by Robert A. Thomas

Five years ago, I considered products made from foam polystyrene ("styrofoam" being the most familiar trademarked name) to be the anathema of the environmental movement. Everyone knew that products made from polystyrene foam created awful litter problems, and these products virtually never biodegraded - it would take 500 years! Polystyrene was the equivalent of the environmental devil. Companies were outlawing it in offices and in packaging and ceramic coffee mugs were springing up everywhere with logos professing a clean environment. Every good environmentalist knew that when given a choice between paper and polystyrene, the responsible action was to choose paper food containers!

In 1990, the Council for Solid Waste Solutions commissioned a study by Franklin Associates, LTD to compare paper food packaging with polystyrene food packaging in a "cradle-to-grave" study. They were to compare, for example, the environmental impact of producing, using, and disposing of say, a paper cup as compared to doing the same for one made of polystyrene. When evaluating the environmental life-history of paper, Franklin Associates considered land use needs, impacts on watershed, impact of planting and nurturing the trees, harvest, transporting, milling, processing into paper (ever been around a paper mill?), and then turning the paper into a cup, plate, etc., plus its final destination (landfilling or recycling). Then they did the same for polystyrene, starting with extraction of hydrocarbons.

The findings of this study were that polystyrene has less overall environmental impact and is, therefore, the superior environmental choice! A sudden clamor arose, with many voices saying, "Well, of course your study said that! You are funded by the packaging industry and it is in your self interest to make these findings!"

A year later, a Canadian scientist named Martin B. Hocking replicated the study, corroborated its results, and published his findings in a highly respected refereed journal ("Paper vs. polystyrene: a complex choice. Science 251:504-505. 1991). This was followed by a deafening silence. Basically, activists said, "Okay, let's focus on another issue."

The analyses were astounding. They found that it takes about 33g of wood, 4g of fuel (oil or natural gas), and 1.8g of nonrecycled chemicals (e.g., chlorine, sulfuric acid, sulturic oxide) to produce a 10. lg paper cup (with no plastic or wax coating). To produce a polystyrene cup, only 1/6 the materials are required and the chemical requirement is only 3% that of a paper cup. One could go on and on (as does the Hocking article), but it is sufficient to say that in every way possible, polystyrene is a superior product to paper for use in disposable products. By today's prices, paper products cost out at about 2.5 times that of polystyrene.

We used to praise paper because it biodegrades and polystyrene does not. Now we have found that paper does not always biodegrade in landfills, and, when it does, it produces methane, carbon dioxide, and many water soluble products (such as cellulose) that create oxygen demand when decomposing. We now see that paper products are not as environmentally friendly as we once thought. Indeed, polystyrene is inert and does not degrade into harmful components. What was once a negative is now a positive when compared to the down side of paper decomposition. One of the biggest problem remaining for polystyrene products is proper disposal (or reuse) so that they are not mistaken for food and wind up as lethal elements in aquatic and wildfowl food-chains.

After the information about the beneficial aspects of polystyrene compared to the drawbacks of paper became public, some fast food businesses still shifted to paper products - even though the evidence suggested that they should stay with polyfoam. Why did they do it? Poorly informed customers trying to be good environmental citizens demanded it. What a tragedy. And to add to the environmental mistake, their paper products cannot be recycled anyway, because health regulations demand that the paper be plastic coated!

So, does this mean that the proper environmental decision is to use polvstyrene? Absolutely not. The proper environmental solution is to 1) reduce your use of any of these products, 2) use washables when possible, and 3) use polystyrene when forced to make a choice.

Now, has anyone done a cradle-to-grave study comparing polystyrene to washable containers (production, energy cost in washing and drying, detergents, etc.)?