City ban on styrofoam to pass, restaurants left unsatisfied

On May 16, 2013, in Latest News, by The Somerville Times

styrofoam_web

By Izak Shapiro

On Tuesday May 14, members of the Board of Aldermen met for the Committee of Legislative Matters. The main issue was whether or not to go ahead with the proposed ban on the use of expanded polystyrene, also known as Styrofoam, as cups and food containers throughout the city of Somerville’s restaurants, schools, and city events.

The major concern with the use of polystyrene, along with its potential health hazards to the individual, is that the material does not biodegrade and cannot be easily recycled. Two cities in Massachusetts—Amherst and Brookline—have implemented similar bans on expanded polystyrene in recent years. And both Seattle and San Francisco have banned expanded polystyrene as well.

However, restaurants and schools use Styrofoam for obvious reasons. Not only is Styrofoam the cheapest material available for food transportation, it is also considered the best and most functional material. Restaurant workers swear by Styrofoam as the material best suited for keeping food warm, preventing any liquid leaking, and maintaining the taste of the food.

“We are a green business,” said Grover Taylor, owner of Eat at Jumbo’s, a pizza, wings, and burger take-out/delivery restaurant on Broadway. “But foam is the one thing I can’t give up. It’s the best for the food.”

The Somerville Department of Sustainability insists the alternatives to expanded polystyrene cost about a penny more than Styrofoam per unit of material. President of the Somerville Chamber of Commerce Stephen Mackey disagreed with those numbers, saying he spoke to various food establishments and those were not the numbers they came up with. Grover Taylor agreed with Mackey.

“You can add a couple of zeroes to those numbers,” said Taylor after the meeting in reference to the alternative materials costing just a penny more per unit than Styrofoam containers.

The Board of Aldermen met about this proposed ban several weeks ago in late April. Vice President of the board John M. Connolly expressed his concerns then that he would need more knowledge about the economic consequences on local food services before voting on the ban. Given the dissension in the room on the economic issue still several weeks later, Alderman Connolly proposed the idea of restaurants organizing their own Styrofoam recycling programs if they did not want to adopt the extra inventory costs of using a polystyrene alternative. Clearly, Alderman Connolly, as well as others in the room, lacked complete satisfaction with the proposal, but the mayor’s office did not see any way to solve Connolly’s issue.

“We looked into this type of program,” said the mayor’s aide Omar Boukili. “The efficiency of in-house recycling programs is not proven.”

Somerville will be a cleaner, greener place once the ban is made official. But the consequences fall on the small local restaurant, and on the consumer.

“If I charge you seven bucks for an order of wings, I’m going to have to charge you seven seventy-five or eight bucks now,” said Grover Taylor. “My place will be fine, but I bet you this puts a few places either out of business or out of Somerville. Ultimately it affects the consumer and the small business.”

Taylor’s concern stems from the lack of uniformity from Somerville’s surrounding cities. Neither Cambridge nor Medford ban Styrofoam for food transportation. Their prices could remain cheaper than Somerville’s delivery prices post-ban, meaning more Somerville residents will order from places outside of the city. Despite Taylor, Aldermen Connolly, and others voicing these concerns at the meeting in April, the Committee did not adequately address the concerns. Everyone agrees with the sentiment of the ban. The success of its execution remains a source of tension for some.

The amended ordinance will be voted on at the next official Board of Aldermen meeting, and if passed, which in all likelihood it will be, food establishments will have one year to adjust before the city can impose legal consequences for using expanded polystyrene such as fines or the potential revoking of a license. The city will provide a list of alternative materials to restaurants and other food establishments such as schools. After that, it’s up to the businesses to figure out how to adjust.

 

5 Responses to “City ban on styrofoam to pass, restaurants left unsatisfied”

  1. Barry the Pig says:

    Well done!

  2. A. Moore says:

    So instead of the city being smart and recycling this stuff, we ban it from use here. So people are still going to throw it in their trash from wherever they get it and end up in the landfill where they oppose this stuff to go. Makes no sense at all. If it is so bad then it would be up to FDA or EPA to regulate this, not on a city level. So maybe this stuff is not all that bad after all.

  3. Darnell says:

    This styrofoam ban is nothing more than “feel good” legislation.

  4. BostonKate says:

    A. Moore and Darnell are correct.

  5. Sarah says:

    I’ve always wondered: what is the deal with Dunkin Donuts still using clunky styrofoam cups for hot coffee (and many employees doubling them in lieu of sleeves)? I’d love to be corrected if I’m missing some mitigating factor such as a similar but less deplorable material having been swapped out). Just seems to me that when competing mega-chains like McDonalds and Starbucks out-eco you so conspicuously, something is wrong… But maybe the problem is actually attributable to having a customer base that’s just less aware/bothered/vocal? Sigh.

    Also, just want to say I had a wtf moment hearing the Eat at Jumbo’s quote. My amazing husband brings home pizza and garlic knots, sometimes just garlic knots, but the knots’ styrofoam clamshell bewilders and disappoints me enough to deter my buying them when I otherwise would even despite the slathering of partially hydrogenated oil aka margarine.

Leave a Reply

*