Lawmakers hear proposal to restrict polystyrene takeout containers in restaurants
Loading...
Summary
Representative Andy Josephson presented HB 25 to ban or restrict restaurant use of polystyrene (often called Styrofoam), citing environmental and health risks; the committee heard about carve‑outs, enforcement questions and local bans but took no vote and scheduled a follow‑up hearing with outside experts.
Representative Andy Josephson told the House State Affairs Committee on Tuesday that House Bill 25 would ban or restrict polystyrene foodware used by restaurants, citing environmental pollution and health concerns tied to the material and to styrene, a chemical used in its manufacture.
Josephson said polystyrene breaks into persistent microplastics, contributes to litter in streams and oceans, is not readily recyclable, and can leach styrene, which studies have linked to adverse health effects. He described alternatives — bamboo, paper, compostable foodware — and said the bill includes carve‑outs for certain interstate commerce and for cases where compostable alternatives are not affordable or available, with the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) able to review restaurant hardship claims.
Why it matters: Supporters argue that polystyrene is a durable environmental pollutant that fragments into microplastics and that curbing its use in restaurants will reduce litter and harm to wildlife; opponents such as industry groups (the American Chemistry Council was reported by the sponsor to oppose the bill) argue voluntary market changes or recycling can address concerns. Several Alaska municipalities already have local bans.
Representative Andy Josephson, House District 13, described national and local precedent: “Maryland was the first state to ban or seriously restrict the use of polystyrene,” he said, and he noted that about a dozen states and more than 250 cities in the U.S. have enacted restrictions. Josephson also referenced local bans in Bethel, Cordova and Seward and said he expects stakeholder letters from suppliers of alternatives.
Committee members asked technical and enforcement questions. Representative Hemshoo asked how “break” or “holiday” language would be defined in HB 75 earlier in the hearing; during HB 25 discussion Representative Hemshoo and others asked how DEC would enforce a state ban, whether enforcement would be complaint‑driven and how state procurement rules would apply to government purchases. Ken Alper, staff to Representative Josephson, said DEC authority and enforcement mechanisms require further consultation and the sponsor’s office will check with DEC and report back.
Representative Holland asked whether restricting polystyrene could spur local business opportunities for alternative packaging (mushroom‑based foam and bamboo products were discussed); Josephson said he expects new or existing suppliers could expand to meet demand and cited a local Anchorage refill business as an example of consumer shifts.
Vice Chair Story noted the DEC fiscal note indicated the department did not estimate additional cost because they expected enforcement checks could be added to existing food provider assessments; committee members cautioned that DEC inspections are not frequent and enforcement models could vary.
Josephson invited committee members to a later “lunch and learn” with Pam Miller of Alaska Community Action on Toxics, who was present at the hearing and who the sponsor identified as an expert on plastics in marine environments. The committee did not take action on HB 25 and tabled detailed sectional review and public testimony for a subsequent hearing scheduled for Thursday, Feb. 20.
What's next: The committee set HB 25 aside for additional staff follow‑up on enforcement and economic impacts, and scheduled further discussion and public testimony for the Thursday hearing.
