Why have students been voluntarily containing their meals in a potential carcinogen on a daily basis? This nauseating acceptance has unfortunately become second nature to both attendants and students for years at the entrance of UT’s Ultimate Dining cafeteria. For only a few simple words and a quick meal swipe, attendants repetitively grant students with crisp white Styrofoam containers and cups, hundreds of times per day.
What fails to occur in the mind of a hungry college student is that this seemingly normal exchange would be considered unlawful in hundreds of cities across the United States. The first bans on the production and consumption of Styrofoam by city, date as far back as 1989. It is evident that the University of Tampa and city itself has been turning a blind eye to this critical issue for the past 23 years.
In turn, students should be anything but close-eyed to the harmfulness of this man-made substance for a plethora of reasons. Last year the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services added styrene, a synthetic chemical found in Styrofoam, to their list of known human carcinogens. Aside from potentially causing cancer, Styrofoam is non-biodegradable, and according to the University of Washington takes 500 years to decompose.
In contrast to its inexpensive production rate, Styrofoam is neither easily or cheaply recycled. Environment California reported that less than one percent actually gets recycled in the U.S. The remaining 99 percent takes form of litter, occupies space in landfills or finds its way into a waterway. Upon contact with water, the Save our Shores organization reports that Styrofoam breaks down into smaller pieces, absorbs toxic chemicals, can be mistakenly ingested by wildlife and thereby enter our food chain. It can also block an animal’s digestive tract, and cause death.
An investigation by the Earth Resource Foundation shows that the manufacture of Styrofoam releases hefty amounts of ozone into the atmosphere. Aside from polluting our environment in more than one way, chemicals in Styrofoam can also infect our bodies. Green Living reports that the styrene toxin found in Styrofoam is known to leach into warm foods, potentially causing contamination and a health risk to humans.
It’s a wonder why the University of Tampa’s cafeteria would knowingly allow students to have food come in contact with this toxic, petroleum based substance, that cities, states and major corporations have already suspended their consumption of. There are plenty of nontoxic, alternative materials that could serve the same purpose, which would ultimately benefit the health of the environment and UT students alike. The elimination of Styrofoam from the dining halls on campus could be the first step forward in the city of Tampa’s long overdue contribution to ban this overrated matter.
Marisa Lewis can be reached at marisa.lewis@spartans.ut.edu
Wrong, Ted. Styrofoam containers are nearly 97-98 percent air, taking up a large amount of space in landfills where it will very slowly deteriorate over tens and hundreds of years. Is that what green means?
There are few recycling plants in the U.S. that will actually accept the EP, meaning the material must be shipped to distant factories- expensive, unsustainable, and anything BUT green.
Also, while most bans are located along the Pacific Coast as California pushes the ban as a state, the first bans were actually implemented in New York, followed by New Jersey.
Beyond the point is the mentioning of the “known carcinogen.” In no case does the writer refer to the substance as a known carcinogen besides the reference to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, but instead uses POTENTIAL before every reference to being carcinogenic. Bravo, Marisa. A quote from an ABC News article by MICHAEL MURRAY: “The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services added eight more substances to its ‘known human carcinogen’ or ‘reasonably anticipated to be carcinogen’ lists today.” Either or, still referenceable by an accredited news source.
Also, Casey- what about foam cups? It is indeed evident that someone could find out more from doing a little research. Jamba Juice- a prime example.
Ms. Lewis suggests that students are being served meals in containers that contain a “known” carcinogen and that the use of such containers is somehow a health hazard. She also implies that other cities have banned such products because they are toxic. This is simply untrue.
Regarding the bans. The cities that have banned foamed containers are primarily located along the Pacific Coast, and the bans were initiated as a means to reduce litte, not because of health issues. Litter is a personal behavior, so the result of banning one material type, just results in a different material type being littered. Bans are not an effective solid waste management tool.
Ms. Lewis is correct that styrene was listed in the Report on Carcinogens that is prepared by the National Toxicology Program that is a part of the US Department of Health and Human Services. She is incorrect that styrene was listed as a known carcinogen — there is a big difference. She also did not explain the context of why styrene was listed. The listing in the RoC is specific for styrene (not styrofoam) and is based on studies of workers exposed to high levels of styrene in the workplace. Furthermore, the toxicologist who heads NTP was widely quoted in June 2011 saying: “Let me put your mind at ease right away about Styrofoam,” noting that levels of styrene from polystyrene containers “are hundreds if not thousands of times lower than have occurred in the occupational setting…In finished products, certainly styrene is not an issue.”
The styrofoam containers mentioned are nearly 95% air, thus are a green choice from the perspective of material conservation as well as cost.
I agree: Great article! Ms. Lewis brings up incredibly important points. The negative commenter is obviously some odd pro-foam activist. 😮
THIS IS THE BEST ARTICLE I’VE EVER READ. I SUPPORT THIS 100%. People need to focus on the big picture, and what the writer was trying to show; not petty details, that do not really have anything to do with the points she was making. Her research was well thought out and right on cue. Keep up the good work Ms. Lewis! Your ambitions and writing will take you far in life! Hope you write more for the Minaret!!
I am not sure how much fact checking or research was done for this article, but the basics of the arguement are based little on actual facts.
Here are a few corrections to some of the information in the article.
1. “Styrofoam” is a trademarked product by Dow chemical and is more commonly found in thermal insulation. Styrofoam is a completely different product and it is not used to produce items for the foodservice industry. Expanded Polystyrene Foam, or EPS, is typically used to produce foam cups and other foodservice products.
2. To date, no regulatory body anywhere in the world has classified styrene as “a known human carcinogen”, although many refer to it in various contexts as a “possible” or “potential” human carcinogen.
3. Styrene is a naturally occuring chemical found in foods such as cinammon, beef, coffee beans, strawberries, and wheat. It is usually found in trace amounts, and it is considered to be “non toxi”.
3. There are more cities that have EPS foam recycling programs, than cities with foam bans.
4. Foam cups are 100% recyclable, while no other cup in the market can currently say this. Most all of the Paper hot cups and cold cups in the market have a plastic lining (if not 2) and are also not biodegradeable.
If a little more research could be done, I believe Marisa would find out that white foam is greener than you think.