NYC Bans Expanded Polystyrene Food Containers, Opens Market to Alternatives

The chemical industry had fought for recycling of styrofoam materials to stave off prohibition

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The market for alternatives to expanded polystyrene food and beverage containers got a significant boost last week when New York City finalized its ban on these materials, despite heavy lobbying by the chemical industry.

The city’s Department of Sanitation announced Friday its determination that single-use expanded polystyrene containers cannot be recycled economically. It also found that no market exists now for postconsumer polystyrene foam collected in curbside recycling. “While much of the waste we produce can be recycled or reused, polystyrene foam is not one of those materials,” Sanitation Commissioner Kathryn Garcia says.

Under a law that the city adopted at the end of 2013, that determination triggers the ban. Food establishments, stores, and manufacturers in New York City may not possess, sell, or offer to customers plastic foam containers as of July 1 and thus will be seeking alternative materials. In addition, the city will also prohibit the sale of loose-fill polystyrene—commonly called packing peanuts.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Chemical manufacturers and foam food and beverage container makers had fought the ban, arguing that expanded polystyrene can indeed be recycled.

“We are puzzled by the city’s decision to continue sending alternative food service and foam packaging to landfills instead of saving money by recycling foam at curbside,” says Mike Levy, senior director for the Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group of theAmerican Chemistry Council, a trade group of chemical makers. “Food-contaminated paper or cardboard and paper takeout containers with heavy wax or plastic coatings are not accepted for recycling in the city,” he points out.

“There’s a commercial demand for recycled foam packaging, including food service items,” Levy says. “Nearly 140 companies process or use the plastic material in the U.S. and Canada.”

The city’s Sanitation Department says it collected about 28,500 tons of expanded polystyrene in 2014 and estimates that approximately 90% of this amount consisted of single-use cups, trays, and containers.

New York joins a number of West Coast cities, including Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco, as well as Washington, D.C., in banning polystyrene food containers.

This article is reproduced with permission from Chemical & Engineering News (© American Chemical Society). The article was first published on January 12, 2015.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe