BPA Argumentative Essay

Plastic is used in everything from food containers, to shoe soles, plastic bottles, baby bottles, sippy cups, medical devices, dental sealants, water bottles, specific hard plastics, and reusable water bottles. Additionally, inside these packaged items is a synthetic compound lining that has been used to reinforce these plastics and cans for more than 40 years (Shaw).
The packaged plastic that contains newly manufactured items and goods are expected to be safe, sterilized, and reliable enough to hold the contents inside (Kinnon). However, no matter how robust and sanitary these plastics are deemed, there has been a growing debate for advocacy groups on both sides of the issue when it comes to consumer health and purchasing canned goods and

plastic containers that contain the chemical (BPA) Bisphenol-a (Bardelline).
In 1891 a Russian chemist Aleksandr Dianin first discovered a chemical known as BPA. This chemist continued to synthesize BPA in a laboratory (Rogers). Meanwhile, a British chemist Charles Edward Dodds identified a synthetic estrogen relative to BPA. The Chemical findings and studies on BPA have dated back centuries with chemists and scientists documenting the chemical uses and noting all findings of their studies. In 1953 Dr. Hermann Schnell with Bayer Company invented polycarbonate Resin only one week before another chemist Dr. Daniel Fox, with the GE Company, had made the same discovery while he worked on developing new wire insulation (Rogers).
Over the years more studies were conducted all over the world. Dr. David Feldman of Stanford University was conducting an unrelated experiment in his laboratory. Soon, Dr. Feldman realized he came across the same chemical as earlier chemists before him. He found that BPA had transferred from his PC test tubes into a test sample. Dr. Feldman reported that it appeared as if this substance is now mimicking a hormone called estrogen. Feldman was the first scientist to research this finding on BPA further (Rogers). Feldman had classified this as a concerning matter and brought it to the attention of the laboratory and the experimenters that the likely impact of certain levels of PC component of BPA may affect human health (Rogers).
Continued testing and research on BPA and the effects it has on humans have shown that approximately 90% of the human population have BPA in their bodies. We get most of it by consuming foods packaged in containers lined and made with BPA (Kinnon). The strong controversy between the different groups for and against the use of BPA have argued their side to use or not to use the chemical Bisphenol-a (BPA).
Advocacy groups against the use of BPA support their claim by referencing prior years of lab findings that have shown this chemical impersonates an estrogen hormone and will disrupt human development, cause certain cancers, and other illness. These advocacy groups and health organizations link bisphenol-a to prostate cancer, miscarriages, and congenital disabilities.
Consumers and eco-friendly advocacy groups have made claims to the potential health problems arising from the constant low-level exposure to BPA. They support their position by invoking the protective opinion, which holds, “that even in the absence of scientific consensus it’s prudent to act as though a potentially harmful substance is, in fact, harmful” (Ritter)
Furthermore, eco-friendly groups support their claims based on prior tests and scientific evidence of BPA’s toxicity (Bardelline). They support that argument, holding that laboratories have been proven in different trial studies over time the harmful effects this could have on humans. Studies have been conducted all over the globe and seem to conclude the same, that BPA is harmful even when consumed in small quantities and this should be strong enough evidence shown to support a ban on the chemical in the United States (Bardelline).
Advocacy groups have given further support to their position for desiring a ban on this chemical, claiming that many countries around the world have studied BPA and the harmful effects.

When the studies are compiled and reviewed together the consensus between these advocacy groups is that the compound does show damage is done to humans. As a result, six major companies that make baby bottles and cups for infants have stopped using BPA in the goods they sell in the U.S. Furthermore, manufacturers of infant formula have stopped using BPA in their infant formula cans, as well. Accordingly, some consumers hold this outcome in other companies should be concerning enough for United States manufacturers to take notice and put a ban on the use of BPA in the United States (Shaw)
In Japan, consumers have expressed the same outrage. Due to these concerns, Japanese manufacturers have decided to reduce their use of the compound, BPA in 1998. Furthermore, the Japanese canning industry replaced BPA can liners with polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Since implementing these changes, Japanese risk assessors have found that virtually no BPA is detectable in canned foods or drinks, and blood levels of BPA in the Japanese people have declined

(Caliendo).
While eco-friendly groups claim there are toxic issues with BPA use other groups refute the notions and hold a different argument. Some consumers and manufacturers agree that BPA isn’t dangerous or toxic. Some groups and studies have claimed there are benefits for using BPA. For example, using BPA will thwart interactions between cans and plastics and the canned and plastic food contained therein. Absent a protective barrier or a liner; contents inside the canned foods would ultimately be open to more bacteria and the plastics and can itself would be destroyed in the distribution process (Bardelline).
These groups further claim that not taking this precaution, would result in the plastic and canned foods becoming tainted with metal, microbes or both, and cause the cans to leak. Thus, a choice to not use the lining compound is unhealthier than the use of BPA barriers. Accordingly, Health Canada holds that the level of BPA in these products is low and regular use doesn’t pose a risk to anyone’s health (Health Canada).
According to Environmental Working Group (EWG), an American conservation association, a memorandum from the FDA technical staff approximates that through contaminated canned food, adults are exposed to 11 micrograms of BPA daily, while infants are exposed to 7 micrograms per day (Houlihan, Lunder and Jacob).

BPA manufacturers insist the risk of adverse effects from BPA exposure is insignificant because typical human exposure to BPA is minimal. Manufacturing companies further maintain that the chemical is a critical ingredient in safe food packaging and the steps taken to place a BPA barrier should continue. The compound is readily metabolized into a non-endocrine-disrupting forms

(Kinnon).
The Lexan Brand company had already been testing BPA uses in their labs and forming their scientific conclusions. This company had previously studied this leeching issue in their product and had determined there was no estrogen action in their product. The team documented their independent discoveries and made them public when the debate from both sides continued as a hot topic (Bardelline).
The debate to use BPA in cans and plastics is under scrutiny between these two advocacy groups for and against using BPA in products and food containers. Many lawsuits have been filed both for and against the use of BPA and are currently ongoing now. This may be a hot topic of debate for years to come. For now, the jury has yet to render a verdict as to which group has a better claim (Kinnon).