Hundreds of groups urge Congress not to weaken chemical safety law
More than 90 organizations—including Beyond Plastics, Plastic Pollution Coalition, Californians Against Waste, Surfrider, and California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice — have sent a letter to California Governor Gavin Newsom calling for him to enforce the statewide ban on polystyrene foam food service products that went into effect on January 1, 2025. Despite the ban being in place for five months, these items remain widely available in stores across California and online shops that deliver across the state.
Senate Bill 54, which was adopted in 2022, prohibits the sale of polystyrene foam products like cups, plates, bowls, clamshells, trays, and containers unless producers can demonstrate a 25% recycling rate—a benchmark not met, as national recycling rates for polystyrene hover around 1%. However, enforcement from the state’s waste agency, CalRecycle, has been virtually non-existent, leading to continued sales of banned products. As of the end of 2024, 12 states and over 250 counties and cities had passed policies to curb single-use plastic foam—Oceana’s recent report shows that these policies are working.
When Governor Newsom was mayor of San Francisco and took the lead on banning polystyrene foam from the city in 2007, ahead of many other municipalities in the U.S., advocates applauded his efforts. But five months into a statewide ban in California on polystyrene foam that went into effect on January 1, 2025, we are not seeing the same level of commitment from Governor Newsom in implementing the ban. Polystyrene foam pollutes our bodies and the environment, and we call on Governor Newsom to enforce the statewide ban on this hazardous and polluting material, using his authority to require CalRecycle to uphold the law.
— Jackie Nuñez, Advocacy and Engagement Manager, Plastic Pollution Coalition, and Founder of The Last Plastic Straw
Polystyrene foam is toxic for all living things and the environment, from production and manufacturing to use and disposal. Polystyrene foam readily breaks up into microplastics, and is not designed to be recycled. While California has banned polystyrene foam on paper, the commitment to enforcing the law falls short: Currently, polystyrene foam food service products are still being illegally sold and used by California businesses and are still being purchased and shipped to California via e-commerce sites, including Amazon. We demand that Governor Newsom and California’s leaders take charge to make sure the polystyrene ban is properly implemented for it to be effective and to stop poisoning people.
— Dianna Cohen, Co-founder and CEO of Plastic Pollution Coalition
CalRecycle has the authority and legal obligation to communicate, implement, and enforce the polystyrene foam ban. In addition, CalRecycle has the authority to fine companies who sell or distribute these products up to $50,000 a day, per incident, for non-compliance. Yet the agency and the governor have been very quiet with the exception of a very brief email bulletin sent by CalRecycle on April 4, which stated the material failed to meet the 25% recycling rate and is prohibited to be sold, distributed or imported into the state.
Polystyrene foam is a prevalent form of plastic pollution, and despite deceptive claims, it is not recyclable. The lightweight, plastic material quickly breaks up into tiny microplastic particles and is easily picked up by the wind, blowing around our environment. In the ocean, polystyrene is often mistakenly or unintentionally ingested by marine animals. Polystyrene’s major ingredient is styrene, a chemical that the World Health Organization has designated a probable human carcinogen and has been linked with vision and neurological problems. The toxic chemicals in polystyrene are especially concerning since they can easily leach into food and beverages. For more information on the health issues of polystyrene foam, please see the Beyond Plastics’ polystyrene foam fact sheet, as well as Oceana’s April 2025 report.
Take Action
Municipal and statewide legislation to eliminate plastic pollution at the source, when enforced, can make a significant difference. However, we ultimately need a strong global approach to ending plastic pollution by addressing all stages of plastic’s endless toxic existence, starting with production. Just two months ahead of the next United Nations negotiating session of an international agreement to end plastic pollution, please help us call on the U.S. Government to take a stronger stance on the Global Plastics Treaty.
October 1, 2024 , 7:00 pm – 8:00 pm EDT
The United States will welcome a new President in January. In the run-up to the 2024 U.S. presidential election, Beyond Plastics has released a list of 27 priority policy recommendations for the next U.S. president to reduce plastic pollution. These recommendations pave the way to address the plastic pollution crisis by significantly reducing the production of plastics, thereby limiting their negative impacts on environmental justice communities, human health, climate change, fish and wildlife, and our planet.
Beyond Plastics has assembled an all-star panel of experts!
Please join Judith Enck and Jess Conard, Beyond Plastics’ President and Appalachia Director, respectively, Jo Banner, Co-founder & Co-Director of The Descendants Project, Kevin Budris, Advocacy Director of Just Zero, and Dr. Sherri “Sam” Mason, Director of Project NePTWNE at Gannon University via Zoom on Tuesday, October 1 at 7:00 PM ET to learn more about these recommendations, ask questions, and enjoy a lively discussion. You can find the Presidential Policy Priorities document here: https://www.beyondplastics.org/s/presidential-priorities.
Related Events
This week the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed next steps that could ban vinyl chloride, and other key plastic ingredients. The EPA is now suggesting that vinyl chloride and four other chemicals used to make plastics be designated as a “High-Priority Substances” under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Such designation would require the agency to assess the chemicals’ risks—and could lead to bans or restrictions on their manufacturing, processing, distribution, use, or disposal if they are found to present an unreasonable risk to people and the environment.
You may have recently heard about vinyl chloride, as it is the highly flammable and toxic chemical that was carried by train cars that derailed and were burned in East Palestine, Ohio, in February 2023. Vinyl chloride is mainly used to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic for plastic piping, flooring, consumer goods including children’s toys, electrical materials, vehicles, and food packaging.
The other plastic chemicals the EPA has proposed to designate as “High-Priority Substances” are acetaldehyde—used commonly as a plastic additive; acrylonitrile—used to make acrylic carpets, clothing, textiles, and upholstery; benzenamine—used in synthetic rubbers and plastic foams, and 4,4’-methylene bis(2-chloroaniline)—used in polyurethanes and epoxy resins. Exposure to each of the five plastic chemicals proposed for evaluation are linked to or are suspected of causing cancer.
This is not the first time the EPA has had to consider banning or restricting hazardous plastic and industrial chemicals. Other chemicals found to present an unreasonable risk to human and environmental health include ortho-phthalates, a chemical added to PVC to make it soft and flexible, which have been restricted from children’s toys in the U.S., European Union, and other nations. The EPA has also recently banned many uses of methylene chloride and asbestos under TSCA, and proposed a total ban on the toxic chlorinated chemical TCE and most uses of PCE, another chlorinated chemical.
Following the EPA’s announcement, environmental advocacy organizations Beyond Plastics, Earthjustice, and Toxic-Free Future immediately released a report detailing the chemical’s harms and recommendations for the EPA to consider during its evaluation. Key findings from the report show that air releases of vinyl chloride increase cancer risks in frontline communities near manufacturing facilities, vinyl chloride “incidents” (explosions, fires, leaks, and spills) are very common and have been deadly, and that PVC drinking water pipes and consumer products like children’s toys can leach residual vinyl chloride—threatening public health.
We’ve recommended that as part of its regulatory process, EPA officials visit the communities that have been directly impacted by vinyl chloride. They need to talk to residents whose health has been harmed by contaminated water and air pollution. They must also examine how vinyl chloride can leach from PVC pipes into drinking water. It’s time for action to protect public health.
— Jenny Gitlitz, Beyond Plastics’ Director of Solutions to Plastic Pollution and co-author of the report
The EPA will accept public comments supporting the agency’s proposal to designate vinyl chloride, acetaldehyde, acrylonitrile, benzenamine, and 4,4’-methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) as “High-Priorty Substances” for 90 days after publication via docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0601 at the Regulations.gov page.
Make your voice heard and tell the EPA to list these chemicals. Comments are due October 23, 2024. See sample script below.
And:
SAMPLE COMMENT:
[Date]
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0601
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to the EPA on the Proposed “High-Priority Substance” Designations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). I am writing in strong support of the EPA’s designation of acetaldehyde (CASRN 75-07-0), acrylonitrile (CASRN 107-13-1), benzenamine (CASRN 62-53-3), vinyl chloride (CASRN 75-01-4), and 4,4-methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) (MBOCA) (CASRN 101-14-4) as High-Priority Substances for further risk evaluation.
All of these plastic chemicals, particularly vinyl chloride, have toxic effects on people and the environment during plastic production, use, and disposal. Vinyl chloride in particular has been designated as a Group 1 carcinogen, known to cause cancer in people; airborne exposure of vinyl chloride has also been linked in pregnant people to increased risk of miscarriage and birth defects; and high levels of exposure to vinyl chloride can cause headaches, dizziness, trouble breathing, and even death.
We are seeing the continued toxic effects of vinyl chloride harming people and the environment in and near East Palestine, Ohio, since the 2023 train derailment occurred there. The burning of vinyl chloride released toxic dioxins and other compounds that threaten the health of residents, first responders, and cleanup workers. More than 3 million Americans live within a mile of railroad tracks on which vinyl chloride is currently transported by train, which puts them at risk of experiencing a similar public health and environmental disaster as the one that occurred in East Palestine.
Acetaldehyde is a highly reactive and toxic chemical that causes damage at the cellular and DNA levels, and has been linked to the development of diseases, including cancer. Acrylonitrile is a toxic chemical that is linked to organ damage, as well as cancer in lab animals and is suspected of causing cancer in humans. Benzenamine is toxic, and can cause severe damage to the skin, eyes, and respiratory track, and is suspected of causing cancer. 4,4-methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) has been classified as a probable human carcinogen and has been shown to have toxic and cancerous effects on laboratory animals.
Additionally, acetaldehyde (CASRN 75-07-0), acrylonitrile (CASRN 107-13-1), benzenamine (CASRN 62-53-3), vinyl chloride (CASRN 75-01-4), and 4,4-methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) (MBOCA) (CASRN 101-14-4) threaten communities on the frontlines of chemical facilities producing these chemicals, as well as workers who handle these chemicals inside those facilities.
For these reasons, I am writing in strong support of the EPA’s designation of acetaldehyde (CASRN 75-07-0), acrylonitrile (CASRN 107-13-1), benzenamine (CASRN 62-53-3), vinyl chloride (CASRN 75-01-4), and 4,4-methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) (MBOCA) (CASRN 101-14-4) as High-Priority Substances for further risk evaluation.
Thank you,
[Name]
Today the White House released a new strategy for U.S. Federal Government action on plastic pollution. It is their most comprehensive plan to date, yet critical gaps remain.
In the new strategy, “Mobilizing Federal Action on Plastic Pollution: Progress, Principles, and Priorities,” the U.S. Federal Government has finally acknowledged key truths about the planetary crisis that is plastic pollution—including that “over 90% of plastic is derived from fossil fuels,” the need for a “full lifecycle approach” to action, and impacts on Indigenous and other frontline communities. Yet while the broader language of the plan marks considerable progress over the government’s past approaches to plastic pollution, it also contains critical gaps that—if not urgently addressed—will delay real solutions to plastic pollution, perpetuating harm to people and the planet.
We appreciate and applaud the Administration’s efforts to address plastic pollution in a comprehensive way with a full lifecycle approach. With this announcement, we’ve moved the needle, particularly with the language on plastic production, as the U.S. Government finally acknowledges key truths about the planetary plastic pollution crisis. However, the language must be backed up with actions that are commensurate with the urgency of the problem and fully in line with these truths. What we are still not seeing in this strategy is a cap on plastic production, which the science necessitates, along with legally binding requirements for implementation.
— Jen Fela, Vice President, Programs and Communications, Plastic Pollution Coalition
Breaking Down the Report
The U.S. Federal Government’s report, “Mobilizing Federal Action on Plastic Pollution: Progress, Principles, and Priorities,” outlines five focus areas for actions to reduce plastic pollution:
1. Assessing and Reducing Pollution from Plastic Production
The language in this section and the facts it includes are new for the U.S. Federal Government to communicate in such a comprehensive way, and are to be applauded. Historically, the government has perpetuated narratives around plastic pollution shared by the fossil fuel, petrochemical, and plastics industries it subsidizes and incentivizes.
However, upon closer examination of the actions to address plastic production, one finds mostly demand-side measures aimed at reducing plastic consumption—not production—that are voluntary instead of legally binding and required.
By contrast, an effective approach to addressing and reducing pollution from plastic production must be centered around protecting human and planetary health with a mandated cap on plastic production to be effective. This is an essential step in reducing plastic pollution.
2. Innovating Material and Product Design
In this focus area, the U.S. Federal Government stresses advancements on the material design and manufacturing of plastics. However, their problematic focus on plastics “innovation” for the future fails to acknowledge a necessary reduction in plastic production. Discussion of this focus point includes developing false technological fixes such as 3D printing, when again, real solutions already exist.
This section’s language leaves open potential loopholes for expansion of “advanced” or “chemical recycling” and production of single-use industrial bioplastics, such as PLA.
This section of the report would be more effective if it explicitly incorporated plastic-free reuse, refill, repair, share, and regenerative solutions.
3. Decreasing Plastics Waste Generation
This focus area is directed at the U.S. Federal Government’s procurement of materials, and proposes encouraging voluntary efforts to reduce the government’s use of plastic in Federal operations, including events and programs.
Elsewhere in the report, the Administration announced new goals to phase out federal procurement of single-use plastics from “food service operations, events, and packaging by 2027, and from all federal operations by 2035.” The government states it will meet its single-use plastic procurement reduction goals “by selecting reusable, compostable, and highly recyclable products in lieu of single-use plastics in food service….” Yet its proposed timeline is too long, and its strategy leaves the door open for false solutions, including regrettable single-use replacements for plastics, and dubiously “recyclable” plastic. There is no time to waste in making efforts to reduce the government’s use of plastic and increase its use of plastic-free reusable alternatives required, not optional.
Additionally, this section also emphasizes data collection about the government’s strategies to reduce plastic pollution—despite so much data about the benefits of real solutions already in existence. Instead of spending more time on researching what actions to take, the U.S. Federal Government should immediately implement plastic-free reuse, refill, repair, share, and regenerative solutions, which already exist.
4. Improving Environmentally Sound Waste Management
In this focus area, the U.S. Federal Government includes several false solutions that perpetuate plastic pollution and injustice: the plastics waste trade and plastics recycling. It prioritizes investment in plastics recycling, even though plastics recycling is a broken system, unlike recycling of other materials. A lot of the public is now waking up to that fact. The U.S. Federal Government should know by now that recycling is not fixing the problem and the movement to end plastic pollution has provided much evidence to demonstrate that.
While the U.S. Federal Government does mention reuse and refill elsewhere in the report, its narrative in this section and others also reveals a continued focus on “litter” and educating the public about what individuals can do to prevent plastic from polluting the environment—especially the ocean. We already know that this tired industry-inspired narrative works to shift the onus for plastic pollution from industries and governments to the public—delaying real solutions.
5. Informing and Conducting Plastic Pollution Capture and Removal
In its final focus area, the U.S. Federal Government includes weak language that perpetuates another false industry-inspired narrative, about cleanup being a solution to plastic pollution while failing to take adequate upstream action by requiring a cap on plastic production. By focusing on “litter” and educating the public as to what Americans can do to prevent plastic from entering the environment (especially the ocean), and otherwise focusing on cleanups, the onus is on individuals. This shifts the blame and responsibility away from plastic pollution away from those entities that are truly culpable: the fossil fuel, petrochemical, and plastic industries, and the government itself which subsidizes fossil fuels at about $646 billion annually. Instead of propping up harmful industries, we need our government to better support the health of people and the planet.
A Good Step, but Not Yet Enough for Frontline Communities
Again, this new strategy is the most comprehensive plan by the U.S. Government to date to tackle plastic pollution. It importantly incorporates many facts and much language that scientists and environmental, social justice, Indigenous, and other frontline and community groups have long been communicating to the U.S. Federal Government.
Advocates and organizers have demanded for the U.S. government to acknowledge the plastics crisis as an issue of environmental justice. Today, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) did just that, and urged all agencies to end the toxic legacy of plastic production, transport, and disposal facilities in Black and Brown and low income communities. There are always more explicit ways to call a spade a spade. There is more work to be done to transition away from our disposable, single-use economy to a truly sustainable, reuse based one. But these actions could be a step in the right direction, and a victory for the most impacted communities across the plastic lifecycle.
— Dr. Jamala Djinn, freelance advisor
But some feel that the actions are not yet enough, or set to happen fast enough. Plastic poisons people, and people living on the front lines are harmed worst. Frontline community leaders have been imploring State Department officials to visit the industrial fencelines where they live, work, and go to school, to no avail.
The plan unveiled today by the United States fails to take the necessary step to meaningfully address the toxic global plastic crisis crippling the planet: production reduction. This plan boils down to federal procurement policy. The United States could seize the opportunity to be a leader in reducing the production of plastic rather than a plan lacking ambition, depth, or the vision necessary to protect environmental justice communities in the U.S. and vulnerable communities worldwide. Our government, along with the chemical industry, has crafted a plan that calls for MORE. MORE PLASTIC, MORE CHEMICALS, MORE TOXIC EXPOSURE, MORE HEALTH ISSUES, RECALLS, FALSE SOLUTIONS, MORE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, and ultimately MORE MONEY. We must continue organizing against corporate greed and neoliberal solutions that keep oppressing and sacrificing our lives.
— Shiv Srivastava, Policy Director, & Yvette Arellano, Founder/ Executive Director, Fenceline Watch
Plastic production, especially in its upstream production and extraction, continues to wreak havoc on fenceline communities, such as my community in the middle of Louisiana’s Cancer Alley. While I am pleased the administration is acknowledging its harmful impacts, we know all too well removing pollution from plastic production is unobtainable. At best, any possible solution would take too much time, time sick communities do not have. We are eager to continue our work with the White House in developing true solutions that will cut plastic production and foster healing in Cancer Alley.
— Jo Banner, Co-Founder & Co-Director, The Descendants Project
Take Action
We don’t have time to waste. We must turn off the tap on plastic production, and demand-side measures are not enough. The U.S. Government needs to take serious, urgent action that is legally binding and that caps plastic production—the same approach needed in the UN Plastics Treaty negotiations.
The U.S. Government has failed to implement a robust plan to reduce its usage of single-use plastics. Instead, today a narrow rule comes into effect that does little to incentivize change to address plastic pollution.
The rule was finalized on June 6, 2024, and is overseen by the General Services Administration (GSA), which is the federal agency that oversees procurement for the U.S. Government. As the world’s biggest buyer of goods and services, the U.S. Government has decision-making power that is felt around the world.
In February 2022, a petition led by Plastic Pollution Coalition (PPC) Member Center of Biological Diversity and supported by 180 other community and conservation groups called on the GSA to reduce and eliminate its purchasing and use of single-use plastics. In response, the GSA called for public comment to help shape the present rules in purchasing single-use plastics contained within agency contracts. In February 2024, PPC Member Oceana submitted comments to the GSA as part of the public comment period on the proposed rule and delivered more than 6,900 petition signatures calling on the federal government to reduce its purchase of single-use plastics.
Unfortunately, despite an outpouring of comments calling for change, the GSA did not establish a rule requiring any reduction or elimination of its purchasing and use of single-use plastics. In fact, it responded to comments calling on the GSA to stop buying single-use plastic products by stating “seeking to ban these products is outside the scope of this rulemaking.” Instead, in its final rule the GSA simply added an icon to its internal purchasing platforms, which identifies packaging that is free of single-use plastic.
Again, the rule does not actually require that the GSA purchase less single-use plastic—choices are voluntary. Nor does the rule allow for third-party verifiers to ensure that the GSA does not buy single-use plastics; the GSA also stated that having such verification was outside the scope of rulemaking, diminishing the transparency and accountability of the GSA’s purchasing decisions.
Last year, a nationwide poll showed that more than 80% of Americans are concerned about single-use plastic products and support a reduction in the federal government’s use of single-use plastics. Another poll this year found that a decisive majority of the U.S. public supports measures to reduce the production of plastics.
The new GSA rule represents another missed opportunity for the U.S. Government to take real action on plastic pollution and is out of line with the desires of most Americans. As the world’s biggest plastic polluter, the U.S. must take swift and serious responsibility to address plastic pollution at the source. Instead of stepping around the solutions we need, we need the U.S. Government to incentivize and implement reusable, refillable plastic-free solutions—which exist today.
— Julia Cohen, PPC Co-Founder and Managing Director
Take Action
It’s not too late for the U.S. Government to take action to address plastic pollution. The Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act of 2023 expands and improves upon earlier versions of the bill by tapping into proven solutions that will better protect impacted communities, reform our broken recycling system, and shift the financial burden of waste management off of municipalities and taxpayers to where it belongs: the producers of plastic pollution. It builds on successful statewide laws across the country and outlines practical plastic reduction strategies to realize a healthier, more sustainable, and more equitable future.
