Title: BPA and Human Health Effects
Author: Elizabeth Grassman
This article is about the debate of whether or not BPA is harmful to the human body. This debate determines if the EPA and FDA regulate BPA in consumer products like canned foods. The toxicologists say that BPA isn't harming the human body. On the other side, is the is the biologists who say that what's been detected in people is comparable to amounts that have harmed lab animals. Justin Teeguarden produced modeling studies that cast doubt on BPA having any effect. Teeguarden's argument is that the biologists are using exposure levels much higher than measured in most human blood samples. Nevertheless, the potential for human effects has been highly controversial among scientists who are debating whether the amounts in people’s bodies are in fact too low to be capable of inflicting harm.
It interesting to me because it shows that scientists don't always agree with each other. The biologist side means that I think that BPA is harmful to the human body. I would not want to take chances with BPA in my food. Knowing that my food contains BPA makes me not want to eat the food, in fear of being poisoned. With the regulation of BPA by the EPA and the FDA, I would feel safe eating the food I eat. I would like to know the truth on whether or not some of the things in our food is toxic or not, so I would know what to buy and what not to buy.
Finding the truth could settle the debate and will save lives from the harm of BPA if it is regulated. I think that if they can find the truth, they can also work together to find if other chemicals are harmful to the human body or not. This article is significant because it isn't one-sided. It presents both sides of the article. The author doesn't present his opinion and doesn't have an argument for each side either.
Author: Elizabeth Grassman
This article is about the debate of whether or not BPA is harmful to the human body. This debate determines if the EPA and FDA regulate BPA in consumer products like canned foods. The toxicologists say that BPA isn't harming the human body. On the other side, is the is the biologists who say that what's been detected in people is comparable to amounts that have harmed lab animals. Justin Teeguarden produced modeling studies that cast doubt on BPA having any effect. Teeguarden's argument is that the biologists are using exposure levels much higher than measured in most human blood samples. Nevertheless, the potential for human effects has been highly controversial among scientists who are debating whether the amounts in people’s bodies are in fact too low to be capable of inflicting harm.
It interesting to me because it shows that scientists don't always agree with each other. The biologist side means that I think that BPA is harmful to the human body. I would not want to take chances with BPA in my food. Knowing that my food contains BPA makes me not want to eat the food, in fear of being poisoned. With the regulation of BPA by the EPA and the FDA, I would feel safe eating the food I eat. I would like to know the truth on whether or not some of the things in our food is toxic or not, so I would know what to buy and what not to buy.
Finding the truth could settle the debate and will save lives from the harm of BPA if it is regulated. I think that if they can find the truth, they can also work together to find if other chemicals are harmful to the human body or not. This article is significant because it isn't one-sided. It presents both sides of the article. The author doesn't present his opinion and doesn't have an argument for each side either.