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.