We refer to the Malaysiakini report Public should impose ban on polystyrene containers .

The Malaysian Plastics Forum (MPF) which comprises the Malaysian Plastics Manufacturers Association (MPMA) and Malaysian Petrochemicals Association-Plastic Resins Producers Group (MPA-PRPG) refers to the suggestion by the Consumers Association of Penang (CAP) for a ban on the use of polystyrene.

MPF would like to state that it had addressed yet a similar claim by CAP on polystyrene (PS) and the same was published in the media. The health ministry had also, independently, released its response affirming that to date, no regulatory health organisation has classified styrene as a carcinogen.

MPF is of the opinion that if CAP is intent on a ban, it should only do so only after an exhaustive review that complies with the policy guidelines of the health ministry, being the authoritative body in the area of safety and human health.

Also, it is worthy to note that a substantial amount of money has been spent into research of PS to accommodate food packaging needs. Similarly, a lot of money has also gone into research to prove that PS packaging is safe if used as intended.

Scientifically, there have been no major developments on the issue of PS concerning substances that can migrate or transfer to food.

The US Plastics Food Service Packaging Group that works closely with the US Styrene Information and Research Centre (SIRC), in a report, confirms that PS meets stringent US FDA standards for use in food contact packaging and is safe for consumers.

Health organisations, in fact, encourage the use of single-use food service products, including PS, because they provide increased food safety and hygiene.

The Japan Hygienic Olefin and Styrene Plastics Association (JHOSPA) confirms that PS resins can be safely used as components of articles intended for use in contact with food. In addition, the PS foam box is safe and has been certified under the Malaysian Food Act 1983 (Act 281) and Regulations by Sirim QAS International Sdn Bhd.

On claims that styrene can be classified as a Group 2B carcinogen, the US FDA has seen no evidence of the same.

Furthermore, based on a recent study done in Europe, PS was found to be safe for the human health and does not pose any risk associated to exposure to carcinogens such as benzene to the final user.

Whilst CAP and other organisations may have well-meaning intentions to comment on such matters, we are of the considered view that it is equally important that CAP rely on reports and opinions from established regulatory authorities such as the FDA, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) etc.

This is due to the fact that countless reports are released annually by various research parties, many of which are not yet peer reviewed and these reports may have opinions that reflect the views of the respective researchers only.

The FDA, on the other hand, takes a non-partisan approach and has a huge database of reports and research information for them to form an independent and unbiased opinion in discharging their duties and responsibilities as a regulatory body.

MPF reiterates, as it had done many times before, that its does not believe that banning PS would be an answer towards solving the country’s environmental issues. It has to be perceived that until today, PS foam products, such as Styrofoam cups for hot and cold beverages and plates are extensively used in the US.

Furthermore, styrene as a petroleum by-product is the primary raw material for PS and is a naturally occurring substance that is present in many foods including wheat, strawberries, peanuts, etc.

In the event a community decides to ban PS products and individuals and businesses concerned switch to other disposable products such as glass, aluminum and wax-covered cardboard, the amount of litter will still not change, only its composition will. This is why bans are overly simplistic and do not get to the real cause of the problem.

In determining which materials to use as alternative for food packaging use, it is important to objectively weigh the integrated pros and cons of costs (ie, adverse inflationary effects) and the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) impact on the environment.

An LCA report and its findings can be used to demonstrate that an environmental impact analysis needs to take into account the entire picture and when dealing with a product that is likely to be replaced by another, the trade-offs in environmental impact of the replaced alternative should also be given a critical analysis.

In this regard, issuing press statements every time a report is released by any research party that has not yet been confirmed by bodies such as the US FDA will only lead to undue fear and concern that are not in the interest of the general public.

On the basis of the above, consumers can be assured that the use of PS in food packaging is both environmentally sound and medically safe.

The writer is chairperson, Malaysian Plastics Forum .