I hate Styrofoam so much that it is almost a personality trait.
Even before I knew the sinister plastic foam’s real name, it haunted me as a child. The painfully synthetic texture of a foam cup made even my favorite beverages unpleasant. The ear-splitting screech of foam rubbing against foam turned every restaurant’s to-go containers into an ordeal.
My skin crawls just thinking about it.
Today, touching Styrofoam still sends goosebumps running up my arms. Suppressing my reactions is so difficult that I sometimes proclaim it an allergy.
Friends and family tell me I am overreacting and too dramatic. They are probably correct. However, Styrofoam’s war on my sanity is the least of its evils.
“Styrofoam” is the only word most people know to describe the unpleasant plastic foam that wreaks havoc on human health and our planet. However, Styrofoam is actually a registered trademark of chemical company DuPont, according to their website.
Most foam cups and containers are not technically Styrofoam, but are made of polystyrene foam according to Melissa Valliant, communications director for Beyond Plastics, a nonprofit organization dedicated to reducing plastic pollution,.
Polystyrene’s intrinsic danger to human health is well established and has been studied for over a decade. According to Valliant, several researchers have discovered polystyrene increases the risk of cancer.
“In 2018, the World Health Organization upgraded styrene, which is the major building block of polystyrene, from ‘possibly carcinogenic’ to ‘probably carcinogenic,’” Valliant said. “And it gets worse. Research has found that styrene can leach out of polystyrene containers at all temperatures, but even more so when heated.”
The process of creating polystyrene also carries major risks. According to Valliant, plastic production facilities frequently release dangerous chemicals and hazardous waste into the air that persist in nearby communities.
“These facilities that manage or produce plastic are typically located in low-income communities or communities of color because it’s typically cheaper real estate,” Valliant said. “They know those communities have fewer resources and power to fight back.”
Valliant said that’s why “cancer alley” exists in Louisiana, where the cancer rate is much higher than the rest of the country because so many plastic production plants are packed into an 85-mile strip.
Many plastics are criticized for resisting breakdown when thrown away and end up in the environment. Polystyrene is no exception, according to Marc Hillmyer, director of the Center for Sustainable Polymers at the University of Minnesota, an organization dedicated to making the plastics industry more sustainable.
“Microplastics and nanoplastics can accumulate in landscapes, oceans, ecosystems, animals and in us,” Hillmyer said.
According to Valliant, polystyrene is one of the worst types of plastic because it quickly breaks up into tiny beads when discarded. However, these pieces do not biodegrade, and persist in the environment like other plastics while being far more difficult to clean up.
The production of plastics, including polystyrene, also contributes far more to climate change than many people believe.
“If plastic was a country, it would be the fifth largest emitter of greenhouse gasses in the world,” Valliant said.
However, the plastics industry goes to great lengths to mask their products as sustainable.
I often find foam cups with green decals and lofty claims printed on their sides saying foam cups are better for the environment than paper. DuPont’s website even states Styrofoam has a “low global warming potential formulation.”
These claims are misleading at best and blatantly inaccurate at worst. According to Valliant, many plastic companies say their products are sustainable because they emit very little carbon in the second half of their lifespan. This does not take into account emissions from production.
Many states, counties and cities have already implemented bans on certain polystyrene products. Minneapolis began enforcing a ban on polystyrene food containers in restaurants in 2015. However, bans of this small scale are rarely enough to make a difference. More action should be taken.
Most polystyrene products have readily accessible alternatives with little difference in quality or cost.
Brian Ackerman, a third-year student at the University, said he would not mind if polystyrene products were replaced with paper or other materials.
“I don’t use it day-to-day,” Ackerman said. “Maybe if I order something once a month it will come in a foam package, but that’s about it. It would be better to see more cardboard and more paper.”
Ackerman said he would like to see less polystyrene usage, but a total ban would not be practical because not all products have easy replacements.
For example, a lesser-known but very common use of Styrofoam is for insulation panels in buildings, according to Valliant.
Such products do not have clear economically viable alternatives, which makes a complete ban less plausible, Hillmyer said.
However, new, sustainable plastics are possible and could be widespread with enough time, meaning all types of Styrofoam could eventually be phased out, according to Hillymer. The Center for Sustainable Polymers works to engineer new plastics without the problems of polystyrene.
“The main issue that we’re working on is how you develop plastics that have more sensible end-of-life outcomes, but that requires infrastructure,” Hillmyer said. “For example, we work on industrially compostable plastics, so you need to have access to an industrial composting facility.”
Styrofoam cannot be eliminated overnight, but its demise is necessary. Until then, neither I nor the planet will rest in peace.