Expanded Polystyrene Food Service Products – Prohibition 2018

It is the 2018 session of the Maryland General Assembly and we are back again with a bill to ban expanded polystyrene foam food packaging statewide! We know a statewide ban is easier on businesses with locations in multiple jurisdictions and a more effective way to tackle foam litter across the state. Check out our factsheet and please share it widely with your community, legislators, and the businesses you frequent regularly. Let’s spread the word on why Maryland should lead the charge in banning expanded polystyrene foam food packaging and see this bill to the finish line! #FoamFreeMD #MDGA18

Polystyrene Foam Ban Factsheet

More Information:

Sign our petition and let your legislators know that you want a #FoamFreeMD!

Check out the National Aquarium Polystyrene Fact Sheet.

Are you a business owner interested in alternative packaging? Here’s a list of distributors of recyclable and compostable products. Curious about how this would work? Check out the FAQ from Prince George’s County.

Baltimore City Litter Audit Report Released

From September 2016-March 2017, five auditors walked through five neighborhoods in Baltimore surveying the litter levels of each block. Those five neighborhoods were Baltimore Highlands, Curtis Bay, Mondawmin, McElderry Park, and Waverly. Auditors surveyed the same blocks on the same day of each week at roughly the same time, and rated litter levels on a scale of 1-4. We chose this methodology because it is comparable to methodology used in Philadelphia and Washington, DC. We analyzed this data to pull out important themes and establish a baseline of litter levels for evaluation purposes of our Trash Free Baltimore campaign and city-wide measures. That data analysis has been finalized in a report and is now available to the public!

What is most important to note is that this project provides us useful information for understanding what impacts litter levels and what role our campaign work plays, and can be easily replicated in future years. We look forward to conducting this project again and seeing how far we have come! Please see it below.

Litter Audit Report

October 11, 2017

Statement of Karla Raettig, Board Chair, Trash Free Maryland on appointment of Julie Lawson by Mayor Muriel Bowser to Direct the Office of the Clean City

“The board of Trash Free Maryland is excited that Mayor Muriel Bowser appointed Julie Lawson to lead the Clean City program for Washington, D.C.  Julie is a nationally-recognized expert in trash and litter policy and has spearheaded legislation in Washington, D.C., Maryland and at the state and local level.  Julie was instrumental in creating Trash Free Maryland and we thank her for her leadership as our Executive Director.  We applaud the appointment, the mayor’s recognition of the importance of this issue, and look forward to working with Julie in her new role.

In the coming weeks, we will be conducting an Executive Director search to lead Trash Free Maryland’s important work to promote lasting change for the prevention of trash pollution.  We look forward to partnering with Mayor Bowser, Julie and the city on creating a cleaner, more vibrant Washington, D.C. and Maryland.”


Be a Trash Free Restaurant!

Plastic pollution is an increasingly complex problem with dangerous ramifications for the safety of drinking water, aquatic ecosystems, and public health. Twenty-three percent of plastic materials in landfills in the United States come from food containePaperContainer_smallrs and food packaging, and it makes up as much as 80 percent of the trash collected from the Anacostia River and Baltimore Harbor. Put another way, 269,000 tons of plastic pollution are from takeout orders with utensils like cups, plates, straws, and plastic silverware. Food businesses have a responsibility to reduce their contribution to plastic waste and, as technology evolves, it is becoming easier for them to do so. Here are some key statistics on plastic pollution and food businesses:

  • 7 out of 10 categories of plastic waste are single use-plastics like plates, straws, cups, and bags.
  • Plastic packaging is the fastest growing segment of packaging and less than 14 percent of it can be recycled.
  • Americans use more than 100 million pieces of plastic utensils every day and that plastic either lives forever in a landfill, burns in an incinerator, or ends up in the environment contaminating soil and wildlife.
  • Americans throw away 500 million plastic straws each day.
  • Companies waste about $11.4 billion annually in savings by not incorporating recycling into their packaging choices.
  • 150,000 pounds of garbage a year are produced by restaurants.
  • Foam breaks up into tiny pieces absorbing 10 times more pesticides, fertilizers, and chemicals than other kinds of plastic increasing toxin exposure to our marine life.
  • US EPA states 100% of Americans already have styrene in their bodies from consuming foods in contact with polystyrene.
  • Over 25 trillion plastic pieces are estimated to be in our ocean’s currently.

While these statistics are staggering, there is hope for food businesses looking to reduce their plastic footprint and lead the movement to decrease plastic pollution. A variety of guides, resources, and lists provide step-by-step tips to phasing out unnecessary single-use plastic and phasing in recyclable and compostable alternatives–that are becoming more cost-effective as more businesses convert. Tips and tools for food businesses to utilize in their quest for preventing plastic pollution include the following:

  • Identify the different streams of waste generated.
  • Assess the input and output of waste generated.
    • Use this baseline data to determine opportunities for waste reduction.
  • Assess and track usage of single-use plastics.
  • Identify which items are crucial and which can be phased out entirely.
  • Identify which products can come in reusable packaging.
    • Seek out products in containers the supplier can take back.
    • Seek out reusable serviceware.
  • Switch to bulk purchasing when applicable.
  • Create a “bring your own” container program.
  • Work with local community members and organizations to create incentives for businesses taking steps to decrease their plastic pollution.
  • Purchase recyclable and compostable service ware.
  • Buy chlorine-free products to avoid leaching of toxic water from the manufacturing of chlorine products.
  • Biodegradable and bio-based products can’t easily reach conditions that allow the product to break down so avoid these products.
  • Join TapIt and allow people to refill their reusable water bottles.
    • Phase out usage of bottled-water.
  • Ask customers before providing them with single-use plastics like straws.


Plastic pollution is a daunting issue, but as we continue to raise awareness and share resources, businesses play a unique role in combatting and reducing plastic pollution. Be a leader in your community and take steps today to reduce your plastic footprint!

Download this article as a tipsheet to share with restaurants in your community.

The damaging history of flushable wipes

So-called flushable disposable wipes have become a hot topic for many consumers, municipal services, and local governments. Despite them being marketed as “flushable,” these wipes do not sufficiently break down or dissolve after they have been flushed. Manufacturers continue to label wipes as flushable because a standard has not been defined within the United States, misleading consumers. In fact, flushable wipes cause serious damage to people’s personal plumbing in their homes and to citywide sewer systems, including blockages called “fatbergs.” Fatbergs are clogs formed from flushable wipes that haven’t broken down combined with oil, grease, and fat that get stuck in sewer systems and cause backups. In November 2016, employees of DC Water testified in front of the DC Council on the fatbergs caused by flushable wipes in DC’s sewer system; you can see detailed photos of fatbergs and read their testimony on the DC Water website.


Photo of fatbergs taken by DC Water. https://dcwater.com/whats-going-on/blog/unflushables

According to DC Water, damages to sewer systems from these wipes can cost the city $50,000 to $100,000 each time, adding up to $1 million in local repair costs in 2014. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) has stated that Canada spends $250 million annually on addressing issues stemming from flushable wipes within wastewater treatment plants. New York City’s Department of Environmental Protection estimates that it costs the city $3 million a year to clean these wipes out of the sewer systems.

Beyond wreaking havoc on sewer systems, these wipes release their plastic ingredients into the environment. Marine biologist Richard Thomas at the International Marine Litter Research Unit has discussed the similarities between these wipes and microplastics, claiming that they pollute marine life and habitat. The Marine Conservation Society (MCS) has also warned against the use of these wipes, and the flushing of these wipes, because of the way they break down into microplastics and show up in the stomachs of marine life.

In order to address the large discrepancy between the label on these wipes and their performance, the Washington, D.C. Council passed a bill in 2016 setting standards for flushable wipes and banning the use of that term on labeling if companies don’t meet these standards. The Maryland Senate passed a similar bill in 2017, though the House of Delegates declined to take action. The New York City Council also introduced a bill, with strong support from NYC Department of Environmental Protection, that had similar provisions. Unfortunately, the DC bill has faced significant pushback from industry, who claim that the standard they defined for flushable, is adequate. This industry pushback has gone so far as to involve Congress in DC’s implementation of their bill; Congressman Andy Harris (R-MD) briefly threatened to dismantle this bill through the appropriations process, ignoring DC Council’s autonomy in serving its residents.

With so many hurdles and setbacks these bills have encountered, cities and citizens are taking a different approach to standing up against industry’s false labeling. There have been discussions of class action suits against the companies marketing their wipes as flushable with citizens who have experienced plumbing problems and city agencies as the plaintiffs. Just last month a class action lawsuit was filed against Kimberly-Clark Corporation for property damage caused by their “Scott Naturals Flushable Cleansing Cloths” and for the mislabeling of their product. This lawsuit is in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Right here in Maryland we are exploring bypassing the legislative process to go straight to the culprit:

If you are a resident of Maryland and have experienced plumbing problems from flushable wipes, the Consumer Protection Division of the Maryland Attorney General’s Office wants to hear from you. Those complaints can be made here. Depending on the responses from residents, the Maryland Attorney General’s Office may be seeking a similar route with a class action lawsuit to more effectively combat the increasing problems caused by industry’s interference with regulating these wipes. You can make your voice heard and help fight back against these detrimental products.

Hogan rescinds zero waste goals

Recycling binOn Wednesday, June 28, Governor Hogan issued an executive order rescinding his predecessor Governor O’Malley’s executive order prohibiting new landfill permits and calling for an 85% diversion rate of trash in Maryland landfills by 2040 and a statewide 65% recycling rate by 2020. O’Malley’s executive order, issued in his final days in office, was grounded in stats that indicated residents of Maryland throw away more trash each year than any other place in the country. O’Malley also stated that this executive order would help reduce the burden trash places on taxpayers, greatly minimize litter, and conserve energy.

Hogan’s issued executive order completely repeals O’Malley’s zero waste executive order because, according to the Governor’s statements given to the Maryland Municipal League, Hogan felt O’Malley’s order placed an undue burden on local governments and stripped local authorities of their autonomy and control.

Wednesday’s announcement does not affect the bulk of the state’s comprehensive zero waste plan; the Maryland Department of the Environment continues its work on many of the 61 proposed initiatives. These initiatives, however, are voluntary; the teeth were in the recycling goals. Hogan’s announcement also insists that the state will maintain an emphasis on reducing, reusing, and recycling waste, but there has not been any further information released on those plans. According to MDE Secretary Ben Grumbles, the Governor’s new plan is about “changing the policy to be more collaborative” but “not changing the law,” as reported by the Baltimore Sun.

Hogan’s reckless executive order doesn’t adequately represent the concerns and needs of the Governor’s constituents. With Maryland on track to reach full capacity at its landfills in 31 years, this executive order is putting the residents of Maryland and the environment at risk. Recycling is a very popular constituent service and far cheaper than landfilling or incineration; rescinding those goals is counter to efforts many counties are already motivated to achieve. When more counties have high recycling rates, the systems become more streamlined, the materials become more valuable, and the whole state sees economic gains.

Recycling rates were at a standstill of 43% in Maryland before O’Malley issued his executive order, prompting ambitious long-term goals to increase those rates. These recycling rates will continue to be at a standstill without a clear plan to increase them. Furthermore, Governor Hogan’s claims that local governments felt burdened, justifying this executive order, are blatantly false. While county governments raised concerns in 2015 about the swift implementation of new landfill rules, state and local officials have been in negotiations together to meet the spirit of the O’Malley order. It is unclear who Hogan consulted when drafting the executive order or who he is trying to protect.

New Funding, New Opportunities

The board of Trash Free Maryland is thrilled to announce that TFMD co-founder and Executive Director Julie Lawson was selected for the Emerging Leaders Fund, a program of the Claneil Foundation to support innovative early-stage organizations.

The award includes significant unrestricted operating funding and access to a close-knit network of peers to support organizations as they grow. As the foundation explains, “recipient organizations are chosen based on their leader’s creative vision, leadership capacity, potential for impact, and commitment to innovation and learning in one of the following issue areas: education, hunger & nutrition/food system, health & human services, and the environment.”

“Julie’s passion and dedication have turned Trash Free Maryland into one of the leading environmental organizations in the state,” said board chair Karla Raettig. “The board is excited to see Julie’s work and leadership recognized in this way.”

[Julie here: Deep thanks to all of YOU for your support and energy over the past several years. I can’t wait to see what we can do now!]

For more information about the Claneil Foundation and the Emerging Leaders Fund, click here.

Win Jack Johnson tickets!

Singer-songwriter Jack Johnson has long been vocal about clean water, but since he joined The 5 Gyres Institute on the 2015 SEA Change Expedition to the North Atlantic Gyre, he has ramped up his activism. Earlier this year he released the film Smog of the Sea, chronicling his expedition and what he learned about plastic pollution.

And now he’s invited us at Trash Free Maryland to participate in his June 11 concert at Merriweather Post Pavilion! We’re thrilled for the opportunity to talk to his fans, but even more grateful for his generosity:

This summer, Jack’s Ohana Foundation is matching all donations to Trash Free Maryland, up to $2500. Can you help us meet this challenge? Your gifts will go twice as far to help us change behavior in Baltimore, show people how to sample for microplastics, and pass laws to reduce the use of single-use plastics.

And if you give in May, you’ll be entered to win a pair of tickets to his show! We’ll randomly select a name on June 1.

Click here to make a donation online. Thank you for your support!

The most toxic food packaging


We need your help to reduce plastic pollution in Maryland!

This winter, the Maryland General Assembly is considering a proposal to phase out polystyrene foam food packaging. These are the cups, plates, and clamshells you may see when you get takeout, or that you buy for picnics. They are a big problem in our waterways, as they break into tiny pieces, making them hard to pick up but also easy for fish to mistake for food. You can read a whole lot more about it here.

What can you do to help? Call your legislators, right now. Just type in your address and get a list of your legislators with a handy script, tailored to the legislator. Make four calls and let us know how they went. Many thanks to Surfrider Foundation’s DC Chapter for the awesome tool!

Is the Montgomery County bag law working?

There’s been a lot of chatter lately the Montgomery County disposable bag law, questioning whether the current model is actually reducing litter or just raising money for county coffers.

As background, the Montgomery County law (effective 2012) is fairly similar to the one in DC (effective 2010)–both require stores to charge five cents for plastic or paper shopping bags at the point of sale, and remit most of the fee to the local government for environmental improvement projects.

DC did extensive research in 2012 and 2013 on the effectiveness of their law, demonstrating that residents were using 60 percent fewer bags than before the law, and that stores were giving out 50 percent fewer bags. The research also showed that the law was extremely popular with both residents and store owners; only 16 percent of residents and 8 percent of retailers opposed it.

Data from volunteer stream cleanups in DC have shown a 72 percent decrease in the number of bags removed from streams, parks, and other cleanup sites since the laws took effect. Montgomery County reductions are similar. These reductions haven’t emerged in any other jurisdiction in the region, so it’s likely the bag laws have created this effect.

Montgomery County hasn’t done any research on the effectiveness of their law, and councilmembers perceive public opinion to be low. The problem is, policymakers usually only hear from people with complaints; if you’re happy with the status quo, do you feel motivated to call and tell someone that? Probably not.

The County law also suffered a public relations setback early on, when revenues came back much higher than expected. We identified the reason why–the estimates were based on a faulty calculation of how many bags residents were using before the law took effect. You can read all the details about that here.

Revenue isn’t an accurate measure of the law’s effectiveness anyway. In 5 years, more businesses have opened. New residents have moved to the county. And it’s likely that more businesses are correctly reporting their fee collections now. Of course revenues would go up.

There are three key differences between the DC and Montgomery laws, though, that could be holding it back:

  • The DC law only applies in stores that sell food, while the Montgomery law applies in all stores. The laws are intended to spur behavior change, and people are more familiar with the idea of bringing reusable bags to grocery stores than they are with taking them to the mall. It doesn’t mean it can’t happen, but that particular behavior change needs a lot more educational support than it has received. We successfully defeated an effort to scale back the scope of the law in 2013.
  • Fees collected in DC go into a specific fund, the Anacostia River Cleanup and Protection Fund. Funds are directed to programs to reduce and remove trash in the Anacostia River as well as programs to support the river’s restoration. The program got some bad press a couple of years ago when a reporter couldn’t see how field trips to teach kids about the environment connected to long-term environmental protection, but in general we know that the public prefers knowing exactly where their funds are being spent.
    The Montgomery County funds, on the other hand, go into a much larger pot of money, mostly derived from stormwater utility fees. The Water Quality Improvement Fund fulfills the mission of the stormwater fee, paying for rain gardens, pervious pavers, green streets, and other construction projects to reduce polluted runoff into all of the county’s waters. It’s a whole lot harder for residents to see how their bag fees are directly reducing trash pollution. (It doesn’t help that it gets some of the negative connotation of the “rain tax.”)
  • Finally, DC does extensive outreach and enforcement of the law. District government gives out thousands of free reusable bags, many touting the results of the law. A team of inspectors visits businesses regularly and issues warnings and even citations. Montgomery County has been significantly less proactive with enforcement, preferring a complaint-based approach. They also devote a lot less resources to the outreach effort (though they had this awesome holiday video). They reinvested in the program last summer, and began more proactive enforcement, with the plan of conducting an evaluation of the program in Summer 2017, after a year of the new approach.

For that reason, it is still premature to declare the law a failure. It is demonstrably reducing litter in streams, but it could have much more public support if residents and businesses felt it was being implemented fairly and effectively.

Would an outright ban be better? Takoma Park just did it, and we advocated for a statewide ban in Maryland in 2015 and 2016. It could be, and if the Montgomery County Council prefers to try that approach, we are ready and able to help. Both models have their benefits, but the Council shouldn’t presume the fee is a failure when their only metrics are squeaky wheels and irregular revenue.