How can a judicious conclusion be reached about BPA that is void of political influence and fear? Politics and fear are the twin demons that obfuscate reality.
How many studies and hearings need to be conducted before a conclusion is reached? Assuming momentarily that a conclusion is reached that adds BPA to the Prop. 65 list, BPA proponents would ask: 'What then?'
Does California become the first step in a slippery slope that bans BPA nationwide? Would this mean cans that lasted months and, in some cases, years would have a shelf life going forward of only days?
If there is no cost-effective replacement, what would be the economic impact on society's most vulnerable. And how would one juxtapose the economic concerns for a low-income population with the potential health implications?
These are questions that must be addressed, but can only be done if science leads the way. The science, and not the political and economic interests of outside organizations, must decide an issue critical to the well being of all Californians."
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment