After years of negotiations, state lawmakers consider measures to phase out plastic bags, foam food containers
Advocates, citing the threat of rising plastic waste to human and environmental health, say the timing for the bills is ripe given rising health concerns about microplastics and the passage of similar legislation in states like New Jersey and California. Retailers also support the measures, calling the requirements balanced and flexible, according to a statement from the Illinois Retail Merchants Association.
But at the same time, President Donald Trump's administration is moving in an opposite direction, with Trump declaring America is going 'back to plastic' by reversing federal restrictions on plastic drinking straws and dismantling departments that regulate plastic pollution.
In addition, some labor unions, including the Illinois Pipe Trades Association and AFL-CIO, oppose the move to do away with foam food containers. Manufacturers have expressed concerns the measures could lead to thousands of layoffs if the facilities that make the banned products are forced to shut down as their in-state customer base disappears.
Two bills are awaiting a vote in the state Senate. One measure would use financial penalties under the jurisdiction of the attorney general and local state's attorney offices to restrict the sale or distribution of disposable containers made of polystyrene — known by the brand name Styrofoam — with the exception of egg cartons, starting in January 2030. The other bill would prohibit retailers with more than a dozen stores from offering or making available single-use checkout bags by January 2029.
State Sen. Laura Fine, a Democrat from Glenview who's sponsoring the foam container bill, said there are alternatives to polystyrene and plastic bags and that the measures are necessary 'to get the bad products off the market so we could have a cleaner environment and help our kids.'
Environmental advocates widely agree there's an unhealthy proliferation of plastic waste and that plastic bags and polystyrene are the 'worst of the worst,' partly because of how long these products take to decompose, said Emily Kowalski, outreach engagement manager with Environment Illinois. She noted about 22 million pounds of plastics enter the Great Lakes every year, according to 2022 estimates from the Rochester Institute of Technology.
'Nothing we use for just a few minutes should be allowed to pollute our water and environment for hundreds of years,' Kowalski said.
Volunteers with the Alliance for the Great Lakes have collected more than 10 million pieces of litter in the past 20 years at beaches of the five Great Lakes, 86% of it partially or fully plastic, according to Andrea Densham, senior policy adviser with the environmental organization. Polystyrene foam pieces were the third most common litter item that volunteers found over the years. Densham said this is a threat to drinking water and the lakes, citing that the Great Lakes hold 20% of the world's fresh water and provide drinking water for over 40 million people.
According to a 2024 study in the research publication Frontiers, continued exposure to microplastics through ingestion and inhalation can lead to inflammation, gastrointestinal disorders and chronic diseases.
There have been previous efforts to reduce plastic in the state, such as Chicago's tax on plastic bags that increased from 7 cents to 10 cents per bag in January 2025 and a 2023 state law banning foam foodware at state facilities that went into effect this January. Advocates say these initiatives haven't been entirely effective.
'I've seen there's still foam in the Stratton cafeteria, so I would like to see the state leading by example,' said Jack Darin, director of the Illinois Sierra Club chapter, referring to a state government office building in Springfield that was required to stop procuring foam, or polystyrene, for use by January 2025 under the 2023 law.
Sen. Cristina Castro's bill to ban plastic bags contains a provision that would eliminate municipal taxes on plastic bags by 2029, including Chicago's, which at 7 cents a bag in 2023 generated more than $17 million. Castro, of Elgin, said municipalities have not been using the extra cash to support sustainable initiatives, as was intended by advocates. An outright ban, instead of a tax, would be more successful in limiting plastic waste, Castro said.
'Instead of using the money for sustainability programs, a lot of them (municipalities) have used it for filling the coffers or plugging some other hole, which has frustrated a lot of the environmentalists, activists, who have said, 'Hey, that was supposed to help with recycling and things like that,'' said Castro.
The Illinois Municipal League opposes the bill because of the provision dropping the bag tax, which it argues preempts local regulatory authority, the group's CEO, Brad Cole, said.
Manufacturers and the unions take issue with Fine's foam foodware bill, arguing the measure would only shift consumers to use another type of plastic and cause significant job losses at polystyrene manufacturing plants.
While the bills do not ban the production of polystyrene, Donovan Griffith, vice president for government affairs for the Illinois Manufacturers Association, said a loss of in-state customers holds a 'real potential for job losses.'
Keith Clark, CEO of Dart Container, a polystyrene manufacturing company that employs more than 1,400 people in Illinois at facilities in Chicago, North Aurora and Country Club Hills, told the Tribune that the legislation, if passed, would 'certainly require us to reassess our Illinois operations in the coming years.'
Brad Laporte, CEO of WinCup, a polystyrene manufacturer with two facilities outside of Chicago, said he worked with Illinois lawmakers to get the ban deadline extended to 2030 but still opposes it, saying the measure could even ban the company's new biodegradable foam foodware. Those products can decompose by 92% over four years in certain landfills, according to the company's website.
Griffith also said polystyrene containers are cheaper and in some ways more environmentally friendly than alternatives that require more energy to produce, a point some environmental advocates take issue with.
The four- to five-year runway before the measures would take effect is intended to give municipalities time to fill gaps in tax revenue, consumers to adjust behavior, large retailers to eliminate bag use and foam foodware and manufacturers to prepare for losing revenue from large retailers.
'This is a change in the way organizations do business,' said Fine, acknowledging her conversations with opponents of the bills. 'This is a huge step, but we have to protect our Great Lakes and our waterways and this is part of that process.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How the Trump administration could attack state laws it says stifle US economy
The Trump administration is hunting for state laws that drag down the US economy. But axing statutes it sees as problematic will depend on how it wields the Constitution's powerful Commerce Clause. Last Friday, the Justice Department and the National Economic Council announced a joint initiative to "address" state statutes that "significantly and adversely affect the national economy.' State regulations, policies, causes of action, and practices were also included as targets. The plan is meant to support the White House's deregulation agenda, which President Trump described in a series of separate executive orders issued in January, February, and April. Those orders emphasize the administration's goal of alleviating policies that it views as "unnecessary burdens" on Americans, small businesses, private enterprise, and entrepreneurship. In an unusual twist, the agencies also solicited help from US citizens, asking members of the public to point out economy-slowing state laws and to propose legal theories that could reverse the laws' adverse effects. "They're crowdsourcing their legal theories," said Emily Berman, a constitutional scholar with the University of Houston Law Center. However, the plan stopped short of explaining what theories the administration would rely on to undo suspected harmful state laws. Jeremy Rovinsky, a federal prosecutor who teaches constitutional law at Crestpoint University, said the language used in the DOJ's plan to attack state laws shows that the Trump administration has the Commerce Clause in mind. "It's clear that Trump's lawyers are thinking through it this way," Rovinsky said. "The Supreme Court has allowed the federal government to regulate state power in an almost unlimited way." But the Commerce Clause doesn't guarantee the administration power to alter state law. The provision vests power to regulate commerce in Congress, not in the executive branch. A more straightforward type of challenge, the lawyer said, is one where state law directly conflicts with federal statutes. In those cases, the Justice Department could raise preemption challenges under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. Preemption challenges argue that a state rule essentially steps on the federal government's toes, Berman said. The Commerce Clause Absent such a clear-cut conflict, the administration would need more legal leverage to countermand state law. That leverage could come from the Commerce Clause, the constitutional scholar said, which empowers Congress to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. "Anything that regulates commerce falls within the scope of Congress's authority, which has been interpreted relatively broadly," Berman said. To tap into the federal government's authority over commerce, the administration would need to persuade lawmakers to pass new federal legislation invalidating state law. Ravinsky said he sees the DOJ's announcement as an opening salvo to persuade members of Congress. "I think the people that are in [Trump's] inner legal circle wrote that document the way they did, because they want to give Congress a heads up to have them codify what he's doing with executive actions into actual congressional legislation," Ravinsky said. Jonathan Entin, professor emeritus at Case Western Reserve School of Law, said it's possible, but not certain, that pressure on Congress from either President Trump or others in the executive branch would lead to new, preemptive federal laws. "If the president says this is a big priority, then maybe a fair number of people in both the House and the Senate would go along with it," Entin said. "Now, whether there will be enough votes, that's a separate question," he added. "Congress does not legislate very much." "If Congress wants to move legislation against state laws that they say hurt the economy, they need 60 votes in the Senate," Entin said. "And the chances of getting 60 votes in the Senate for much of anything these days are pretty slim." The Supreme Court has largely upheld Congress' power over interstate commerce in a series of cases evaluating the Commerce Clause stretching back more than 80 years. In 1942, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Wickard v. Filburn that expanded the federal government's regulatory power under the Commerce Clause. The case involved an Ohio farmer who grew more wheat than permitted under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. The court rejected the farmer's argument that the federal government could not regulate his excess wheat supply under the act because it was grown for personal, rather than commercial, use. In a unanimous 8-0 decision, the court reasoned that while a single farmer's excess crop may not substantially impact interstate commerce, the same actions, if taken in the aggregate by multiple farmers, could indeed influence the national market. Despite the Supreme Court's longstanding support for expansive application of the Commerce Clause, Entin suspects that even new federal legislation could fail to preempt certain state laws. States still retain their police powers, he said, and can exercise those powers as long as doing so doesn't interfere with interstate commerce. "It's not clear to me that Congress can use its commerce power to preempt the state's exercise of their police powers, even if state laws may, in fact, be unwise or even foolish," Entin said. The 'dormant' Commerce Clause Still another, and equally uncertain, path to challenge state laws could involve a judge-created theory known as the "Dormant Commerce Clause," the lawyers said. The concept further expands Congress' power over interstate and foreign commerce by limiting states' authority to regulate commerce even when Congress has not directly legislated on an issue. The theory is intended to prevent states from adopting discriminatory, protectionist laws that benefit local economies to the detriment of the national market. The theory was put to the test and shown to have limits in a recent case decided by the Supreme Court. In 2023, the court loosely upheld a California state law known as Proposition 12, which criminalized California sales of pork meat that came from pigs housed in pens measuring less than 24 square feet — 10 square feet larger than the industry standard. The Iowa Pork Producers Association and 23 states argued that the law discriminated against out-of-state pork producers, imposing excessive burdens on interstate commerce. However, Berman said, Dormant Commerce Clause challenges to state rules have historically been brought by private litigants, not the federal government. "It's going to be a private business sector actor saying, 'Our business is being harmed ... we shouldn't have barriers to markets along state lines." Entin agreed that it would be unusual for the federal government to sue states over their regulations. Alternatively, he said, Congress could try to persuade states to change laws through conditional federal spending. The administration may not find support from the high court for pushing Congress' authority over commerce even further, Entin added. Conservatives on the court in recent years have expressed "real skepticism" about whether courts should be in the business of enforcing the Commerce Clause, he said. Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump to expand push to whitewash ‘woke' museum exhibits on slavery
President Donald Trump reportedly plans to expand his push to whitewash 'woke' museum exhibits on slavery and American history beyond the Smithsonian. After Trump tweeted that the Smithsonian is too focused on 'how bad slavery was,' the White House said it would eventually seek to use its power over funding to force other museums to toe the line on Trump's views about history. Trump will hold the Smithsonian 'accountable' and 'then go from there,' an unnamed official told NBC News. Trump this week renewed the attack on the Smithsonian that he unleashed this month when he ordered a sweeping review of its exhibits, policies and staffing. He suggested the revered cultural institution, which is an independent organization but receives significant funding from the federal government, is too focused on the evils of slavery. 'The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our country is, how bad slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been,' Trump wrote on his social media site. 'Nothing about success, nothing about brightness, nothing about the future.' Trump compared the push against the Smithsonian to his effort to force colleges and universities to bow to his policy goals including ending diversity programs, cracking down on student protests and curbing foreign students. 'I have instructed my attorneys to go through the museums, and start the exact same process that has been done with colleges and universities where tremendous progress has been made,' Trump added. The White House ordered up a wide-ranging review of the Smithsonian museums and exhibitions ahead of the country's 250th birthday, with a goal of aligning the institution's content with Trump's more-rosy interpretation of American history. In a letter sent Tuesday to Smithsonian Institution Secretary Lonnie Bunch III, the White House laid out in detail the steps it expects the organization to take as part of the announced review. The examination will look at all public-facing content, such as social media, exhibition text and educational materials, to 'assess tone, historical framing, and alignment with American ideals,' according to the letter. 'This initiative aims to ensure alignment with the President's directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions,' the letter said. The Smithsonian has said it's reviewing Trump's proposals and vowed to cooperate. It includes 21 museums, 14 education and research centers and a zoo and is considered the world's largest cultural organization of its kind.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump expands 50% tariff on steel and aluminum to 400 additional product types
The Department of Commerce announced that President Donald Trump's 50% tariff on imported steel and aluminum products has been expanded to cover more than 400 additional categories. The expanded tariff list, published Friday by U.S. Customs and Border Protection and entered into the Federal Register on Tuesday, took effect Monday. The new duties now apply to a wide range of goods, including auto parts, electric vehicle components, railcars, marine engines, construction equipment, wind turbines, cranes, chemicals, plastics, and household items such as refrigerators, freezers, dryers, and furniture components. 'Today's action expands the reach of the steel and aluminum tariffs and shuts down avenues for circumvention — supporting the continued revitalization of the American steel and aluminum industries,' Jeffrey Kessler, Commerce Department Secretary for Industry and Security, said in a news release. The move follows petitions from U.S. steelmakers, including Cleveland-Cliffs and Nucor, urging the administration to broaden import duties to cover more derivative products. Industry experts said the expansion marks a significant shift in how steel and aluminum imports are regulated. 'Auto parts, chemicals, plastics, furniture components — basically, if it's shiny, metallic, or remotely related to steel or aluminum, it's probably on the list,' Brian Baldwin, vice president of customs at Kuehne + Nagel International AG, wrote on LinkedIn. In 2024, the U.S. imported nearly $33 billion worth of steel and aluminum, according to SteelRadar. Canada remains the largest supplier, followed by Brazil and Mexico. The Mexican Institute for Competitiveness (IMCO) estimates the tariffs will affect 4.7% of Mexican exports to the U.S. 'Aluminum and steel are vital for the manufacture of products ranging from utensils to airplanes and railroad equipment,' IMCO researcher Isaac Cruz wrote earlier this year. 'U.S. manufacturers benefit from competitive prices that would be lost if tariffs were implemented; the same is true for American consumers and families.' Mexico has requested an exemption from the new tariffs. 'We're discussing the application of tariffs on steel products because they're stretching the boundaries and adding more things, and that could hurt us,' Marcelo Ebrard, Mexico's economy secretary, said on Saturday, according to Opportimes. 'But, at the end of the day, what do we want to achieve? A position (on tariffs) for Mexico that's better than any other country.' The post Trump expands 50% tariff on steel and aluminum to 400 additional product types appeared first on FreightWaves. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
