Montana moves to ban styrofoam containers in food industry
A bill to ban polystyrene foam takeout containers has passed the Montana Legislature. (Getty images)
Senator Daniel Zolnikov brought one of life's biggest dilemmas to the Senate floor over the weekend: When you're microwaving leftovers, how do you determine the perfect amount of time needed to evenly heat your food?
Specifically, how long should you heat up your takeout pork carnitas in its styrofoam container?
'Is it a minute? A minute-and-a-half? The ultimate, ultimate microwave dilemma' Zolnikov asked. 'Better to do it a little longer than have it still be cold in the middle.'
However, that decision comes with increased risks
'But you microwaved it too long, and the styrofoam has had some small portions that now also melted.'
Zolnikov carried House Bill 477 through the Senate, a bill that would ban the use of styrofoam containers in the food industry within five years. He, and other proponents of the legislation, urged lawmakers to consider the known health risks of polystyrene foam, as well as the environmental concerns of using a material that doesn't break down easily.
But opponents in the Senate, and in prior House debates, decried the legislation as governmental overreach and asked for free-market solutions to handle the problem.
HB 477, introduced by Rep. Marilyn Marler, D-Missoula, provides for a phase out of expanded polystyrene foam — commonly called styrofoam — containers used to serve or package food from restaurants and food establishment, including coffee cups, plates, trays, and other food and drink carriers. The law would affect roughly 7,500 establishments in Montana, according to the bill's fiscal note.
The bill creates a three-step process for the phaseout beginning in 2028 with the use of styrofoam containers used to serve food consumed on site. The next year it expands to packaging prepared food, and in 2030 will apply to food packagers and include bakery items and other prepared food. The Department of Environmental Quality would be tasked with ensuring compliance with the rule and issuing fines.
House lawmakers passed the bill 56-44 in March, and the Senate on Saturday passed the bill 26-24.
In Zolnikov's microwave example, he asked lawmakers to contemplate a meal of pork carnitas, ordered as takeout from a favorite restaurant, a delicious dish that is hot, fatty and acidic.
Those three conditions enhance the leaching of chemicals into food, increasing the amount ingested, and contributing to the growing number of microplastics found in all human bodies, including newborn babies.
In addition, styrene and other chemicals found in food packaging have been linked to cancer, hormone disruption and other chronic health conditions.
'The thing is, consumers assume our food and food storage products are safe and healthy, and when we realize they aren't, we take action, or we're supposed to,' Zolnikov said.
The bill applies only to styrofoam in the food service industry — not its use in transportation, construction or health and safety industries. It also exempts 'raw, uncooked meat, fish, or eggs,' where styrofoam is often used as an insulator to keep those items cold, lowering the risk of chemical leaching.
Despite the health concerns — widely agreed on by lawmakers — several Senators opposed the bill for its overreach into people's lives.
'You should not be heating up food in your microwave in a styrofoam container, in a plastic container, on melamine plates, just about anything, except maybe glass. What you should be doing, if you're concerned about your health and your kids' health and your grandkids' health, heat it up in a frying pan. Not a frying pan with Teflon in it. A good old cast iron frying pan,' said Sen. Greg Hertz, R-Polson, adding that he felt such a law should be the role of the federal government. 'That's the problem with this bill. There are so many other products out there that are causing harm to our health … I don't like styrofoam either, but this isn't the answer.'
Eleven other states have passed similar statewide laws, as have numerous local governments.
Other opponents raised concerns that the bill might set a precedent to expand to other industries in the future, while proponents expounded on the environmental benefits.
'I've seen them floating in ponds or water. I've seen fish eating the particles that break up,' Sen. Shane Morigeau, D-Missoula said. '…You also will see birds picking up styrofoam, using it in nests and other places eating it as well. And so there's other things that styrofoam is actually impacting, not just on the food service side.'
The bill was amended in a Senate committee to extend the phase-out timeframe from five to 10 years, but the Senate body changed the bill back to its original form on the floor.
'If all those arguments aren't enough to get everybody to vote yes on this, I've got a few more,' said Sen. Bruce 'Butch' Gillespie, R-Ethbridge, who brought the amendment on the floor. He said that businesses in Montana could manufacture biodegradable packaging using sustainable sources such as hemp. 'Let this be the beginnings of a whole new industry for Montana here.'
HB 477 contains a process for a business to request a waiver if they can show undue hardship, such as finding no suitable alternatives for food packaging. A fiscal note for the bill also shows the state would fund a half-time employee to develop and oversee the exemption program.
'We have chemicals in our food, we have chemicals touching our food, we are being poisoned in more ways than we know,' Zolnikov said. 'This is an easy way to say if the feds aren't gonna do it, we're gonna do it. We're gonna phase it out.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

22 minutes ago
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools, churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey, alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision. Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.'


Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. States split on whether to aid or resist Trump Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools , churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey , alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision . Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Legislation supporting immigrants takes a variety of forms Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Many new measures reinforce existing policies Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.' ___ Associated Press writers Susan Haigh, Trân Nguyễn, Jesse Bedayn, John O'Connor and Brian Witte contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .


Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Two House Republicans issue megabill threats as Senate ponders changes - Live Updates
Two House Republicans drew firm red lines Friday on changes to the House GOP megabill, threatening to vote 'no' if the Senate made any changes whatsoever to key provisions. Rep. Nick LaLota of New York warned GOP senators against lowering the House's $40,000 cap on the state-and-local-tax deduction, while Rep. Chip Roy of Texas vowed to oppose any attempt to delay or otherwise water down the phaseout of clean-energy tax credits provided for in the House-passed megabill. 'If the Senate waters it down by a dollar, I'm a no,' LaLota posted on X, arguing that the SALT cap as it stands is 'unfair' to his constituents. Roy was equally strict about GOP senators' hesitations on quickly phasing out clean-energy tax credits signed into law under former President Joe Biden — even calling out skeptical Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) by name in a floor speech Friday. Tillis has been critical of the phaseouts, saying the House bill is 'void of any understanding of just how these supply chains work.' 'You backslide one inch on those IRA subsidies and I'm voting against this bill,' Roy said. 'Because those god-forsaken subsidies are killing our energy, killing our grid, making us weaker, destroying our landscape, undermining our freedom. I'm not going to have it.'