2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

it seems to me that if we are to be asked to vote for a ban on something proported to be unsafe, the most important ingredient in our decision should be evidence of its danger. other than the FDAs somewhat weak concern, what is the scientific evidence for its toxicity, and how good is that evidence?

next, i would want to know the cost, if any, of banning BPA. if the cost is next to nothing, ie there is a readily available economically equivalent alternative, even a very weak concern may warrent its ban; but if there is a real cost to the alternative, we should require fairly robust evidence.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context