This article was written for the Star Tribune by Matthew Perrone. In this article two sides of the case for BPA in food containers were presented. I think that it is interesting to see the argument styles and techniques they are employing to persuade the audience, rather then analyze the author in this case.
The FDA has rejected a petition from environmentalists that would have banned BPA from all food and drink packaging. Their argument was that 'petitioners did not present compelling scientific evidence to justify new restrictions on the much-debated chemical.' I thought that this was a typical response given by those in power. This is meant to assure the public that there is not enough scientific evidence and they should not worry. I think that it is interesting that they do not actually define what enough would be, so its totally up to then as to when it would be enough evidence to call for removal. They also stated that the finding found in animal test subjects cannot be applied to humans. That lead me to wonder, why do they even test the animals if it would be no indication of what it would do to humans? They say that the studies were too small to be conclusive, but again this is vague. How large were they, and how large would they need to be? They also state that some involved injecting BPA into animals, whereas humans ingest the chemical through their diet over longer periods of time. They do no clarify how much they are injecting? Small amounts injected would be equivalent to small amounts ingested. "While evidence from some studies have raised questions as to whether BPA may be associated with a variety of health effects, there remain serious questions about these studies, particularly as they relate to humans," the agency said in its response.
- Alex Mountain