事實上, 世界上大概一半的化學物料﹐天然或人做的﹐都會被這班輕率的”San Francisco Board of Supervisors” 所從事的荒唐可笑的標準禁制。 BPA和其他化學物料的分別並不是太關乎科學上的理據﹐而是政治上的﹕BPA只是較倒霉吸引了環保組織Sierra Club 和綠色和平的注意﹐這班人就是這場制度廢除的幕後主腦。
BPA is used to make shatter-resistant polycarbonate plastic used in the manufacture of baby bottles, reusable food containers, helmets and sports safety equipment, all usable precisely because they are so durable. All of these things will now become slightly more difficult to acquire and at best slightly more expensive for customers as replacement production methods are sought.
BPA has been falsely accused of being a cancer risk in humans primarily because of a study in which large doses fed to female rats caused slight irregularities in their egg cells. There is no reason to believe that use of plastics made with the chemical will lead to ingestion of the vast quantities that might even be suspected to cause any similar effects in humans. And the instinctive fear that "the children" are orders of magnitude more vulnerable is largely fiction and supposition.
Literally about half the chemicals in the world, whether natural or manmade, would have to be banned under the ludicrous standards employed in the hasty ruling by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. The difference between BPA and all those other chemicals is not so much scientific as political: BPA has had the misfortune to draw the attention of groups like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, who have campaigned for its abolition.
發表於 
返回列表
