Farewell to Foam Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 6, 2025
Bottom line
The Farewell to Foam Act of 2025 aims to significantly reduce plastic pollution by banning common expanded polystyrene products nationwide, compelling industries and consumers to adopt alternative materials.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits the sale and distribution of expanded polystyrene (EPS) food service ware, EPS loose fill packaging (packing peanuts), and EPS coolers across the United States, effective January 1, 2028. It establishes a phased enforcement mechanism, starting with written notifications for first violations and escalating civil penalties for subsequent offenses, with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) responsible for oversight.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that expanded polystyrene products are a major source of environmental pollution, difficult to recycle economically, and pose significant threats to wildlife and ecosystems. They contend that a nationwide ban is necessary to accelerate the transition to more sustainable, often compostable or reusable, alternatives, thereby reducing landfill waste and marine debris.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that a federal ban on expanded polystyrene products would impose substantial economic burdens on businesses, particularly small businesses and food service providers, by forcing them to absorb higher costs for alternative packaging. They might also raise concerns about potential job losses in the EPS manufacturing sector and the availability and cost-effectiveness of suitable alternatives.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick read and easy comprehension of its core provisions.
Section 1
Short Title
This section formally names the bill the 'Farewell to Foam Act of 2025.' This is standard legislative practice, providing a concise and recognizable name for the legislation.
Supporters argue
Naming the bill clearly helps in public discourse and legislative tracking, signaling its primary intent to address polystyrene foam.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the short title itself, as it is a procedural element.
Tradeoffs
None inherent to the short title itself, though the name clearly indicates the bill's controversial subject matter.
Section 2
Definitions of Key Terms
This section defines critical terms used throughout the Act, such as 'expanded polystyrene,' 'covered polystyrene foam ware,' 'food service provider,' 'manufacturer,' 'distributor,' and 'retailer.' It also specifically defines 'expanded polystyrene cooler,' 'expanded polystyrene food service ware,' and 'expanded polystyrene loose fill,' which are the products targeted by the ban. Notably, it excludes portable containers for drugs, medical devices, or biological products from the definition of 'expanded polystyrene cooler'.
Section 3
Ban on Expanded Polystyrene Products
This section establishes the core prohibition of the Act. Beginning January 1, 2028, it bans food service providers, manufacturers, distributors, and retailers from selling, offering for sale, or distributing expanded polystyrene food service ware. Additionally, from the same date, it prohibits manufacturers, distributors, and retailers from selling, offering for sale, or distributing expanded polystyrene loose fill and expanded polystyrene coolers.
Section 4
Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties
This section outlines the enforcement framework for violations of the ban. For a first violation, the Administrator of the EPA will issue a written notification. Subsequent violations incur civil penalties: $250 for the second, $500 for the third, and $1,000 for the fourth and any subsequent violations. The section also includes limitations on penalty frequency based on annual revenue: once per 7-day period for food service providers or retailers with less than $1,000,000 in annual revenue, and once per 7-day period for manufacturers or distributors with less than $5,000,000 in annual revenue. States may also be permitted to carry out enforcement.
Exclusion of portable containers for drugs, medical devices, or biological products from the definition of 'expanded polystyrene cooler.'
Section 2(7)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure precision in definitions and to prevent unintended consequences for critical sectors. It's a technical detail that has significant practical implications.
Case for: This exemption is vital for public health and safety, ensuring that temperature-sensitive medical supplies, drugs, and biological products can continue to be transported safely and effectively without disruption, as suitable non-EPS alternatives may not be readily available or approved for such uses.
Case against: Some environmental advocates might argue that any exemption, even for medical purposes, reduces the overall impact of the ban and could potentially be exploited. However, the specific nature of this exemption makes such arguments less common.
Estimated impact: Ensures continuity of critical medical supply chains, preventing potential health crises or increased costs for healthcare providers related to specialized cold storage.
Limitations on the frequency of civil penalties based on the annual revenue of the violating entity.
Section 4(3)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative technique to mitigate the impact of penalties on smaller entities, reflecting a policy choice to balance enforcement with economic considerations for small businesses. It's a technical detail designed to refine the application of the law.
Case for: These limitations are crucial for protecting small businesses from disproportionate financial burdens. By capping the frequency of penalties, the bill provides a grace period for smaller food service providers, retailers, manufacturers, and distributors to come into compliance without facing crippling fines.
Case against: Critics might argue that these limitations could weaken the deterrent effect of the penalties, especially if larger small businesses calculate that the cost of non-compliance for a week is less than the cost of immediate transition. However, the intent is clearly to support small businesses.
Estimated impact: Reduces the financial risk for small and medium-sized businesses during the transition period, potentially easing compliance for those with limited resources.