The discussion currently is whether or not to ban it – annual revenue for the chemical industry from BPA is $6 billion (http://www.newsreview.com/chico/feds-nix-bpa-ban/content?oid=5699966). Think of the jobs. Just cause it makes money . . . actually the U.S. Food and Drug Administration says that their own research into the possible hazards of the chemical are incomplete (http://www.kansascity.com/2012/04/09/3544209/what-now-for-bisphenol-a.html). The Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, says that the FDA must be able to say that it is safe before okaying the chemical’s use. That sounds good to me – and since the FDA is still researching the matter and there are links to adverse health effects a ban sounds legitimate. But a $6 billion dollar a year industry put on hold just like that? How was it okayed to start with?
Just a basic, non-scientific, observation on my own part: no matter how much of a bad thing, it is still bad. Does it just fool our bodies, coming in small doses? Does it sort of slip by unnoticed. I don’t know the biology of it but just the concept, a tiny amount of a bad substance has to be bad and I don’t want it in my body. And not to lump all of industry together but there are previous cases where what is deemed acceptable initially turns out to be bad. Think of fen-phen. You just need one example of this failure to be enough to raise a flag of caution.
I don’t know how long long-range studies last. But that seems to be another failure, where chemicals analyzed seem okay initially but after long-term interaction with the human body negative impacts become apparent. Fen-phen is an example in that regard. In general this has been the case, even outside the realm of food safety. Just thinking down the road a bit.
Thinking of the long-term is where BPA can become metaphor. How else? A cabal of producers make sure debate isn’t even started when controversy could impact their business. Not that public debate has to be compiled with scientific data to see if a substance should be okayed for public consumption. But just the fact that a controversy is raised is a good sign that debate is needed. Just to clear the air. If you don’t have anything to hide then you have nothing to worry about – how I hate that concept when it comes to loyalty oaths and police searches. No individual should have to explain their decisions if they do not impact others.
But BPA could impact others. They should be transparent. Obvious sci-fi analogue: What is in Soylent Green? “Taking conspiracy too far” comment: The chemicals in BPA impair our capability of making informed decision. That last one could be from the chemical and from the public relations of the companies producing it.
