Print 30 comment(s) - last by androticus.. on Dec 5 at 1:23 AM

Mayor misspoke himself when call on ban of "Styrofoam" food products

A spokesperson for The Dow Chemical Comp. (DOW) emailed us over the Thanksgiving holiday regarding New York City Mayor Michael Rubens Bloomberg's proposed ban on "styrofoam".

I. Bloomberg's Big Gaff

The mayor first raised the idea at his final State of the City address in February remarking:

One product that is virtually impossible to recycle and never bio-degrades is Styrofoam. Something that we know is environmentally destructive and that may be hazardous to our health, that is costing taxpayers money and that we can easily do without, and is something that should go the way of lead paint.

Mayor Bloomberg
Mayor Bloomberg is a bit confused when it comes to plastics. [Image Source: Getty Images]

The mayor has since corrected himself in a radio program, stating:

We’re not banning- well, come on, Chris, we’re not banning everything.

It- you can still buy cigarettes. We haven’t banned that. You can still by 32 or 64 ounces of a full-sugared beverage. You just have to take that one, in the case of 16 ounce cups and- in the case- if it’s in a store- if it’s in a restaurant or a theater. And in with smoking, you can’t smoke where other people have to breathe the smoke. But you can still do that. And in the case of Styrofoam, which is really- Styrofoam is a brand name. It’s really polystyrene that you’re banning.

An awful lot of places in the West Coast have already banned it. Here in New York City, it costs us an extra $20 a ton to take it out of these recycling things. And you put them in landfills, you come from Staten Island, look at what we’ve done in Staten Island.

We created- or in Fresh Kills. It’s going to be 20 years before enough things biodegrade so that we can turn that into a park. We never should have used Staten Island as a big dump over by the Fresh Kills side. We stopped it.

Giuliani, as a matter of fact, stopped it. And we're not going back to do it, but we’ve got to be smarter the next time and not create these things. Styrofoam, or polystyrene, does not bio- does not degrade with time. It’s just there forever. And it’s not good for you, and it costs us a lot of money.

And the stores- most stores have already gone away from it. This is not asking anybody to do anything that’s really going to hurt anybody, but it’s good for everybody. And so we’re not banning everything. We’re just trying to have some intelligent things. It costs us money. Chris, your tax bill is higher than it needs to be because we’ve got to go and take polystyrene out of the waste. So, you know, it’s in your interest, too.

But City Council, such as Brooklyn Councilman Lew Fidler (who proposed the ban in the City Council) continue to use the term "styrofoam" erroneously.

A Dow spokesperson complains:

The Dow Chemical Company has developed a sold the STYROFOAM brand of insulation for more than 50 years.  Dow is the owner of numerous registrations for the trademark STYROFOAM throughout the world.  The trademark STYROFOAM is used on Dow's plastic foam insulation and construction products for use in residential, commercial and industrial buildings, and on floral and craft products.  It may not be used to describe other products, such as polystyrene packaging, or as a generic description for foam products [as the Mayor stated].

STYROFOAM brand extruded polystyrene is not used to produce foam cups, trays or other food containers.  These expanded polystyrene foam products should be referred to with the generic term "polystyrene foam" or "foam," rather than referring to Dow's branded trademark name.  Dow has worked over the years to produce an exceptional product and developed substantial good will and brand equity in the brand STYROFOAM.  This fame, good will, and brand recognition is important to Dow and it is equally important that the company does not permit use of Dow's trademarks by others in a manner that would cause harm to the brands.

DOW Chemical doesn't make foam food containers. [Image Source: Bloomberg]

In other words while the plastics covered by the ban -- which would include all plastic-foam cups made of expanded polystyrene used for food and packaging -- are chemically similar to Styrofoam, they are not Styrofoam.

Squirrel EPS cup
EPS -- expanded polystyrene -- is used in cups, where as Styrofoam refers to a trademarked blend of EPS used in insulation -- but not for food products. [Image Source: Wikimedia Commons]

To be fair "styrofoam" (which often loses its abbreviation) has entered the public vernacular as a term to refer to all matters of foam plastics.  The mistake is troublesome as a ban on EPS (expanded polystyrene) food containers and cups would not affect Dow Chemical, but would affect other firms.
II. Who WOULD Be Impacted by the Ban
The hardest hit company would be Dart Container Corp. -- a Mason, Mich.-based privately owned plastics firm that's the world's biggest maker of lightweight foam plastics for food products.  Half the company's $3.5B USD in annual sales reportedly comes from EPS products for the food industry.

DART Container sign
Dart Container makes the food industry plastics mistakenly referred to as "styrofoam".
[Image Source: MSU Friendship House]

Fearful of the dire financial impacts of a ban, Dart Container has extended a rather generous offer, according to Crain’s New York Business, to buy Bloomberg's "Styrofoam" (actually EPS) in bulk at $160 USD per ton, and truck it to a recycling plant in Indiana.  The proposal would cut roughly $2M USD in annual disposal costs for the city, which currently ships the foam plastic to a landfill.  The bulk purchase would provide the city up to an additional $4M USD in revenue, as well, essentially saving $6M USD for the city.

Dart container tour
Dart Container has offered to pay the city to recycle its styrofoam waste. [Image Source: ASMDC]

Hardline critics, however, claim that the company will still end up shipping much of the foam product to landfills, as they are skeptical it can be cleaned.  Brooklyn Councilman Lew Fidler, the primary sponsor of the Bloomberg-backed bill, complains:

If it could be recycled, everyone's for that.  The problem is, I don't think it can be. A Styrofoam cup thrown into a recycling truck—how many itty, bitty pieces is it going to end up in? How can you wash those itty, bitty pieces?

Annually 2.5 million tons of EPS foam is dumped into landfills, with only 1 percent being recycled, according to a Stanford Univ. Alumni Magazine article.  It's unclear, though, how much of that waste flow is comprised of polystyrene shipped to recycling plants is deemed "unwashable" and subsequently discarded in landfills.

Sources: Dow Chemical Comp. [email], Crain's New York Business

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

weighty issue
By purerice on 12/3/2013 1:12:24 PM , Rating: 2
One problem with Bloomberg's statement is that he is dead wrong on "virtually impossible to recycle" as is shown later in the article with Dart.

"Styrofoam" recycling has been attempted in the past and abandoned, mostly because the environmental and economic cost of recycling have been high. Polystyrene does not compress easily and thus difficult to transport in high volumes. When you transport in high volumes over long distances in ICE trucks, you have that problem. The recycling process itself is not that difficult. Local recycling centers would help alleviate the transportation problem but instead of being part of the solution, Mayor Bloomberg says "NIMBY"

By androticus on 12/5/2013 1:23:47 AM , Rating: 2
I used to laugh at the contradictory "scare" stories our elementary teachers would tell us. Things like how glass would sit in a landfill for thousands or hundreds of thousands of years without breaking down! Yeah, dumb ass, what that means is that it is INERT and no more harmful than sand, which is all it really is. Or the "scary" stories about radioactive waste that wouldn't break down for hundreds of thousands of years! Yeah numb nuts, if its half life is hundreds of thousands of years it means that it is barely radioactive! Doofuses! :)

how about Bhopal?
By ht1080z on 12/3/13, Rating: 0
RE: how about Bhopal?
By Landiepete on 12/3/13, Rating: 0
Styrofoam or not.
By futrtrubl on 12/2/13, Rating: -1
RE: Styrofoam or not.
By DanNeely on 12/2/2013 11:34:47 PM , Rating: 5
Outside of the legal world, Styrofoam has long since become de facto generic; no amount of rear guarding on Dow's part is going to change the behavior of the 99.9% of the population that neither works for Dow nor for a competitor.

RE: Styrofoam or not.
By Solandri on 12/3/2013 3:26:29 AM , Rating: 2
True, but until the courts declare it a generic word, Dow has every right and a huge incentive to publicize the difference and suggest an alternate word to try to stave off "styrofoam" being declared generic.

It worked for Xerox and Kleenex (photocopy and tissue paper respectively).

RE: Styrofoam or not.
By tng on 12/3/2013 8:32:26 AM , Rating: 3
It worked for Xerox and Kleenex
Uhmmm, I think that is debatable, especially for the term "styrofoam".

What is in use in the common vocabulary is for the public, reality, despite what trademarks or patents may exist. I really don't think that Dow minds this either, they can choose to ignore 99.999% of improper use of the word until an issue comes up like this where they have to step in. Throw in that NYC will officially put the word into a legal document to describe expanded polystyrene products and it really gets somewhat difficult for Dow.

Not sure how this bill Nanny Bloomberg wants to pass is worded, but it could be that Dow's insulation products could come under the same ban?

RE: Styrofoam or not.
By JoeOnRoute66 on 12/3/2013 9:41:22 AM , Rating: 2
Dow is protecting their trademark in order to prevent it from becoming a generic word. They must do this and do it aggressively to prevent this from happening.

You will notice that Dow uses the word "Styrofoam" as an adjective. Xerox and Kimberly Clark do the same with their products.

Former The Dow Chemical Company employee

RE: Styrofoam or not.
By piroroadkill on 12/3/2013 4:54:29 AM , Rating: 3
I always call it polystyrene, I guess so do a lot of people who live in the UK.

It's clear Styrofoam is a trademark, not to be used, when there is a perfectly good word otherwise.

Like tissue paper for "Kleenex" (what an awful use of a trademark) or vacuum cleaner for "Hoover" (again, shouldn't be used).

However, in the case of, for example, escalator, which was originally a trademark, our language fails in having a decent expression to describe the product straightforwardly. In that situation, I can understand that using a trademark in a generic way is the path of least resistance.

RE: Styrofoam or not.
By inperfectdarkness on 12/3/2013 7:29:54 AM , Rating: 2
Brands are very frequently used for a generic term describing the item/service it provides. Besides Xerox, Styrofoam and Kleenex, here's several more:

-Google (googling is a generic term for doing an internet search)

-Mace (used to refer to any type of pepper spray)

-Plexiglas (used to refer to any type of clear-plastic window-like sheeting)

-Speedglass/Pyrex (similar to above)

-Roto-Rooter (used in lieu of "sewer snake")


-Mac (used to refer to all things Apple, not necessarily macintosh products)

-Cracker-Jack (refers to all types of carmelized corn)

-Thompsons' (generic term for all types of water-seal)

-Weed Wacker (refers to all types of string-trimmers)

-Lawn Boy (refers to all types of riding mowers)

-Tylenol (refers to almost any pain-reliever--chemically correct or not)

-Robitussin/NyQuil (refers to almost any cold-reliever)

-Youtube (refers to any online video clip)

-Redtube (same as above, but with pR0n)

I could probably come up with more if I sat here for a few more minutes. The point is, using a name-brand term to refer to a generic product is QUITE common--especially among pharmaceuticals. I bet most of you don't even realize when you're doing it.

Does Dow have a point? Yes. It's hardly a good one though. And I don't even agree with the mayor.

RE: Styrofoam or not.
By FITCamaro on 12/3/2013 7:59:00 AM , Rating: 3
Are people who work at Microsoft required to say "Hey did you bing that?"

RE: Styrofoam or not.
By Camikazi on 12/3/2013 2:34:15 PM , Rating: 2
I think as long as they don't say "Did you Google that?" they are ok.

RE: Styrofoam or not.
By rs2 on 12/3/2013 6:58:35 PM , Rating: 2
a trademark, not to be used How about you stop letting companies and lawyers tell you what words are "not to be used"?

RE: Styrofoam or not.
By andylawcc on 12/2/2013 11:45:33 PM , Rating: 2
i came here to say exactly what ^ said.

RE: Styrofoam or not.
By rs2 on 12/3/13, Rating: -1
RE: Styrofoam or not.
By rs2 on 12/3/13, Rating: -1
It's all for Nothing
By hartleyb on 12/3/13, Rating: -1
RE: It's all for Nothing
By flatrock on 12/3/2013 1:21:11 PM , Rating: 3
Gun ownership is at least at some level specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment. There are no long-term definitive studies that show gun control laws are effective, and many showing that they are at best ineffective at their stated goals.

However, the courts generally refuse to replace the judgement of the legislature with the results from studies, or because of a lack of definitive studies.

Unless it specifically violates some portion of the Constitution being ineffective doesn't make it unconstitutional. Even if it appears to be counter to the constitution the court may rule that the infringement is minor and that there is an overriding public interest in the government being able to regulate such things. For example you have freedom of speech, but there is a public interest in allowing the government to stop people from inciting a riot.

In general the court isn't supposed to override the legislature's determination of facts unless those determinations are clearly wrong.

EPS foam degrades extremely slowly and it is recycled in few places. If the legislature determines that it is best to ban it, the courts really have no business overriding that decision. You just need to elect politicians that don't feel the need to control every aspect of their constituent's lives.

RE: It's all for Nothing
By JediJeb on 12/4/2013 11:58:57 AM , Rating: 4
You just need to elect politicians that don't feel the need to control every aspect of their constituent's lives.

True. It seems that both our elected officials and the public in general have forgotten that in this country we have a government comprised of elected public servants and not elected rulers. The people of this country are supposed to be the rulers and the government is supposed to be the servants of the people, not the other way around.

RE: It's all for Nothing
By rechiel7890 on 12/4/2013 3:25:24 PM , Rating: 2
my Aunty Ellie recently got a stunning blue Cadillac CTS-V Sedan only from working part-time off a home computer... over here......

RE: It's all for Nothing
By rechiel7890 on 12/4/2013 3:27:48 PM , Rating: 1
up to I looked at the check 4 $4068, I have faith mom in-law woz like they say truley bringing home money in there spare time from there new laptop.. there friend brother haz done this for only and just now paid for the mortgage on there condo and bought a great Renault 5. browse around this site........bay91

Not so smart
By UltraWide on 12/3/13, Rating: -1
RE: Not so smart
By Lonyo on 12/3/2013 2:40:18 AM , Rating: 6
I'm sure that since houses are used once then disposed of people will be totally ourtaged.

Imagine though, if houses were long term structures and hence a non-degrading insulator which improved the energy efficiency of their home was seen to be a good thing. That would be _crazy_.

BRB, off to get rid of my house and buy a new one for tomorrow.

RE: Not so smart
By Lonyo on 12/3/2013 2:40:39 AM , Rating: 2

RE: Not so smart
By Shadowmaster625 on 12/3/2013 10:17:38 AM , Rating: 1
If you conduct a random poll asking people if they want to ban dihydrogen monoxide, at least 20% will say Yes.

RE: Not so smart
By corduroygt on 12/3/2013 11:56:49 AM , Rating: 2
20%? I'd say more like 60%

RE: Not so smart
By kattanna on 12/3/2013 12:46:28 PM , Rating: 2
you mean like this....


man.. i miss that show

RE: Not so smart
By bdot on 12/3/2013 2:48:37 PM , Rating: 2
^ This is how you win the internet.

RE: Not so smart
By JediJeb on 12/4/2013 11:54:16 AM , Rating: 1
It may not have been in Dow Corning's best interest

I believe that Dow Corning makes silicone products while Dow Chemical is the maker of Styrofoam. Dow Corning is a join venture of Dow Chemical and Corning Glass and not directly related to the article.

"This is from the It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki