mobunited: Go to their houses and check their water bottles and cookware. If they're like other environmental/bio researchers who've studied this, chances are you won't find a single clear bottle or teflon coated item anywhere. This at least is true for every single researcher in this field I know (and due to a quirk of fate I know several) no matter what the government line is.
three blind mice: Can you offer a citation for this?
To be clear, unless you have appropriate food safe apparatus and know what you are doing THIS IS A REALLY DUMB IDEA.
People have a right to get what they want from the companies that serve them whether it's irrational or not. That's how free markets are supposed to work. Industries shouldn't just get to haul out experts to tell consumers why they should be grateful to get what they get, and the government shouldn't be in the business of siding with those experts. If there's a popular demand for a ban on BP
If there's a popular demand for a ban on BPA, and there are alternatives for consumers that aren't more environmentally harmful, I don't think expert opinion should necessarily rule the day. Regulation (when it actually reflects the public will) is one of the mechanisms consumers use to express their preferences in the marketplace
What gets my goat is the arrogance of these producers, who insist they know better than their customer base
There's no default right to force a particular product on people
But consumers have every right to demand arbitrary, crazy things from industry
Ah, gee, then too bad there aren't any BPA-free epoxy resins on the market to give consumers what they want.
You can't choose not to buy something that's only sold on the producers markets and if the producers all make the same choice (because its competitively advantageous to them)
So are laws against benign recreational drugs like marijuana. So are involuntary homeowners associations and all sorts of other realities in life.
Perhaps BPA has been protecting food for the last 30 years, but would the average consumer think its effecting them if it occurs so slowly that we don't notice an immediate effect? Has anyone is the US heard of this so called obesity epidemic.... Could this epidemic correlate to the widespread use of BPA?
Besides, I'm not suggesting tryanny of the majority in all aspects of life. What I'm suggesting is that if there's a significant popular consensus about how some aspect of the production of a good should be done
Banning BPA offers nothing but benefit to consumers:
I suppose you think its irrational for consumers to want a ban on the whole pink slime meat bi-product thing, too, just because the slime is probably "safe"?
the whole pink slime meat bi-product thing -- Considering a recent Harvard study claims that eating all red meat is bad for you, I'm not sure why you're quibbling about a little hoof and ammonia gas.
But how is this particular case not a matter of a strong consumer preference that just really happens to inconvenience producers?
The BPA thing went so fast in Canada and Europe that by the time governments had done anything, the market had already shifted: bottle companies were desperate to advertise their BPA-free products, and sales of stainless steel water bottles exploded. The market "worked" regardless of the truth of the medical concerns. I think the USA is interesting in its fuck-you approach to consumer demand in that respect.
The federal government proposed declaring Bisphenol A a hazardous substance in October 2008 and has since placed it on its list of toxic substances. Health officials wrote in Canada Gazette that "It is concluded that bisphenol A be considered as a substance that may be entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health." The federal ministries of health and the environment announced they would seek to restrict imports, sales and advertising of polycarbonate baby bottles containing BPA.
No, the idea is a very clear and specific one, that I've elaborated quite clearly several times now: If a majority of consumers have a concern regarding some aspect of a pre-consumer producer market, the governments role should be to act on the behalf of consumers because consumer spending can't necessarily influence those markets
Curiously, I did find this just now while looking for some high-level info on conversion of different basic food constituents into fat. It does make the labeling of HFCS as "fat-free" kind of amusing.
Packaging is way out of control these days, chock full of nonsense terms like "hypoallergenic". Companies are currently greenwashing the everloving shit out of any product they think will benefit from it, with a bunch of legally vacuous terms: "farm fresh," "all natural," "ethically produced," etc... heck there's a whole category of chicken-specific bullshit labelling like "free roaming," "hormone-free" and "naturally-raised," all of which mean exactly nothing whatsoever. Now extrapolate out across the entire consumer market: there is so much of this shit it will make your head spin.
Bull. That's up to consumers only. The engineers work for them. And except in rare cases, the economy would benefit from the disruption.
If someone hadn't forced them to stop, CFC product manufacturers would have continued using CFCs in everything and we would have ended up with a hole in the ozone big enough to destroy the earth's capacity for carrying life.
No one is preventing anyone from coming up with an alternative. I'm sure if someone comes up with an alternative, puts it through the proper testing, and could guarantee its safety, they'd probably make a mint.
« Older Antipsychotics:... | Video: the Terrafugia Transiti... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt