EPA ban on ‘Takeaway Packs’: Good move, but long overdue and not enough

Styrofoam, known as expanded polystyrene foam, is a prevalent choice for food packaging in Ghana due to its affordability, ease of handling, and high insulation ability.

Locally referred to as a takeaway pack, it is used as a primary package in grocery stores for fresh fruits, vegetables, meat and seafood; and in eateries for all sorts of ready-to-eat foods. However, Styrofoam food packaging has been linked to leaching harmful chemicals into hot foods, oily foods and alcohol. The main chemical of concern is styrene, which is reported to pose carcinogenic risks to humans.

Other concerns about the use of this material are its non-biodegradable nature: it persists in the environment, contributing to pollution and harming ecosystems. Consequently, 75 countries (i.e. About 40% of the total number of countries in the world), including Ireland and England in 2023, have banned Styrene usage in food packaging materials. These issues fundamentally underscore the health and environmental concerns associated with styrofoam.

Ghana’s ecosystem goes beyond public health concerns; it is also more of a pollution, sanitation, and environmental risk. The decision by the EPA of Ghana to ban styrofoam products has the propensity to yield massive environmental and health benefits because it is going to help reduce plastic pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. There will be reductions in ocean plastic, marine life entanglement, and microplastic ingestion. Urban flooding and clogged drainage systems caused by improperly disposed waste will be reduced. Ghanaians’ exposure to toxic emissions from plastic incineration and the chemical breakdown of fossil-fuel-based polymers. Will reduce.

These environmental benefits may also be simultaneously associated with high costs for businesses needing to redesign packaging, update supply chains, and invest in circular system alternatives. Potentially also, there may be drops in labour income and government tax revenues, particularly in the importation, manufacturing and the entire supply up to the final consumer. This is also because, in Ghana, the plastic industry plays a vital socioeconomic role. The intervention may also result in higher costs for consumers, because sustainable alternatives such as biodegradable plastics, durable cloth, or paper are likely to be very expensive to produce and purchase compared to the Styrofoam products.

These socio-economic risks associated with the bans are likely to affect the effectiveness of the ban if robust regulatory enforcement is not upheld. Bans can struggle without robust government oversight, which can lead to thriving black markets and illegal imports and production if public buy-in and communication are weak. However, the government need to appreciate these setbacks by effectively engaging the consuming public, the key actors involved in the supply chain, producers, and importers.

The government’s engagement should not be overly premised on communicating the environmental risk-based justification for the ban. Instead, a rigorous cost-benefit analytical approach is needed, and I strongly believe that the early communication of this ban, which will afford consumers, the regulators, producers, and the various actors enough time to prepare, change, invest, diversify and ultimately respond positively to the new directive when the stipulated date matures. While I harbour some fear that another push back may arise, especially judging from the fact that the president of the republic expressed this intention in May 2025, I continue to hope that the government remain resilient.

With about six months to effect the directive, the EPA timeline will help buy time to manage the economic and political costs while locking in long-term gains. Indeed, the status quo is already costly because plastic pollution is not free. Ghanaians spend heavily on drainage clearing, flood response, and public health burdens from choked gutters and contaminated water. Flooding in Accra and many communities in Ghana are often linked to plastic-clogged drains, and it is costing lives, destroying properties and many others. A 2027 ban lets the government frame action as fiscal responsibility: Ghanaians who may therefore wish to oppose this initiative must rather think of paying now for alternatives, or keep paying more for floods, lives, properties, all the time.

While short-term job losses and a reduction in revenue may occur, the current proposal schedule allows for the transition of funds and labour into other sectors and alternatives. This is because the ban will also provide greater incentives for local alternatives, such as investment in paper, cassava-based, and reusable packaging firms, so Ghanaian companies, not foreign imports, capture the market. This will turn the job losses into job shifts. The AU and ECOWAS are moving toward regional standards. Ghana, therefore, risks being a dumping ground for cheap plastics if it lags. This ban will therefore position Ghana as a leader in West Africa, attracting climate finance, green investment, and export opportunities for biodegradable products.

It is important for Ghanaians to appreciate that this intended ban is not just an environmental action; it is also an industrial upgrade, and not a punishment. We must see it as a Plastic Transition into greater sustainability. It is therefore my hope that the government does not relax on its efforts to transition into an economy free of single-use plastics. It must be a phased roll-out and extend to other products, including thin polythene, sachet water packs and beyond. This must not be beyond us. Rwanda, Kenya, Zimbabwe, and recently Lagos are already living without these products, and so can we.

المصدر: MyJoyOnline (GH)