EPS Industry Responds to State Attorneys General's Investigation into Environmental NGOs
CROFTON, MD, UNITED STATES, November 20, 2025 /EINPresswire.com/ -- The EPS Industry Alliance (EPS-IA), representing manufacturers of expanded polystyrene (EPS) transport packaging in North America, today expressed support for the action taken earlier this month by five State Attorneys General to investigate potential antitrust and consumer-protection infractions involving several environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
The inquiry, issued by the Attorneys General of Florida, Iowa, Nebraska, Montana, and Texas, focuses on whether coordinated NGO initiatives have influenced U.S. packaging markets through uniform targets, material classifications, and public assertions that may not be grounded in comprehensive or transparent scientific review. Signaling the serious nature of this action, the Attorneys General stated in their joint letter, “We have grave concerns that this mission is harmful to our states’ economies, results in higher costs to our states’ consumers, unreasonably restrains trade, and reduces output and quality of goods and services,”.
Ensuring Fair Competition and Fact-Based Policy
EPS-IA members operate manufacturing facilities in 41 states and supply protective packaging essential to pharmaceuticals, electronics, furniture, agriculture, and other key economic drivers. These companies have experienced detrimental policy and procurement decisions shaped by NGO claims about EPS that do not accurately reflect scientific research, human health impacts, or actual recycling performance.
“Environmental NGOs play an important role in public dialogue, but that role must be grounded in accuracy and sound science,” said Betsy Bowers, Executive Director of EPS-IA. “Our concern is not with advocacy itself, but with the growing pattern of mischaracterizations about EPS and other packaging formats that mislead consumers, distort markets, and hinder policymakers’ ability to make informed decisions.”
Correcting Common Misunderstandings About EPS Packaging
EPS-IA offers several examples of widely repeated but inaccurate assumptions that frequently appear in public campaigns:
1. EPS transport packaging is widely recyclable.
While food-contaminated materials, including polystyrene, are more difficult to recycle, EPS transport packaging—a distinct category—is recycled in practice and at scale, in accordance with ISO 14021.
2. EPS is not a leading component of global litter.
Multiple cleanup data sets, some of which are frequently cited out of context, show that EPS does not consistently appear among the most common global litter items. Cleanup reports often aggregate unrelated foam materials, leading to inflated perceptions of EPS prevalence.
3. Health claims about EPS are often based on misapplied or unrelated data.
Regulatory bodies including FDA and EFSA have found no evidence of health risk from EPS used in packaging under normal conditions. Assertions to the contrary often rely on studies involving other plastic materials, unrealistic test conditions, or laboratory-grade EPS infused with ultraviolet agents that have different chemical properties than commercial EPS.
4. Alternatives are not impact-free.
Life cycle assessments comparing EPS against molded pulp, corrugated fiber, and other substitutes show significant environmental trade-offs such as higher water consumption, greater energy use, and increased greenhouse gas emissions. Several peer-reviewed studies demonstrate that EPS performs favorably in many key impact categories.
A Call for Accuracy and Transparency
EPS-IA emphasizes that it respects environmental organizations and recognizes their contributions to public awareness. The Alliance’s concern lies not with advocacy, but with the consequences of inaccurate or incomplete information influencing public policy, especially when such claims can drive market-wide material shifts or are used to fuel fundraising.
“Good policy begins with good data,” Bowers said. “We welcome the Attorneys General’s examination and stand ready to support a transparent, fact-driven review that strengthens public trust and environmental outcomes.”
About the EPS Industry Alliance
The EPS Industry Alliance (EPS-IA) is the national trade association representing the expanded polystyrene supply chain. EPS-IA promotes sustainable practices, supports recycling expansion, and works collaboratively with industry, government, and environmental stakeholders to advance science-based policy.
To learn more about expanded polystyrene, view the EPS Sustainability Attributes Fact Sheet.
Media Contact:
Ryan Bombich, EPS Industry Alliance
rbombich@epsindustry.org
www.epsindustry.org
www.globaleps.org
References:
“2022 Recycling Report Expanded Polystyrene Transport Packaging”, EPS Industry Alliance, 2024
“Plastic Pollution Science”, United Nations Environment Programme, UNEP/PP/INC.4/INF/1, April 16, 2024
“Life Cycle Assessment of the Industrial Use of Expanded Polystyrene Packaging in Europe Case Study: Comparison of Three Fishbox Solutions”, Pricewaterhouse Coopers and Ecobilan, 2011
“Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Expanded Polystyrene (EPS), Honeycomb, and Molded Pulp Packaging”, Atlas Molded Products, 2025
“2020 National Litter Study”, Keep America Beautiful, 2021
“California Proposition 65 Styrene Exposure Assessment for Expanded Polystyrene Foam Insulation Materials”, Underwriters Laboratory, UL Report Number: 18798EAR3, 2019
“Re-assessment of the risks to public health related to the genotoxicity of styrene present in plastic food contact materials”, European Food Safety Authority, 2025
“End Markets For Recycled EPS”, EPS Industry Alliance, 2025
“A global review of plastics policies to support improved decision making and public accountability”, Global Plastics Policy Centre, Portsmouth University, 2022
The inquiry, issued by the Attorneys General of Florida, Iowa, Nebraska, Montana, and Texas, focuses on whether coordinated NGO initiatives have influenced U.S. packaging markets through uniform targets, material classifications, and public assertions that may not be grounded in comprehensive or transparent scientific review. Signaling the serious nature of this action, the Attorneys General stated in their joint letter, “We have grave concerns that this mission is harmful to our states’ economies, results in higher costs to our states’ consumers, unreasonably restrains trade, and reduces output and quality of goods and services,”.
Ensuring Fair Competition and Fact-Based Policy
EPS-IA members operate manufacturing facilities in 41 states and supply protective packaging essential to pharmaceuticals, electronics, furniture, agriculture, and other key economic drivers. These companies have experienced detrimental policy and procurement decisions shaped by NGO claims about EPS that do not accurately reflect scientific research, human health impacts, or actual recycling performance.
“Environmental NGOs play an important role in public dialogue, but that role must be grounded in accuracy and sound science,” said Betsy Bowers, Executive Director of EPS-IA. “Our concern is not with advocacy itself, but with the growing pattern of mischaracterizations about EPS and other packaging formats that mislead consumers, distort markets, and hinder policymakers’ ability to make informed decisions.”
Correcting Common Misunderstandings About EPS Packaging
EPS-IA offers several examples of widely repeated but inaccurate assumptions that frequently appear in public campaigns:
1. EPS transport packaging is widely recyclable.
While food-contaminated materials, including polystyrene, are more difficult to recycle, EPS transport packaging—a distinct category—is recycled in practice and at scale, in accordance with ISO 14021.
2. EPS is not a leading component of global litter.
Multiple cleanup data sets, some of which are frequently cited out of context, show that EPS does not consistently appear among the most common global litter items. Cleanup reports often aggregate unrelated foam materials, leading to inflated perceptions of EPS prevalence.
3. Health claims about EPS are often based on misapplied or unrelated data.
Regulatory bodies including FDA and EFSA have found no evidence of health risk from EPS used in packaging under normal conditions. Assertions to the contrary often rely on studies involving other plastic materials, unrealistic test conditions, or laboratory-grade EPS infused with ultraviolet agents that have different chemical properties than commercial EPS.
4. Alternatives are not impact-free.
Life cycle assessments comparing EPS against molded pulp, corrugated fiber, and other substitutes show significant environmental trade-offs such as higher water consumption, greater energy use, and increased greenhouse gas emissions. Several peer-reviewed studies demonstrate that EPS performs favorably in many key impact categories.
A Call for Accuracy and Transparency
EPS-IA emphasizes that it respects environmental organizations and recognizes their contributions to public awareness. The Alliance’s concern lies not with advocacy, but with the consequences of inaccurate or incomplete information influencing public policy, especially when such claims can drive market-wide material shifts or are used to fuel fundraising.
“Good policy begins with good data,” Bowers said. “We welcome the Attorneys General’s examination and stand ready to support a transparent, fact-driven review that strengthens public trust and environmental outcomes.”
About the EPS Industry Alliance
The EPS Industry Alliance (EPS-IA) is the national trade association representing the expanded polystyrene supply chain. EPS-IA promotes sustainable practices, supports recycling expansion, and works collaboratively with industry, government, and environmental stakeholders to advance science-based policy.
To learn more about expanded polystyrene, view the EPS Sustainability Attributes Fact Sheet.
Media Contact:
Ryan Bombich, EPS Industry Alliance
rbombich@epsindustry.org
www.epsindustry.org
www.globaleps.org
References:
“2022 Recycling Report Expanded Polystyrene Transport Packaging”, EPS Industry Alliance, 2024
“Plastic Pollution Science”, United Nations Environment Programme, UNEP/PP/INC.4/INF/1, April 16, 2024
“Life Cycle Assessment of the Industrial Use of Expanded Polystyrene Packaging in Europe Case Study: Comparison of Three Fishbox Solutions”, Pricewaterhouse Coopers and Ecobilan, 2011
“Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Expanded Polystyrene (EPS), Honeycomb, and Molded Pulp Packaging”, Atlas Molded Products, 2025
“2020 National Litter Study”, Keep America Beautiful, 2021
“California Proposition 65 Styrene Exposure Assessment for Expanded Polystyrene Foam Insulation Materials”, Underwriters Laboratory, UL Report Number: 18798EAR3, 2019
“Re-assessment of the risks to public health related to the genotoxicity of styrene present in plastic food contact materials”, European Food Safety Authority, 2025
“End Markets For Recycled EPS”, EPS Industry Alliance, 2025
“A global review of plastics policies to support improved decision making and public accountability”, Global Plastics Policy Centre, Portsmouth University, 2022
Ryan Bombich
EPS Industry Alliance
+1 410-451-8340
rbombich@epsindustry.org
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.