Congress bans foam takeout containers, shifting $billions to alternative packaging.
H.R. 1918 — Farewell to Foam Act of 2025 · Filed by Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) · 86 cosponsors · Introduced Mar 6, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill bans the sale and distribution of expanded polystyrene (foam) food service containers, loose-fill packing material, and coolers starting January 1, 2028. Food service providers, manufacturers, distributors, and retailers are prohibited from selling or offering these products. Violators receive a written warning for the first offense; subsequent violations incur civil penalties ranging from $250 to $1,000, with small businesses (under $1M–$5M annual revenue) protected from penalties more than once per week.
Why we flagged it
The bill's core mechanism is a straightforward prohibition on a specific material class (expanded polystyrene) in three product categories, enforced by the EPA with graduated civil penalties. This is classic environmental regulation, not a tax measure, subsidy, or deregulation.
What the text implies
- The January 1, 2028 effective date gives manufacturers and retailers ~3 years to transition supply chains and retool production, but may create a sudden surge in alternative-material demand that could strain suppliers and temporarily raise prices for compliant packaging.
- Medical device and pharmaceutical coolers are explicitly exempted, creating a potential loophole: companies could reclassify foam coolers as medical-adjacent to avoid the ban, though the EPA retains regulatory authority to police such misclassification.
- State enforcement delegation (Section 4) may create inconsistent enforcement across jurisdictions if states adopt different penalty schedules or interpretations of 'covered polystyrene foam ware,' potentially disadvantaging national retailers.
- The bill does not mandate or subsidize development of alternative materials or recycling infrastructure, leaving market forces to drive substitution; this may disadvantage smaller food service providers who lack economies of scale to absorb higher packaging costs.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
Ordinary citizens benefit from reduced plastic waste in landfills and oceans, lower environmental cleanup costs borne by taxpayers, and reduced exposure to non-recyclable foam litter. The ban is straightforward and applies uniformly; small businesses receive penalty relief. The primary cost—slightly higher prices for alternative food packaging—is modest and diffuse across the economy.
Who stands to gain
- manufacturers of alternative food service packaging (paper, cardboard, compostable plastics, molded
- waste management and recycling companies (reduced foam disposal burden)
- environmental remediation contractors
Named in the bill
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), food service providers, manufacturers, distributors, retailers, expanded polystyrene (EPS) producers, alternative packaging manufacturers
Where it stands
86 cosponsors: 86 Democrats.
- Mar 6, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Mar 6, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
9 lobbying clients named this bill on 11 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $942,920 in lobbying spend. A filing names 8 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.
More lobbying clients named this bill than 89% of bills with at least one filing.
Lloyd Doggett, the sponsor, reported $142,750 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- Ocean Conservancy — $403,000 on 2 filings
- Oceana Inc — $280,000 on 1 filing
- Paper Recycling Coalition — $120,000 on 2 filings
- Pratt Industries (usa), Inc. — $61,032 on 1 filing
- Graphic Packaging International — $39,727 on 1 filing
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 17, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (6,178 characters) on Aug 17, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 17, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Congress bans foam takeout containers, shifting $billions to alternative packaging.” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr1918 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.