Oregon Democrat Earl Blumenauer asked colleagues today to sign a letter demanding that House leaders remove plastic foam products from the chamber's cafeterias.
Members and staffers used to eat their lunches in biodegradable containers with corn-based forks, spoons and knives. But when Republicans took over the House in January, they replaced it all with polystyrene foam and plastic. There wasn't much of an outcry: Staffers were tired of compostable utensils that warped in their soups and coffees.
But in a draft letter to House leaders, Blumenauer argues that the new plastic foam containers are putting House employees and visitors at risk. The International Association for Research on Cancer classifies styrene as a "potential human carcinogen," he wrote, and can cause "extensive health effects."
"The irresponsibility of the decision to use polystyrene foam without considering other options is all the more egregious because the cafeteria is not merely used by House members and our staffers," he wrote. "The health of constituents and visitors to the Hill who eat in the cafeteria will be impacted by this short-sighted decision."
So far, 26 Democrats have signed the letter, which will be sent to House leaders Friday. House Administration ranking member Robert Brady (D-Pa.) is "extremely supportive" of the effort and also plans to sign the letter, said spokesman Kyle Anderson.
The letter is Blumenauer's latest criticism of Republican plans to cancel the Green the Capitol initiative, which House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) launched when she became speaker in 2007. Last week, he issued a press release claiming that the program saved more than $5 million annually because of the diversion of landfill waste, the reduction of carbon dioxide and a decrease in electricity usage.
However, it is unclear how much energy-saving projects would suffer if Republicans cut the Green the Capitol program. Architect of the Capitol Stephen Ayers said at a Senate appropriations hearing last week that his office would continue with their energy initiatives regardless.
"If that program is discontinued, I think the immediate savings would be the staff that are focused on that that are funded by the chief administrative officer of the House," he said, later adding: "Most of the energy savings initiatives ... and ideas that come out of that office, we are the implementer of those and, ultimately, they help us meet our statutory energy reduction goals."
House Administration Chairman Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) announced the suspension of the House's composting program -- and the return of plastic foam -- in January, after a review found that the program was not environmentally or fiscally sustainable. Pulping the waste and then driving it to a composting facility meant that the annual reduction of carbon emissions was equivalent to taking one car off the road. And it was costing the House hundreds of thousands of dollars every year.
The program, Lungren said, was suspended "because it is costly and increases energy consumption." : Today, Lungren spokeswoman Salley Wood said the committee had an obligation to look into more cost-effective options. Long-term solutions might include reusable flatware, for example. In the meantime, Restaurant Associates -- the company that runs the cafeterias -- offered the plastic foam products for no additional cost.
But Blumenauer points out in his letter to House leadership that the cafeteria actually makes money. In 2010, Restaurant Associates generated about $879,000 in profits for the chamber's revolving fund. That fund is set aside for renovations and improvements to the cafeterias.
In past years, a large chunk of that money has gone back into the cafeterias to pay for greening efforts, such as biodegradable materials and local food. The practice came under fire in 2008, when then-Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-Mich.) questioned the transparency of such spending as ranking member of the House Administration Committee.
But in Blumenauer's opinion, that was money well spent.
"Any costs associated with composting or any of the other environmentally sound options were always meant to be offset by these profits," he wrote. "Those of us who are concerned about the health and safety of Members, staff and visitors feel that this is certainly a worthwhile use for these proceeds."
