Many restaurants that use foam are considered small businesses, and they rely on the convenience, thermal insulation and high level of hygiene provided by foam food packaging to provide customers with high-quality food. From an economic perspective, bubbles are often the most cost-effective option for small business owners.

The bubble ban has had a serious impact on the restaurant industry. Many restaurants operate at meager profit margins. Foam products help keep restaurant owners and their consumers' costs low. The foam ban forced them to replace their effective foam products with expensive alternatives, which was disastrous for them.



The Foam industry provides thousands of jobs every year and saves millions of dollars for schools, businesses, government agencies, and consumers. It can be said that the Foam ban is to trade the economy for the environment.

Developed countries may be able to bear these economic losses, but for some developing countries, such as Malaysia, foam recycling is a more appropriate choice than foam bans.

The foam recycling project requires only a foam densifier M-C50. After the foam waste is put into the hopper mouth of the recycling machine, the built-in cutter first crushes it into foam, then extrudes the air content of the foam through the hot-melt screw, and finally produces a foam ingot with a compression ratio of 90: 1.



Foam ingot is similar to solid brick. It is a hard plastic, also called recycled plastic. Foam recycling is not only able to effectively prevent foam from polluting the environment, but also to generate revenue. Some end markets purchase large quantities of recycled plastics as raw materials for their products, which means that foam ingot can be sold as a commodity.



Both the foam ban and foam recycling can effectively prevent foam pollution. We are opposed to the abuse of the foam ban and the damage to the interests of small business owners. If economic and environmental considerations can be taken into consideration, why not choose foam recycling?