are up against, she said.

“The plastic waste crisis is horrible, but it’s not your fault. It is the fault of forces that are beyond each individual person’s control. This is corporations. This is Big Oil.”

She mentioned that personal responsibility is not the sole solution, but that awareness is the key. Films such as The Story of Plastic, which highlights the global problem of the people whose lives are negatively affected by our waste; videos of a sea turtle with a straw in its nose; and images of dead albatross with stomachs full of plastics are disturbing. But they are powerful because they raise awareness.

Dead Laysan Albatross with plastic at Harbor Sand Island, Midway Atoll. — Dead Laysan Albatross with plastic in its stomach at Harbor Sand Island, Midway Atoll. March 31, 2015. Photo by Forest and Kim Starr on Wikimedia, Creative Commons license (CC BY 3.0 US).

Recycling

Single-stream recycling is a lie, especially when it comes to plastic, the author acknowledged. Knowing that the plastic recycling rate is only 5% is crushing, because people try so hard to do it properly and follow the rules. Yet, most plastic is landfilled. “Every other material has a place to go and has a way to break down. Or be made into something new.” Schaub said that after five decades of recycling, “five percent is the best we can do?!? That’s shocking.”

Single-stream (curbside) recycling often collects plastics with RIC numbers 1-7. But most of those (#3-7) are not recycled and end up in developing countries. “If I know that my plastic is being shipped to Malaysia and Myanmar and Thailand, I’m going to be hesitant to put it in recycling at all because I know that that’s the system in place,” she explained. “These are our plastics that are being shipped across the sea to litter the landscapes of developing nations that do not have the infrastructure to deal with it. You literally have children playing in our waste plastic. And the list of countries is long…these people are living in our trash plastic…this is an environmental justice issue. This is racism.” We have the impression that we are doing a wonderful thing when we put plastic in the recycling bin instead of the landfill, but that is unfortunately sometimes false.

“In the name of recycling, countries around the world are suffering.”
Child garbage recycler in Saigon, holding a bag with cans from companies like Coca-Cola. Photo by etoile on Flickr, Creative Commons license (CC-BY 2.0).

The Role of Corporations and Industries

I asked Schaub: “How do we get these corporations to do the right thing? Because at every turn, like you talk about in your book, they’re looking for a new stream of revenue. How do we get them to stop?” Schaub responded, “Well, they won’t stop, because financially, it doesn’t make sense for them to stop. So we can’t really turn to the corporations too much. I mean, we can try.” But they are always going to put profits first. For example, Coca-Cola has been making environmental promises for decades. But they don’t actually fulfill those promises, “because there’s no sheriff in town,” she said. There are no entities that make sure companies fulfill their promises when it comes to plastic and other environmental endeavors.

“We need more transparency…we need to have a sheriff.”

Schaub observed that industries often put the responsibility on the consumer, in that we shouldn’t buy those things, or that we don’t recycle properly. But it is the industry that should be making better products. “There are a lot of parallels between plastic and sugar, actually. It all comes down to something that’s cheap and it’s easy and it’s convenient and that’s why it’s everywhere, in the case of both of those things…The industry does not have an incentive to do better.” There is an illusion of choice for the consumer as well. There may be 30 types of bread at the supermarket but only one of them will not have added sugar in it. The same is true with plastic. “Try buying cheese without buying plastic. It’s incredibly hard!” Schaub is right – I’ve never been able to buy plastic-free cheese, anywhere.

“Personal responsibility is very important, [and] personal awareness. But if I go buy a bamboo toothbrush and a shampoo bar, that’s good, but it’s not going to fix the overall systemic cultural problem that we’re encountering.”

Legislation May Be the Most Important Focus

Schaub says turning to legislation is perhaps more important than asking corporations to change. She said that proposed bills such as The Break Free from Pollution Act and the United Nations Plastic Pollution Treaty, as well as state and local legislation, show us progress. There are plastic bag and plastic straw bans where she lives, and there is even a charge for paper grocery bags in Vermont. “This is the low-hanging fruit. You have to start somewhere,” she said. (I didn’t tell her that my state, Tennessee, has a law banning bans on plastic and polystyrene containers.) The hope is that more states and municipalities will do the sensible thing. “The more we ask, the more available it will become.” Asking puts in your vote as a consumer!

Diet Coke bottle floating in water. — Diet Coke plastic bottle floating in a body of water. Image by Andrew Martin from Pixabay.

Toxic Chemicals

Plastic packaging is often full of toxins that can leach into many things, including food and beverages. “Avoid plastic packaging especially when it comes to food whenever you can. And definitely do not heat your food in plastic,” Schaub said. Don’t put plastic in the dishwasher because the heat releases the toxic chemicals in plastic, and most of the time we don’t know what’s in those plastics.

“It’s amazing to me that when you go to the supermarket, and you buy a food product, they have to tell you what’s in that food…But nobody has any obligation to tell you what’s in the packaging. That’s another instance of where we assume that ‘well, this has to be safe,'” she said. But they may not be! There are so many chemicals and the formulas are often proprietary and secret. “Plastic and food need to stay way the heck away from each other, as much as possible.”

“It’s one thing when you’re talking about ‘the ice caps are melting and the polar bears are starving,’ and nobody likes that – that’s bad! But when you start putting toxic chemicals into my body, suddenly I’m paying even more attention…or, when you’re talking about putting those same chemicals into the bodies of my children…I think that’s probably what it’s going to take, is for people to start understanding that connection between plastics and our health, and all the negative effects that can be correlated. The same thing with sugar. When you start connecting the dots, it’s very alarming. And of course, sugar and plastic are so often used in conjunction, from candy bars to all the soda, it’s like they are best friends!”
Most candy bars are wrapped in plastic. Photo by Denny Müller on Unsplash.

Avoiding Garbage Changes The Way We Purchase

I asked Schaub what items she’d stopped buying because of Year of No Garbage. She laughed, “I had quite a love affair with paper towels. I was the person who went to the supermarket every week and bought the largest bale, like a hay bale, of paper towels.” She explained that sometimes the large bales have individually plastic-wrapped rolls in addition to the outer plastic wrap. “Horrible! But I realized that there were so many times that I could avoid using paper towels very simply, by just having dish towels on hand…or I’ve got rags that I’ve made from cutting up really old towels or sheets. That’s what I use for cleaning now…and I get a great sense of satisfaction out of that…I have incorporated [it] into my life, it’s part of my routine now. So now I just do it without even thinking about it. It does take some effort to set up a new routine. And there is discomfort in that.”

But it was manageable. And she still uses paper towels but significantly less. “I went from going through a hay bale of paper towels every week to now, I buy one roll at a time, and I’ll have it for weeks.” If you don’t want to use a certain item, like paper towels or sugar, the best thing to do is to avoid bringing them into your home. That will automatically discourage use.

Avoiding Plastics

Schaub and I agree that it’s best to avoid plastics whenever possible. And when you do have to buy something with plastic, it’s almost better to put them into the landfill than to try to recycle them. “I feel like that’s a much more honest approach. If I have something that’s going to go to the landfill, I’m just going to put it right in there and accept that’s the only thing that can happen to this piece of plastic…but knowing that will now cause me to be ever more vigilant to try and avoid buying that product,” she said.

For me, that has been items such as bottled shampoo, plastic straws, and plastic shower curtains. Once I became aware of the problems with those things, I stopped bringing them into my home. We switched to shampoo bars and have never reverted back to liquid shampoo. We don’t need a straw for most drinks; when we do, we have metal straws. And though I’ve had my trials and tribulations with fabric shower curtains, I have not had a plastic one in the house for 10 years. As for paper towels, I also use very few and the ones I purchase are plastic-free.

Year of No Garbage book cover

Normalizing Environmental Actions

I was telling Schaub that I routinely keep two clean glass containers in my car with my cloth shopping bags. This way, if I’m at a restaurant and want to take my leftovers home I can do so without having my food touch toxic Styrofoam (polystyrene). But while bringing your own bags to the supermarket is common now, bringing my glass containers to a restaurant is still kind of weird to people. She affirmed, “I think this is all about normalizing it, right? If somebody is standing next to you when you go and use that container at the butcher or the restaurant, they see you doing that and they go ‘Huh! That’s interesting.’ And it starts the process of becoming more normal. And that’s a wonderful thing we can do. We’re not just helping ourselves, we’re progressing this whole idea forward.”

“Awareness is the beginning of all meaningful change.”
Glass container with bamboo lid from IKEA.

Living Intentionally

Schaub said that all three projects permanently changed how her family lives and consumes in the world. This is because they can’t ‘unknow’ the information they’ve learned. She also liked the symmetry of the three projects because she felt like her family came full circle. “We started with the things that we put into our bodies, and then I focused on the things we bring into our homes, and then lastly I focused on the things that we’re putting into the environment, which, guess what – spoiler alert – because they’re in the environment, they’re now coming around and going back into our bodies as well. And so now we’re finding microplastics in foods because it’s in the dirt! It’s in the produce! It’s in the tap water and the bottled water! These microplastics don’t go away…[plastic] never breaks down.” It turns into microscopic plastic pieces. “But it’s still there, and that’s the stuff that’s going into our bodies as well as into the environment,” she maintained.

Our culture is so busy but when we slow down, we can be more thoughtful and more intentional, including with our resources. She wrote, “As it turns out—and I’m as surprised as anyone about this—living No Sugar, No Clutter and No Garbage all led to the same place: living thoughtfully…Being thoughtful about your space, your resources, your food, where the objects of our life come from and where they all go; devoting the time to put those ideals into practice: getting objects to people who will love and use them, recycling and reusing, cooking as much as possible from basic ingredients.”¹²

Cardboard sign with black painted letters with sky in background: "All You Need Is Less." — Photo by Etienne Girardet on Unsplash.

Read Year of No Garbage

Schaub’s goal is to spread information and provide people with more information so that they can incorporate it into their lives in a way that makes sense for them. She said that some people read Year of No Garbage and find it an entertaining story. For other readers, it might change everything about the way they shop and discard and recycle. She doesn’t want people to feel shame because guilt isn’t going to make anything better. These are urgent issues and we need to come together. Her book incorporates these ideas, so be sure to check it out!

If you are interested in purchasing Year of No Garbage or any of Schaub’s other works, you can find links on her website.

Read my book review, and please share and subscribe!

Additional Resources:

Book, Year of No Garbage: Recycling Lies, Plastic Problems, and One Woman’s Trashy Journey to Zero Waste, by Eve O. Schaub, Skyhorse Publishing, New York, 2023

Video, “Sugar: The Bitter Truth,” Education, Dr. Robert H. Lustig, Osher Center for Integrative Medicine, May 26, 2009.

Documentary, “Fed Up,” 2014.

Video, “Plastic Straw Removed From A Sea Turtle’s Nostril (Short Version),” The Leatherback Trust, August 13, 2015.

Website, About The Story of Plastic film.

Footnotes:

June 12, 2023June 20, 2023

Book Review: Year of No Garbage by Eve O. Schaub

Year of No Garbage book cover

“Trash is America’s number one export.”

I recently had the pleasure of reading Year of No Garbage by Eve O. Schaub. The book is a great source of well-researched information regarding the huge problems surrounding our waste crisis. I found myself laughing out loud at the many humorous and relatable stories, which help make very real topics like plastic pollution feel more approachable. Especially when those topics can be so complex and depressing!

Overflowing 'Litter' bin with trash piled in front of it, a crowd of people in background. — Photo by Paul Schellekens on Unsplash.

“Our garbage is everywhere, all around us, in our very bodies, and we don’t even realize it. Microplastics have been found in humans’ blood, lungs, the placenta of unborn children, and, most recently, breast milk.”

Garbage is a Problem For Everyone

Garbage doesn’t go away, it just goes somewhere else.

Even the most extreme environmentalists and zero-wasters have found objects for which there is no way to upcycle, recycle, or reuse. Nobody knows what to do with them, so they must go in the garbage. Many environmentalists often don’t talk about these types of items, but Schaub puts those stories front and center.

For example, in Year of No Garbage, she included a hilarious story about a Styrofoam-filled beanbag that her cats had peed on. There was no saving or repurposing it so she had to trash it. Her husband thought her blog readers would ‘crucify’ her for having something like this that was dumpster-bound. But she thought this was the point entirely! “I mean, I have to talk about this, right? This is what the whole thing is about. I mean: look at this. Things like this should not exist.”

The stuff – meaning the plastics and Styrofoams and disposables – pervades every part of our lives. It is almost impossible to not come in contact with them constantly. In fact, Shaub tried just going a single day without touching plastic and found it nearly impossible. That is, she had to avoid the toilet, the soap dispenser, her cell phone, pen, computer, yoga mat, light switches, etc. “I couldn’t drive anywhere, because cars are 50 percent plastic. This was probably just as well, because I also couldn’t wear my glasses.” Even books and magazines often have a plastic coating on the covers. On her blog, she commented:

“I still hate plastic and everything it is doing to us, but this impossible day gave me a newfound understanding of what we are really up against. Who knew that in only a few short decades our society could have so thoroughly encased ourselves in mysterious plastic chemicals, to the point that doing without them immobilizes us? Recently I had happened upon an article in the New York Times, ‘Life Without Plastic Is Possible. It’s Just Very Hard.’ I beg to differ—and I speak from experience.”¹³

Black garbage bag sitting in front of a door next to a pair of slip-on shoes. — Photo by Sven Brandsma on Unsplash.

Recycling

One way the author attempted to reduce her family’s garbage was to recycle everything she could. But this wasn’t easy as just throwing it in a blue bin. One of the chapter titles, “I Become the Sherlock Holmes of Recycling . . . or at Least Watson,” referred to the vast amounts of research it took to recycle many items. “There are so many things about recycling that we just don’t know, that prevent us from doing it correctly and efficiently, and I was pretty much spending every waking moment trying to figure them all out.”

Plastic’s rate of recycling used to be just 9%, but has fallen even lower to between 5 and 6 percent. And that’s typically only plastics with a resin code of 1 or 2. The rest is often shipped off to other countries, where they often do not have the infrastructure to deal with these plastics. “No matter what your garbage service provider is telling you, numbers 3, 4, 6, and 7 are not getting recycled.”

Schaub noted that recycling programs are flawed and often don’t work. That includes everything from single-stream/curbside to extreme recycling programs like TerraCycle. “But that doesn’t mean I’m giving up. What I am giving up on is the myth of personal responsibility…it took me an entire year of looking and asking and researching to finally accept what so many have long suspected…Plastic recycling does not work. Extreme ‘recycling’ programs are not trustworthy.” She wrote that legislation (with enforcement) regarding plastics, chemicals, and waste will be what makes the most difference. That is how we can get corporations to make better products and packaging, as well as use less toxic ingredients.

“Before the Year of No Garbage, did I love that I could buy a package of lovely, sealed, organic ground beef at the supermarket that would keep good for much, much longer than other, mere mortal organic ground beef? Of course—it’s convenient and efficient. It reduces food waste and saves money. Longer shelf life probably even made my supermarket more likely to carry organic meat in the first place. But where Intergalactic Space Plastic reduces waste of food, it creates waste of something arguably even worse: permanent, forever garbage. At least wasted food, if composted, can degrade back into the environment.”
A seagull with trash in its mouth. Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash.

Garbage Reduction

There are so many things that most of us absent-mindedly throw away because we don’t know what else to do with them. This book teaches us to think about trash differently – whether we recycle, give items a second life, or avoid buying certain items in the first place.

Schaub’s family was able to greatly reduce their garbage, mostly by paying closer attention to what they bought. They made incremental changes, such as “eliminating paper towels, instituting a burn pile for small and unrecyclable paper, collecting wine corks and plastic caps to donate for school craft projects, composting all food scraps (not just some),” collecting plastic film for the bin at the supermarket, washing and recycling their aluminum foil, and avoiding the purchase of disposable items as much as possible.

Schaub recommended not using garbage bags. “Garbage bags are black holes, I realized. They encourage things to be thrown in them, things we’d rather not think about or deal with. Not having a bag in the bin means no messy organic material (which should really all be going into the compost anyway) but it also means, when I empty it, that’s one more time I think about my garbage and what it is composed of.” She uses pet food bags to bring trash to the dump.

“Instead of that ninety-six-gallon trash bin we used to fill each and every week, today we fill one-half of a kitchen-sized garbage bag every week, always composed pretty much entirely of single-use plastic food packaging that I couldn’t figure out how to avoid. We have gone from 96 gallons of trash per week to 9.”
Photo by Nareeta Martin on Unsplash.

Zero Waste Is Extremely Difficult

“There’s a lot of stuff out there masquerading as useful and sustainable, when it’s really just more stuff…As the Zero Wasters like to say, the most environmental purchase is the one you didn’t make.”

It is very difficult to go completely zero waste in our modern society. “Zero waste is a lovely idea,” Schaub wrote. But “the number of people who are both willing and able to genuinely go full bore zero waste under our existing system is so small as to be statistically insignificant. Which means, effectively, that even though it is technically possible, it is not realistic. And it’s not going to fix anything.” Fossil fuel companies are the biggest drivers of emissions and plastics production. They don’t have any plans to put themselves out of business.

But we have to keep trying.

“I’m not suggesting that just because personal responsibility will not solve the problems of garbage and plastic and climate change, we should all just throw in the towel. Forget it! Hand me that plastic straw! Turtles be damned! No. What I’m saying is that personal behavior changes are never going to be enough all on their own, because the forces at work are so enormous.”
Photo by the blowup on Unsplash.

Intentionality

Schaub wrote that being intentional is key to making any great change, whether it is at home or through legislation. We can all do better if we know better. We can all become more intentional in our lives. This is one of the greatest lessons we can learn from minimalism even if we are not minimalists. She wrote:

“If the unexamined life isn’t worth living, it follows that living mindfully gives us purpose. I hope my kids will live life with a sense of curiosity about the world and our place in it. I hope that if something doesn’t seem right, they’ll know that blind acceptance is not their only option; that even if one person might not be able to solve the problems of the environment, global warming, racial and environmental injustice, we can start the conversation, change minds, reveal a wrong, by the simple act of slowing down and taking a closer look.”

**Read the Year of No Garbage!**

I highly recommend reading this book! It’s fun, interesting, and full of well-researched information and first-hand experiences. A Year of No Garbage resonated so much with me because I have run into many of the same roadblocks and situations with plastics and garbage. I have struggled with replacing my plastic shower curtain with non-plastic. It was difficult to find alternatives to take-out containers made from Styrofoam (polystyrene) because of their toxicity. I also stopped paying for garbage bags and now just reuse dog food bags or I upcycled my own from shipping envelopes.

Understanding some of the problems surrounding waste in our society is the key to being able to change it. Schaub wrote, “As I’d learned with our other two projects, even when you are supposedly ‘done,’ you are not done at all. In fact, in some ways, that is when the hardest work begins. After all, the whole point of the crazy year-long project is to change how we do things so dramatically that it changes us.”

I had the opportunity to interview Eve O. Schaub, and I look forward to sharing that with you in my next article! In the meantime, you can check out her blog. Thanks for reading, please share and subscribe!

Footnotes:

All quotes from this article are from Year of No Garbage: Recycling Lies, Plastic Problems, and One Woman’s Trashy Journey to Zero Waste, by Eve O. Schaub, Skyhorse Publishing, New York, 2023, unless otherwise cited.

November 6, 2020September 12, 2021

Styrofoam and Polystyrene Containers are Poisoning Your Food, Part 5

Chick-fil-a meal — Chick-Fil-A food and polystyrene cup. Photo by young shanahan on Flickr, Creative Commons license (CC BY 2.0)

In my series on polystyrene food containers, I’ve explained how it is used, produced, and why it is harmful to human health as well as the environment. I’ve examined why it is not practical to recycle polystyrene even though its producers would have you believe otherwise. In Part 4, we explored supposed alternatives and why they weren’t totally effective. Today, I want to discuss corporate responsibility and how bans on polystyrene can help bring greater change.

“When you know better, you do better.” -Maya Angelou

The Role of the Food Industry

Chicken Salad Chick polystyrene container, use for dine-in service. — Chicken Salad Chick polystyrene container, used for dine-in and take-out services. Photo by me

The fast-food and restaurant industries can play a huge role in ending the use of polystyrene. Many use polystyrene for their hot and cold drink cups and clamshell containers, but they have a choice in what they purchase. Most dine-in restaurants already use reusable dining ware and the ones that don’t could make the choice to switch and install a dishwasher. The initial investment would be higher, but the constant overhead of disposables would disappear and trash costs would go down. For take-out and leftover containers, there are many ways companies can offset the increased costs of non-polystyrene packaging. They could allow customers to bring their own containers and/or they could raise the cost of their products by mere cents. Companies have the opportunity to be part of the solution in order to protect our own habitat.

A few companies have self-imposed bans on polystyrene. McDonald’s phased out polystyrene containers for its sandwiches in 1990 after their containers became a symbol for litter. These containers are so well-known in advertising and consumer culture history that the Smithsonian has those containers in their archives.¹⁴ It stopped using polystyrene for hot beverages in 2012 after being pressured by environmental groups, and they were supposed to end the use of cold beverage cups by 2019. Dunkin’ (formerly known as Dunkin’ Donuts) eliminated polystyrene coffee cups in May 2020. They estimate that this will remove one billion cups from the waste stream annually.

Sonic polystyrene cup found on ground — Littered Sonic polystyrene cup, photo by jnyemb on Flickr, Creative Commons license (CC BY 2.0)

The Role of Manufacturers

The manufacturers of polystyrene have an obvious interest in keeping it in use. But they argue against the environmental and human health problems stemming from it. They also promote recycling as a solution when it is not because of the volume. Corporations have the opportunity to do so much more than they do!

Case Study: Dart Container Corporation

Dart Container Corporation manufactures over 4,000 products including cups, plates, containers, lids, and straws for everyday use in restaurants, hospitals, schools, and homes. Their environmental commitment lists recycling polystyrene as one of their strategies, using what they collect at their plants and other drop-off facilities across the U.S. “We are the award-winning industry leader in creating and promoting recycling opportunities for EPS foam #6.”¹⁵ They sell it to manufacturers of picture frames, interior molding, pens, rulers, and foam packaging.

But they charge customers to collect polystyrene cups for recycling. They have a program called The Cups Are REcyclable (CARE), that offers Dart customers “an easy and affordable way to recycle foam food containers” for “Dart’s large-volume users, such as hospitals, universities and corporate cafeterias.” This provides educational materials, a collection bin, and a densifier (like a compactor) for a cost of $295 per month. The customer is responsible for the installation and maintenance of the machine, but Dart collects it once per month.¹⁶

Dart also has its Recycla-Pak program, a foam cup take-back program offered for sale by Dart distributors. Usually, companies cover the costs of take-back programs, not the customer. These are actually brilliant business models for Dart. They sell the single-use disposable cups, reclaim it at the same customer’s cost, and then resell the recycled products to new customers. Profit all around! But this isn’t the right thing to do and it inhibits recycling because of the cost.

Waffle House polystyrene cup, found next to the Tennessee River. Photo by me

Bans on polystyrene

Many communities across the U.S. have instituted polystyrene bans, but it is a surprisingly controversial issue. There are those who recognize that we need to move away from polystyrene because of human health hazards and to curb pollution. Others think that replacement choices aren’t much better for the environment and that businesses will suffer from the higher cost of the replacements. I’ll explain a few of these bans.

“Styrofoam cup and dead pelican,” photo by hikinghillman on Flickr, at La Ballona Creek in Venice Beach, California. Creative Commons license (CC BY-NC 2.0)

California

California has approximately 121 local municipal ordinances throughout the state banning polystyrene.¹⁷ Although there is not yet a state-wide ban in California, this shows how many citizens want to stop the use of polystyrene. Food containers are not recycled in California, “although the plastic industry has attempted to implement recycling programs that are simply way too expensive to be implemented in any meaningful way.”¹⁸ Besides impaired waterways littered with plastic and polystyrene trash, a 2004 report indicated that it was costing about $30 million per year to dispose of polystyrene materials.

In addition, in order to clear up confusion about customers using their own containers, the State of California passed Assembly Bill 619 in 2019. This new law now clearly allows the use of reusable food and beverage containers at restaurants and events in the state.¹⁹ I would love to see other states follow their lead so that this was allowed everywhere.

Maryland

Maryland was one of the first states to pass a polystyrene ban. “Environmentalists say the new law will have long-term benefits, removing a material made with fossil fuels, which contribute to climate change, and that clogs landfills, pollutes the Chesapeake Bay and other waterways and ultimately harms wildlife, people and the planet,” according to an article in the Baltimore Sun. But those against it say “alternatives to foam don’t always live up to their promises — plastic containers don’t get washed out and recycled or reused, and compostable ones aren’t always compostable without special equipment. Instead, they say, they end up in the same waste stream as the foam they replaced.”²⁰

Maryland has not fully implemented the ban yet, as COVID-19 delayed the deadline for schools and restaurants to stop using polystyrene. Trash collection rose 22% in Baltimore during the pandemic, largely due to take-out packaging. It began October 1, 2020 and it will be exciting to see the long-term results.

“If researchers find the law helps improve Maryland’s waterways, that could help guide future policy around the world and “turn off the faucet” of supplying polystyrene into the water.”²¹

Other States

The call to reduce the use of polystyrene has been heard in other places as well. Maine passed a ban on polystyrene food and drink containers in supermarkets and restaurants which will go into effect in 2021. New Jersey has pursued a ban on single-use paper and plastic bags at supermarkets that will also limit the use of polystyrene takeout boxes and plastic straws. As of this writing, it is awaiting the Governor’s signature. These examples show that enough people in those states were concerned about the negative environmental impacts of polystyrene. They recognize that the best solution is to stop using it!

Polar Pop cup on the ground — Circle K Polar Pop cup made of polystyrene, found during a litter cleanup in downtown Chattanooga, Tennessee. Photo by me

Solution

While there are many alternatives, the best solution will always be to stop using single-use disposable products. It is my hope that polystyrene bans become the norm. Kate Breimann, state director of Environment Maryland, urges us to consider the larger issue of moving away “from the culture single-use” disposable items. She said implementing previous measures to protect the environment once loomed difficult as well, but have since paid off. “We think about when we had leaded gas and leaded paint, and people said, ‘It’s going to be hard for the industry,'” she said. “But now we have a healthier world.”²² This is absolutely true, and we all benefit from a healthier environment.

If you have ideas on how to end the use of polystyrene or single-use disposable take-out containers, please let me know in the comments below! As always, thanks for reading, and please subscribe!

Additional Resources:

Article, “Why Styrofoam (Expanded Polystyrene) Should Be Banned Everywhere In The World,” Jeff Lewis, medium.com, May 6, 2019.

Report, “Plastic Debris in the California Marine Ecosystem: A Summary of Current Research, Solution Efforts and Data Gaps,” California Ocean
Protection Council and California Ocean Science Trust, September 2011.

Series, “Quick Guide to my Packaging Industry Series,” becauseturtleseatplasticbags.com.

Footnotes:

October 30, 2020December 3, 2025

Styrofoam and Polystyrene Containers are Poisoning Your Food, Part 4

Meat wrapped in plastic film on polystyrene trays. Note that some supermarkets, such as Whole Foods (and Earthfare before it closed) have moved away from most, if not all, polystyrene food packaging. But polystyrene still abounds in other supermarkets including Walmart, ALDI, Publix, Food City, and many others. Image by Karamo from Pixabay

In my last three articles, I’ve explored the various aspects of polystyrene and its harmful effects on human health, wildlife, and the environment. Hopefully, by now, you’re no longer reheating your leftovers in those containers. Maybe you’ve even requested that your favorite restaurant stop using them!

It is not practical to recycle polystyrene, although producers of it would have you believe otherwise. Today, I want to look at alternatives to polystyrene food containers and explore other ideas for dealing with this toxic material and waste problem it creates. Unfortunately, the alternatives all fall short.

Photo of a girl eating ice cream out of a polystyrene cup — Photo by Dan Gaken on Flickr, Creative Commons license (CC BY-ND 2.0)

Alternatives to polystyrene

There are many alternatives for take-out food packaging including several ideas that have not been put into practice yet. Many alternatives are no better than polystyrene. In fact, many food packaging companies make false or misleading claims often omitting names of chemicals in their products. Let’s look at some of those now.

Plastic film linings

Plastic film-lined paperboard, such as the standard paper coffee cups, cannot be recycled because of the mixed materials. They also cannot be composted because of the plastic film. Some companies use PLA, which can be – but is not always – a biodegradable plastic film. Cups and containers lined with PLA would have to first be collected and taken to an industrial compost facility, which as you’ll recall from Part 2 of my Packaging Series, these facilities are few and far between. There are a few companies that now advertise these as backyard compostable, which is great if it is true and it is free of toxins. But this would require collecting the PLA-lined containers or cups instead of trashing them.

Plastics #1 and #2

Using #1 and #2 plastics are better in that they are much more recyclable than #6 (polystyrene), but this assumes the items make it into the recycling. I know that many fast-food restaurants use recyclable plastics, but do not provide recycling receptacles at their locations. This forces any customer wishing to recycle to take those items home. Also, the volume of throw-away items negates its positive possibilities. We must move away from plastics and our reliance on single-use disposable items.

“Compostable” and “biodegradable” polystyrene

In Part 2 of my Packaging Series, I wrote about “compostable” and “biodegradable” polystyrene and plastics that are really neither, as they do not break down in regular compost, nor in the marine environment. These types of polystyrene require an industrial composting facility which, as mentioned above, is not available in many places. A food service using these types of containers would have to separately collect them and ship them to a facility far away. But realistically, many of these end up in the landfill. And nothing biodegrades in a landfill. Backyard compostable plastic has started appearing on the market, but I don’t know if these are truly biodegradable and toxin-free.

Molded fiber containers

Molded fiber take-out packaging seemed like a great alternative to plastic until it was discovered to contain PFOAs (per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances). This chemical causes cancer, thyroid disease, reproductive problems, and immunotoxicity in children. They are the same compounds in some nonstick cookware. Worse, manufacturers advertise many of these containers as compostable. But if PFOAs get into your soil, they will also grow into your plants, as these chemicals do not dissolve or disappear. Stay away from anything containing PFOAs (also PFAs). I’ve linked an article under Additional Resources for more information on this.

Large Scale Changes

Wouldn’t it be great if everyone had access to composting through municipal systems and all take-out packaging was made from real compostable products that also did not contain toxic chemicals? This would take a large-scale change to our waste management systems, but it would really change the world and make a global difference in our climate, environment, and health. Just think about how much waste we could keep out of landfills by composting food waste and food containers!

Sustainable fast food packaging idea by Ian Gilley of IG Design Solutions, made from biodegradable compressed paper. We need more innovations like this!

ReThink Disposable

ReThink Disposable, a program of Clean Water Action and Clean Water Fund, tries to prevent waste before it starts. They advocate for reusable food container solutions (I’ve listed their guide under Additional Resources). They work with local jurisdictions, businesses, and consumers of take-out food packaging “to inspire a cultural shift away from the single-use “throwaway” lifestyle.” ReThink Disposable indicates that “the best way to champion our movement is by supporting ReThink Disposable businesses who eliminate and reduce disposable packaging.”²¹ While this program is only in California right now, we can do this and we all have the power to follow the same guidelines and practices. The organization offers multiple case studies on California businesses, including an entire school district, that switched from disposables to reusables.

Disposable cup infographic poster from ReThink Disposable

Solution

While there are many alternatives to polystyrene, none of them will have as significant an impact as simply not using single-use disposable products. Giving up these products doesn’t mean we have to be inconvenienced, it just means we have to prepare a bit more. Stopping the flow of single-use disposables just takes a little forward-thinking and intentionality, because the best solution will always be to stop using single-use disposable products. Check out my page on “14 Ways to Go Plastic-Free with Food” for ideas! Once you stop using disposables, you’ll be surprised at how little you miss them.

As a society, we’re going to have to think outside of the box on this one. What about take-out places that allow people to bring their own glass or metal containers and drink cups? What about having a standardized exchange system? Restaurants could invest in reusable containers that customers could return for a small deposit, similar to a container deposit system. Once returned they either receive money back, credit, or their next container at no cost.

In my next and final article in this short series, I’ll explore the role of companies and municipal bans on polystyrene. If you have ideas on how to end the use of polystyrene or single-use disposable take-out containers, please let me know in the comments below! As always, thanks for reading, and please subscribe!

Additional Resources:

Article, “Compostable plastics: are they PLAying you?” Aubrey Hills, Student Environmental Resource Center, University of California, Berkeley, March 10, 2017.

Article, “The bowls at Chipotle and Sweetgreen are supposed to be compostable. They contain cancer-linked ‘forever chemicals,'” by Joe Fassler, thecounter.org, August 5, 2019.

Guide, “Reusable Food Serviceware Guide,” ReThink Disposable and Clean Water Fund, 2015.

Footnote:

October 23, 2020September 12, 2021

Styrofoam and Polystyrene Containers are Poisoning Your Food, Part 3

Polystyrene food container from Popeye's, sitting on the bank of the Tennessee River. — Polystyrene food container from Popeyes, sitting on the bank of the Tennessee River. Photo by me

In Part 1 and Part 2 of this series, I told you about polystyrene (Styrofoam) food containers, how and what it they are made with, and how polystyrene is harmful and toxic to human health. Today I’ll explain its poor recyclability and its environmental impact.

“The irrefutable evidence and research has been mounting over decades from various federal agencies, city staff reports, state staff reports, environmental clubs, and nonprofits,” pertaining to the negative effects of Expanded Polystyrene (EPS). -Jeff Lewis, environmentalist writer²²
Polystyrene container showing the #6 recycling symbol. Photo by me

Recyclability

In practice, polystyrene food packaging is not recycled. Despite misconceptions, most municipalities do not accept it for recycling, even with the #6 recycling symbol. If it is collected, it often goes to the landfill instead of a recycling facility. Polystyrene is often contaminated with food residue which makes recycling impractical. Additionally, most establishments that use polystyrene food packaging do not provide separate recycling bins, so customers have no choice but to throw them in the regular trash. Nothing is recycled when it is thrown in the trash.

Overflowing trash receptacle at Dunkin Donuts — Photo by Chris Caravello on Flickr, Creative Commons license (CC BY 2.0)

Even when you do find a place that accepts polystyrene, there’s no guarantee that the meat trays and egg cartons that you wash, save, and cart back to the supermarket actually get recycled, if you’ll recall from Part 6 of my Packaging Series. Often, those collection sites are simply to draw you into the store and keep local recycling streams free from those materials.

“Styrofoam, despite the #6 plastic composition and the misleading recycling symbol it often carries, cannot be recycled easily or cost-effectively – less than 1% of Styrofoam is recycled in the USA.” -Green Dining Alliance of St. Louis

Cheaper to Produce New Polystyrene

Unfortunately, it is also easier and cheaper to produce new polystyrene than it is to collect, sort, and clean it for the recycling process. Thus, the market for recycled polystyrene is small and unlikely to grow. Companies such as BASF and Dart Container Corporation would have you believe otherwise. Both advocate for polystyrene recycling because they are producers of it as well. Many of the companies that do recycle polystyrene don’t accept food containers, they only accept polystyrene shipping materials. There are a few companies that do recycle used polystyrene food containers and have ways to clean them. But because food contamination makes food containers very costly to sort, clean, and recycle, those companies are rare.

New York City’s Department of Sanitation studied recycling polystyrene food containers and determined that recycling them is not economically feasible. “The report found that the majority of Styrofoam collected for recycling ended up in landfill anyway—but at a higher economic cost and carbon footprint compared to being directly landfilled.” This includes the cost of collection, recycling separation and contamination, and ultimately hauling it a second time to the landfill.²³ The conclusion, as always, is to stop relying on recycling and focus on ending the use of single-use disposable items.

“The reason for the decline in price is that crude oil prices are so low that it is cheaper for companies to produce new Styrofoam products than to clean and reuse postconsumer products. This economic reality discourages other companies from getting into the market of recycling the polystyrene.” -Real Cost of Styrofoam²⁴

The Volume of Polystyrene is Overwhelming

The sheer volume of discarded polystyrene is a problem as well. The world produces about 14 million tons of polystyrene annually. As with any type of plastic, we cannot recycle away the problem of single-use disposable items. We must stop it at the source; refusing to use them whenever possible.

Polystyrene cup left in the woods. — Image by Nik Stanbridge on Flickr, Creative Commons license (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

“25 billion Styrofoam coffee cups are used for just a few minutes and thrown away every year.” -Green Dining Alliance of St. Louis

Environmental Impacts

Since polystyrene is not recyclable, most of it goes to landfills and some inevitably makes its way into the environment. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Styrofoam production is the fifth largest creator of toxic waste in the United States. Polystyrene products break down into smaller and smaller pieces and eventually become microplastics. Birds and marine life ingest small pieces because they mistake the pieces for food. Additionally, after the ingested polystyrene kills an animal, it can go on to kill again after that animal decomposes and the pieces reenter the environment.

“80% of Styrofoam ends up in landfills, and much of the remaining 20% in waterways.” -Green Dining Alliance of St. Louis

Polystyrene does not biodegrade, even the alleged biodegradable and compostable polystyrene, as I wrote about in Part 2 of my Packaging Series. Again, most take-out packaging is thrown away. Polystyrene foam litter is common as it is lightweight and breaks apart easily, making smaller pieces that become windswept. The Clean Water Action organization noted important facts about polystyrene’s environmental harm:²⁵

- - Expanded polystyrene (EPS) products and their associated chemicals (such as styrenes) are widespread in the marine environment.
  - Polystyrene is in the digestive tracts of marine invertebrate and vertebrate wildlife.
  - Polystyrene is one of the most common types of debris on shorelines and beaches worldwide.

A large piece of a polystyrene container, found near the bank of the Tennessee River. — A large piece of a polystyrene container found near the bank of the Tennessee River. Photo by me

“Why is such a toxic material in use? Polystyrene is cheaper than some alternatives. However, the environmental expense of polystyrene far exceeds the cost restaurants and grocery stores are currently paying to provide them.” -Massachuesetts Sierra Club²⁶

Solution

After considering the costs to human health, wildlife, and the environment, the solution is to end the use of polystyrene food packaging. Many reports have a similar conclusion and call for banning polystyrene or finding alternatives (see Additional Resources below). We must call for businesses to stop using these products and for local governments to ban their use. Moreover, we need to greatly reduce the amounts of all single-use disposable products we use. In my next article, I’ll explore alternatives to polystyrene food containers, the role of companies in their use of it, and municipal bans on polystyrene. Thank you for reading, and please subscribe!

Additional resources:

Video, “Plastic Recycling, Inc. recycles foam #6 from a MRF,” Plastic Recycling, Inc., March 25, 2016. This video shows the process for one of the rare companies that actually recycles polystyrene food packaging.

Article, “Now and forever: The Styrofoam dilemma,” by Catherine Solyom, Canwest News Service, Accessed October 20, 2020.

Report from cleanwateraction.org, “Greenhouse Gas Impacts
of Disposable vs Reusable Foodservice Products,” January 2017.

Footnotes: