Why It Matters
The EPS Industry Alliance wants to beat back the Farewell to Foam Act, which would eliminate its core products by 2028. The federal ban follows documented evidence that expanded polystyrene foam products fail recycling targets and fragment into harmful microplastics. State precedent is damning: California’s 2025 ban followed the industry’s failure to meet a 25 percent recycling rate, and 12 states now restrict EPS products.
The industry’s survival strategy involves rebranding as part of the circular economy solution by leveraging bipartisan interest in recycling infrastructure through bills like the CIRCLE Act, which proposes a 30 percent tax credit for recycling property.
By the Numbers
The EPS Industry Alliance spent $50,000 in in the last quarter 2025 through Squire Patton Boggs, maintaining consistent quarterly spending since March 2021. Over five years, the organization has filed 22 disclosures totaling $1,140,000 in lobbying expenditures.
The alliance’s lobbying divides into two areas: environmental and recycling policy (43 of 47 issue instances) and opposition to virgin plastic excise taxes. All advocacy work flows through Squire Patton Boggs, with no internal lobbying staff identified.
The Agenda
EPSIA is waging a two-front legislative battle. Defensively, it opposes the Farewell to Foam Act. Offensively, it’s lobbying to shape federal recycling policy—supporting infrastructure investment bills like the CIRCLE Act and STEWARD Act, which would fund recycling accessibility in underserved communities.
This dual strategy reflects an industry confronting simultaneous threat and opportunity—positioning itself as part of circular economy solutions rather than persistent pollution.
Broader Context
Congress is reshaping federal plastics policy as state foam bans accelerate. California’s January 2025 ban established regulatory precedent for federal action, while twelve states have enacted polystyrene restrictions.
The EPA’s National Strategy explicitly recommends reducing single-use, unrecyclable products, while seven states have enacted Extended Producer Responsibility laws. Health concerns mount as polystyrene breaks into microplastics and styrene is labeled a possible carcinogen.
However, Congress is pursuing bipartisan recycling infrastructure investments, creating potential pathways for EPS industry repositioning.
Between The Lines
The bicameral Farewell to Foam Act poses the greatest threat, with Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) and Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) framing EPS as difficult-to-recycle pollution.
Bipartisan infrastructure opportunities include the CIRCLE Act’s 30 percent investment tax credit and the Recycling and Composting Accountability Act directing EPA recycling strategies. House Energy and Commerce Committee hearings "Beyond the Blue Bin" examined recycling innovation, while the Congressional Recycling Caucus relaunched as a bipartisan platform.
Republicans including Rep. Burgess Owens (R-UT) counter with messaging emphasizing domestic manufacturing and local jobs.
Competitive Landscape
The Plastics Industry Association lobbies as an ally on recycling infrastructure and advanced recycling promotion. However, the Paper Recycling Coalition represents direct competition—actively lobbying on the Farewell to Foam Act, likely supporting the ban to eliminate EPS as a competitor and benefit paper-based packaging alternatives.
The Bottom Line
EPSIA’s $50,000 fourth quarter investment navigates a landscape of existential threats and strategic opportunities. While the Farewell to Foam Act poses direct assault on EPS products, emerging federal recycling infrastructure offers repositioning potential. Congressional hearings reveal sharp partisan divides—Democrats backing environmental bans while Republicans emphasize manufacturing jobs. The industry’s $1.14 million lobbying investment since 2021 reflects these high stakes in a crowded advocacy space where competitors actively support elimination of EPS products.
Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.
Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article