Hawaii was almost the first in the nation to pass a statewide polystyrene food container ban. Was this failed initiative a victim of fake news? A campaign of misinformation has infiltrated every corner of our lives. Fake news is not restricted to national politics. Hawaii residents must be vigilant in their consumption of information on state and local issues, especially during the legislative session. The proposed ban on polystyrene (commonly called Styrofoam) food containers was an issue ripe for fake news.

Polystyrene food containers are ubiquitous in Hawaii, used for everything from plate lunches to family gatherings. You have likely heard that discarded polystyrene containers end up in the ocean, where seabirds mistake them for food, filling their stomachs with plastic. Polystyrene breaks down into tiny pieces, eventually digested by fish and winding up in the human food chain. You also may have heard this ban will destroy small businesses forced to switch to more expensive, alternative containers. How do you know what to believe?

I first became aware of the potential for “fake news” regarding polystyrene last year, leading up to the Hawaii County ban. I came across pro-ban websites like Styrophobia.com which made a strong case for the ban, however, the anti-ban site Hawaii.GoFoam.org presented equally persuasive arguments against the ban. What surprised me was how rarely these arguments were supported with hard evidence from scientific studies or published reports. I was suspicious of this lack of evidence so I decided to become my own fact-checker.

First, I conducted a Google search (“Styrofoam ban Hawaii”) to generate a list of websites and articles in support and in opposition to the ban. I researched each argument using published reports and scientific papers to determine the credibility of the claims.

Next, I scored each argument on a range of truthfulness (true, mostly true, half true, mostly false, false, pants on fire). This range was based on the “truth-o-meter” approach created by the fact-checking website Politifact.com. I researched 36 arguments (23 opposing ban; 13 supporting ban) and read over 40 articles and reports to determine the accuracy of each claim.

The results? Many (60 percent) of the arguments opposing the polystyrene ban tended to be half-true and mostly false. An example of a “half-true” anti-ban argument was that alternatives to polystyrene food containers were expensive and would unfairly burden small businesses. While it was true that polystyrene food ware alternatives were more expensive per unit (5 cents to 20 cents), these costs can be passed on to the consumer. A 2011 Honolulu study found that 81 percent of residents surveyed would pay more for alternative food containers and supported a shift away from polystyrene. In fact, a report on the effect of a polystyrene food container ban in the San Jose, Calif., area found that no businesses failed as result of the ban.

Through this exercise, I developed an informed opinion on the polystyrene ban and learned how to become my own fact checker. Most importantly, I learned that if you really care about an issue, you must do your own research, check your sources, move outside your social media circles and make decisions based on the best information you can get. What is your opinion on the polystyrene ban? Where do you get most of your information about the ban?

Whether you are a supporter or an opponent of the ban or on the fence, I challenge you to to do your own research, be critical of the sources of your information, and become your own fact checker.

Colleen Cole is the Three Mountain Alliance watershed partnership coordinator based on Hawaii island. She completed this project as a part of her graduate work with Project Dragonfly at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio.