Written Testimony of
Jon B. Hurst, President, and
Erin M. Trabucco, General Counsel
Retailers Association of Massachusetts

Before the Boston City Council

October 16, 2009

RE: Docket #1083, An Ordinance Prohibiting the Use of Non-Recyclable and Expanded Polystyrene Food Service Containers. 
____________________________________________________________________

The Retailers Association of Massachusetts (RAM), established in 1918, is a statewide trade association of over 3,100 member companies.  Our membership ranges from independent, “mom and pop” owned stores to larger, national chains operating in the general retail, restaurant and service sectors of the retail industry.  The industry’s contributions to the Commonwealth include over $112 billion in annual sales; over $5.7 billion in annual sales and use taxes collected; 17% of all Massachusetts jobs; and operations in over 38,000 locations across the state.

RAM would like to be recorded in opposition to Docket #1083, An Ordinance Prohibiting the Use of Non-Recyclable and Expanded Polystyrene Food Service Containers. 
 
We respectfully submit that it is not in the best interest of the City of Boston to ban polystyrene from local businesses. While we understand the goal of the proposal is to reduce potential harm to the environment, I ask that you be mindful of the current financial difficulties that all restaurants are facing.  Any new product ban on businesses can be crippling in this economic climate.  Some businesses have voluntarily eliminated the use of polystyrene.  However, it is important to note that not all businesses are alike and many do not have the resources to purchase new materials at a higher cost. Many of the businesses affected by this proposal are franchises.  Franchisees may own one or two locations and are true small business owners that will need to pay for alternative packaging on their own.  Products bans require companies to have new packaging designs which can be very costly and will force restaurants to pass along the added cost to consumer. 

Alternative products, particularly compostable packaging is derived from corn.  The diversion of corn from animal feed to biofuels is already driving up costs of many basic food commodities and any further demands on corn supplies could make it even more difficult for consumers to purchase other dietary essentials.  Additionally, alternative products are not always desirable to consumers.  Many compostable plastics are still in the early stages of development and not all recyclable plastics are fully functional.  Some alternative products have low melting temperatures and therefore must be shipped in refrigerated trucks.  These products will obviously not hold heat well.  Also, some utensils made from compostable products will be too flexible or will break very easily. 

As you know, several jurisdictions have implemented or introduced similar proposals.  The goal of these proposals may be the same but all of them present different requirements to restaurants.  Many of the businesses that will be affected under this proposal operate in multiple states and are facing a myriad of different product bans.  We believe that if a product ban is warranted than national uniformity is needed. 

Thank you for your time and consideration of our comments.  We hope to be an active participant in the discussion surrounding this proposal and look forward to working with you.  Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of any assistance.