Legislature(2025 - 2026)BARNES 124
03/05/2025 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation(s): Legislative Update on the Residency Requirements for Commercial Driver's Licenses | |
| HB99 | |
| HB25 | |
| HB113 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 99 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 25 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 113 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 25-DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE
3:55:33 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 25, "An Act relating to disposable food service
ware; and providing for an effective date."
3:56:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, gave
opening remarks as prime sponsor of HB 25. He began by stating
that he is the state lead for the National Caucus of
Environmental Legislators (NCEL). He reported that Maryland was
the first state to ban polystyrene ("Styrofoam"), and stated
there have been an additional 10 states and an estimated 250
counties to ban Styrofoam in the food service industry. He
stated that polystyrene has proven to be carcinogenic. He
further reported that Styrofoam could damage lymphocytes, white
blood cells, the esophagus, pancreas, liver, and nervous system.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated that the material is not
biodegradable, and it cannot be recycled. He noted that it can
be burned, but that process releases toxic airborne chemicals.
He further noted that Styrofoam is lightweight and can travel
easily through the airstreams and waterways, thus contaminating
ecosystems, and impeding an animal's ability to digest food, as
animals mistake Styrofoam for food. He stated that there are
alternatives available, such as wood, paper, bamboo, and
cardboard materials some of which are produced in Alaska. He
noted that the Alaska Community Action on Toxins (ACAT) tested
39 bodies of water in Southcentral Alaska and found
microplastics in every single one.
4:00:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON referred to literature posted on the
Bill Action & Status Inquiry System (BASIS) that spoke to "the
proliferation of plastic in the United States." He reported
that the population of the U.S. fills up a stadium in Texas with
plastic every half hour. He noted that Styrofoam, compared to
other plastics, is particularly toxic, non-recyclable, and he
reiterated that there are alternatives available. He cited
communities that have successfully banned polystyrene, such as
San Francisco, California; Charleston County, South Carolina;
and Chesapeake Bay, Maryland. He asserted that bans are an
effective measure at addressing the issue. He referred to a
question in a previous committee of referral regarding
enforcement and cited the [Alaska Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act],
which can be found in Title 17, Chapter 20 of the Alaska Statues
(AS). He noted that fines of up to $1,000 could be imposed,
with the worst penalty being a loss of licensing.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON concluded by noting that plastic
pollution has been a leading issue both nationally and
internationally.
4:03:49 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS commented that the U.S. has the most
dysfunctional Toxic Substances Control Act compared to other
Western countries, hence the need for state legislation. He
stated that, in Alaska, there is a high level of concentrations
of microplastics in marine animals. He thanked the bill
sponsor.
4:04:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stated there is a provision in the
proposed legislation for exemptions for lack of affordable
alternatives or undue hardship. He queried how the Department
of Environmental Conservation (DEC) might define affordability
and hardship under HB 25.
4:05:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON offered his belief that DEC would make
that decision at its discretion. He offered his belief that DEC
would be authorized to create definitions under Title 18.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether there are other places in
Alaska law that contain definitions for affordability or undue
hardship. He offered his belief that there may already be a
definition for hardship.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated that he would follow up with
more information for the committee. He noted that
Representative Saddler's question concerns [sub]section (f) of
the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER noted that profit margins for food
service are typically slim. He commented that HB 25 might be
business-breaking for small restaurants.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON responded that, should the proposed
legislation force a business to close, they would likely be
eligible for an exemption under affordability. He cited three
cities in Alaska - Bethel, Cordova, and Seward - that have
implemented a ban.
4:08:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK requested the cost differential of
alternative products and names of companies that provided these
products.
4:08:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated that literature reported,
broadly speaking, that alternatives to Styrofoam are affordable.
He stated he would follow up with committee members.
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK recalled testimony in a previous
committee of referral where ACAT reported that alternatives were
more expensive by cents, not dollars. She additionally
recognized that, with slim profit margins and inexpensive
products, this might cause undue hardship.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON referenced an article by The Ocean
Conservancy, which noted that "three quarters of respondents
[Americans] reported that they commonly collect foam takeaway,"
and "participants would be willing to participate in mitigation
efforts."
4:11:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER cited a chart with biodegradable
alternatives to Styrofoam and noted that, while there are a few
cents difference, it could make or break a restaurant with thin
profit margins.
4:11:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE asserted that, were Styrofoam to be
banned, the price of the alternatives would increase.
4:12:38 PM
KEN ALPER, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska State
Legislature, gave PowerPoint on HB 25 [hard copy included in the
committee file], titled "HB 25 Restrict Restaurant Use of
Polystyrene," on behalf of the bill sponsor. He began on slide
2 of the PowerPoint, titled "What Does HB25 Do?," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Bans the use of disposable polystyrene packaging
materials by restaurants and food carts
The State would also be banned from using or
purchasing disposable polystyrene for food service,
for example on the Marine Highway system
Does not apply to packaged food prepared out of
state, nor does it apply to reusable products
Restaurants can apply to the Department of
Environmental Conservation for exemptions
Effective date January 1, 2026
MR. ALPER moved to slide 3 of the PowerPoint, titled "What is
Polystyrene?," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
A type of synthetic hydrocarbon polymer. In other
words- a plastic
Two main forms:
1. Extruded polystyrene foam (XPS), best known as
brand name "Styrofoam"
Invented by Dow Chemical in 1941
"Closed cell"; more rigid, buoyant, moisture
resistant, and durable
Used in construction materials, refrigeration,
floats, etc.
2. Expanded polystyrene foam (EPS)
"Open cell"; lighter weight, less durable, not as
water resistant
Used in packaging material, crafts, coolers, etc.
Less expensive than XPS
MR. ALPER drew committee members' attention to slide 4, which
contained images of examples of polystyrene containers. He
noted that soup containers, cups, and clamshells commonly seen
in restaurants contain polystyrene. Mr. Alper moved to slide 5,
giving an overview of issues associated with polystyrene, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Health Hazard
• Primary chemicals, benzene and styrene, are known
carcinogens
Environmental Hazard
• Mistaken as food by animals
• Used as nesting material by birds
• Does not biodegrade
• Breaks down into microplastic form and lives forever
Can rarely be recycled ("Type 6" plastic)
MR. ALPER explained the phenomenon called "aspirational
recycling," in which attempts to recycle Styrofoam contaminate
other recyclable objects.
MR. ALPER moved to slide 6, an overview of key Styrofoam
statistics, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Ocean Conservancy estimates that at least 5.6
billion pieces of plastic foam is used by Americans
each year
International Coastal Cleanup volunteers have
collected 8.7 million pieces of plastic foam. This is
their seventh most common item. (#1 and #2 are
cigarette butts and plastic beverage bottles)
Ocean Conservancy survey found that 22% of all
U.S. takeout and food delivery orders included plastic
foam food ware packaging.
80% of Americans reported receiving plastic foam
food ware with their takeout and delivery orders in
the preceding two-weeks
At least 2.5 billion pieces of foam food ware are
mistakenly put into recycling systems each year,
contaminating the stream of materials
4:17:00 PM
MR. ALPER moved to slide 7, titled "Global Trends Away from
Polystyrene," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Jon Huntsman invented the "clamshell" sandwich
box in 1974, sold the design to major fast food
chains, and died a billionaire
Despite the benefits (keeping burgers warm, leak
proof), McDonalds began phasing out polystyrene in the
1990s
Last McD's foam coffee cups eliminated in 2018
MR. ALPER moved to slide 8, which had an image of a world map,
with countries and states that have banned polystyrene food ware
colored in green. He noted that 69 countries have banned
polystyrene food ware. He moved to slide 9, which had an image
of a map of United States, with states that have total bans on
polystyrene colored in green and states that have partial or
local bans on polystyrene colored in purple. He reported
statistics on Styrofoam bans, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Ten states and the District of Columbia have added
statewide bans since this bill was first introduced
Twelve other states have partial or local bans
Alaska is shown because of local bans in Bethel,
Cordova, and Seward
MR. APLER concluded with slide 10, giving a summary of public
sentiment and government response, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Three-quarters of Americans are concerned about
plastic foam litter
Over 70% of Americans would support a national
ban on foam food ware
Maryland, the first state to ban restaurant
polystyrene food ware, found a 65% decline in plastic
foam food ware items collected as part of the
International Coastal Cleanup
The Farewell to Foam Act was introduced in the
previous U.S. Congress; would have required food
service providers, manufacturers, distributors, and
retailers to transition to alternative materials by
January 1, 2026
MR. ALPER welcomed questions from committee members.
4:20:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BURKE stated that many of her constituents are
concerned about plastics. She cited instances where community
members have caught walruses, and found their stomachs filled
with Styrofoam containers.
4:21:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE stated that she is no fan of plastics,
and her concern was primarily about the impact on businesses.
She noted that the bill would include street vendors and cited
cost concerns about workforce shortages after COVID-19, the
statewide ballot measures to raise minimum wage and mandate paid
time off. She felt that food service businesses were under a
lot of financial pressure. She opined that HB 25 would not be
the solution to the plastic problem, stating that it would be
heavy-handed. She stated anecdotally that most of the
restaurants she visits in Anchorage do not use Styrofoam and
that businesses respond to customers' requests to stop using the
material. She stated her discomfort with allowing DEC to decide
which businesses would be exempt from the ban. She cited undue
burdens, particularly on rural and small businesses, as her
greatest concern with the proposed legislation, asserting that
the risk of loss of licensure and $1,000 fine was heavy-handed.
She provided a personal anecdote about running a store when the
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) enacted its plastic bag ban and
stated that the policy was poorly written. She suggested
delaying the effective date of the proposed legislation, noting
that many businesses purchase supplies in advance.
4:24:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON offered his belief that the plastic bag
ban in MOA included a delay in the effective date. He
appreciated Representative Coulombe's concern over uneven
application of the law by DEC. He opined that everyone should
play their part in addressing the plastic problem, no matter how
small a part. He stated that he was not wedded to the effective
date of HB 25 and stated his appreciation for Representative
Coulombe's comments.
CO-CHAIR HALL stated that the committee would next move to the
invited testimony.
4:26:03 PM
PAMELA MILLER, Executive Director & Senior Scientist, Alaska
Community Action on Toxics, gave a prepared statement [included
in the committee file] in support of HB 25, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Thank you, Co-Chairs Representative Fields and
Representative Hall, and Members of the Committee for
holding this hearing today. My name is Pamela Miller
and I serve as Executive Director and Senior Scientist
with Alaska Community Action on Toxics, a public
interest, science-based environmental health and
justice research and advocacy organization. We thank
Representative Josephson for sponsoring HB 25,
legislation that we strongly support because it is an
effective measure to protect health and reduce plastic
pollution of our lands and waters.
We offer several lines of reasoning and scientific
evidence to substantiate our support for this bill.
1) Adverse health effects: The strongest evidence from
our perspective is that polystyrene is a hazardous
material. It should not be used in food and beverage
containers because it is linked with adverse health
effects in humans and animals. Polystyrene is a
plastic polymer made up of the chemical monomer
styrene. Styrene is classified as a human carcinogen.
Exposure increases the risk for such cancers as
leukemia and lymphoma, as well as genetic damage to
the white blood cells or lymphocytes. There is also
evidence for increased risk of cancer of the pancreas
and esophagus. Studies found that styrene caused lung
tumors. Styrene exposure is also associated with
damage to the liver and harm to the nervous system
such as vision and hearing loss, problems with memory,
concentration, balance and slowed reaction time.
2) People are exposed to harmful chemicals through the
use of polystyrene food and beverage containers:
Styrene and other harmful chemicals can leach out of
food and beverage containers into the food or liquids,
especially when the food or liquids are hot, acidic,
or high in fat. For example, a polystyrene cup used
for coffee or tea releases harmful chemicals. Leaching
of the chemicals in polystyrene is exacerbated by the
heat and acidity of the liquid. These chemicals also
concentrate in added milk because of the fat or lipid
content which easily absorbs the chemicals and
increases ingestion.
3) Plastics such as polystyrene are highly persistent
in the environment and do not degrade: Polystyrene is
harmful as an environmental pollutant. Once in the
environment, polystyrene breaks into small particles
known as micro- and nanoplastics. It is lightweight
which makes it susceptible to be transported long
distances and into our streams, rivers, and oceans
where it can be ingested by fish, seabirds, and marine
mammals. In landfills, the polystyrene continues to
release toxic styrene and other chemicals and can
contaminate drinking water. This is especially
problematic in rural Alaska where landfills cannot
contain these plastics and they are often burned
without any controls on toxic emissions. In freshwater
and marine environments, polystyrene microparticles
are ingested by marine fish and wildlife because they
mistake it for food. These animals can also absorb
toxic chemicals from these microplastics and may
suffer harmful effects. Fragmented polystyrene cannot
be recovered from the environment and will persist for
centuries.
4) Polystyrene cannot be recycled: As with most
plastics, polystyrene is comprised of styrene and many
other chemical additives that make it undesirable as a
recycled material. The chemical and plastics industry
has attempted to promote chemical recycling as a
technology to convert plastics to fuel. This process
is highly polluting, inefficient, requires massive
energy and use of solvents. These facilities generate
toxic emissions and create highly hazardous waste.
They are also prone to fires and explosions. The only
chemical recycling facility in the United States
capable of handling polystyrene closed in April 2024.
5) Safer alternatives are widely available: As of June
2024, eleven states and over 250 cities and counties
in the United States have banned or placed
restrictions on polystyrene foam. Food establishments
have been substituting polystyrene for decades now,
largely based on the interest of consumers to have
safe, healthy alternatives. McDonald's stopped using
polystyrene packaging in 1990. Degradable plant-based
fiber food and beverage containers are widely
available and affordable, including those made from
wood, paper, cardboard, bamboo, bagasse, miscanthus,
mushrooms, and seaweed. Green Alaska Solutions is a
business that supplies plant-based food and beverage
containers to many restaurants and food service
providers throughout Alaska, and indicate that these
establishments "have made the switch to such packaging
for business reasons they believe in the benefits
the products provide and their customers appreciate
and in some cases demand them." This reflects consumer
demand for safe products and demonstrates the economic
viability of these options. The Biodegradable Products
Institute is a non-profit, science-driven organization
that tests packaging and disposable products to ensure
that they are truly compostable, and that they leave
no toxic or plastic residues. It is the endorsement
that most reliably describes whether a product is
plastic-free, of low toxicity, and degradable.
Reusable options are best when possible.
We urge your support for this HB 25 because it is an
important step toward addressing the plastics crisis
that threatens our oceans and waterways, food sources,
and health. Please pass the bill out of committee and
ensure its passage during this session. Thank you for
your consideration.
4:33:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE stated that there was opposition to this
bill from the American Chemistry Council and referenced a piece
of paper for the committee members which contained a list of
plastics purported to be banned under HB 25. She asked for
confirmation that it was just the Styrofoam clamshells that
would be banned under the proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON noted that he saw non-polystyrene items
on the piece of paper, which would not be banned under the
proposed legislation. He deferred to Ms. Miller.
4:35:27 PM
MS. MILLER offered her understanding that HB 25 would include
Styrofoam cups, bowls, clamshells, and trays that include
polystyrene.
4:35:51 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether the proposed legislation would ban
all types of plastic containers. He opined that the handout was
misleading because it referenced non-polystyrene plastic
containers.
4:36:13 PM
MS. MILLER clarified that HB 25 would not ban all forms of
plastic, just polystyrene.
4:36:38 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL set an amendment deadline for HB 25.
CO-CHAIR HALL announced that HB 25 was held over.