Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
one...two...tree

BPA a "chemical of concern"--EPA makes it official

19 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced a number of actions to address the potential effects of bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical used in the manufacture of a wide range of consumer and industrial products. The BPA action plan released today focuses on the environmental impacts of BPA and will look to add BPA to EPA's list of chemicals of concern and require testing related to environmental effects. These actions are part of Administrator Lisa P. Jackson's comprehensive effort to strengthen the agency's chemical management program and assure the safety of chemicals.

In January 2010, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it had some concerns about the potential human health impacts of BPA and it would study the potential effects and ways to reduce exposure to BPA in food packaging.

"We share FDA's concern about the potential health impacts from BPA," said Steve Owens, assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. "Both EPA and FDA, and many other agencies are moving forward to fully assess the environmental and health impacts to ensure that the full range of BPA's possible impacts are examined."

Food packaging represents the most obvious source of BPA exposure to people and is regulated by FDA. Unlike FDA, EPA has authority over the potential environmental impacts of BPA. Releases of BPA to the environment exceed 1 million pounds per year. BPA has caused reproductive and developmental effects in animal studies and may also affect the endocrine system. The EPA action plan on the environmental impacts of BPA includes:

· Adding BPA to the chemical concern list on the basis of potential environmental effects.

· Requiring information on concentrations of BPA in surface water, ground water, and drinking water to determine if BPA may be present at levels of potential concern.

· Requiring manufacturers to provide test data to assist the agency in evaluating its possible impacts, including long-term effects on growth, reproduction, and development in aquatic organisms and wildlife.

· Using EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE) program to look for ways to reduce unnecessary exposures, including assessing substitutes, while additional studies continue.

· And, continuing to evaluate the potential disproportionate impact on children and other sub-populations through exposure from non-food packaging uses.

EPA is working closely with FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences on research to better assess and evaluate the potential health consequences of BPA exposures, including health concerns from non-food packaging exposures that fall outside of the FDA's reach but within EPA's regulatory authority. Based on what this new research shows, EPA will consider possible regulatory actions to address health impacts from these other exposures.

In December, EPA announced that it will, for the first time, use its authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to list chemicals that may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. The decision to list chemicals signals EPA's concern about the risks that the listed chemicals may pose and the agency's intention to address those risks. These actions are part of the agency's efforts to strengthen EPA's chemical management program, utilizing current authorities to the fullest extent possible, while continuing to encourage legislative reform of TSCA, which has not been updated since 1976 and is in need of reform.

More information on EPA's BPA action plan: http://www.epa.gov/o...nplans/bpa.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: AOS (pnd) Country: Canada
Timeline

Great, just what we need... The EPA sticking its nose in even deeper. FAIL.


nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: AOS (pnd) Country: Canada
Timeline

Let me guess...the EPA is also unconstitutional.

No just that little fly buzzing around your head that gets in the way of things! ;)

EPA

FCC

FDA

I could do without all 3 in most circumstances....


nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No just that little fly buzzing around your head that gets in the way of things! ;)

EPA

FCC

FDA

I could do without all 3 in most circumstances....

You should move to a third world country then :thumbs: The government would not even bother if sewage got mixed into your drinking water supply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: AOS (pnd) Country: Canada
Timeline

Either that or drink water and beverages out of toxic containers. :whistle:

Most of the time the harmfulness of products/chemical is very much so overblown and usually isn't bad unless A+D+E=Z


nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the time the harmfulness of products/chemical is very much so overblown and usually isn't bad unless A+D+E=Z

Oh, OK, so just throw caution to the wind, and come down with cancers. Sorry, but you are taking an irrational position on this.

Just wait til Scandal sinks his teeth in you. :lol:


Sign-on-a-church-af.jpgLogic-af.jpgwwiao.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline

Most of the time the harmfulness of products/chemical is very much so overblown and usually isn't bad unless A+D+E=Z

Let me guess...you're not only a constitutional scholar in your spare time, you also study the effects of toxins on the human body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: AOS (pnd) Country: Canada
Timeline

Let me guess...you're not only a constitutional scholar in your spare time, you also study the effects of toxins on the human body.

lol, I love to read... What can I say. I don't claim to be an expert in anything, but I do keep up to date on most modern day affairs as possible.

My point is though, just because something might be more harmful to some people, doesn't mean it should be regulated/banned... It's silly really.

Now if the results are that most people tested are effected by it, then sure, ban it... but if you run tests on something and it goes back with only 10% of people tested being effected in one way or another, then that still means 90% of the people are doing AOK using that product....


nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline

lol, I love to read... What can I say. I don't claim to be an expert in anything, but I do keep up to date on most modern day affairs as possible.

My point is though, just because something might be more harmful to some people, doesn't mean it should be regulated/banned... It's silly really.

Science isn't silly, but pretending to know better than the scientists who study these sorts of things is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, I love to read... What can I say. I don't claim to be an expert in anything, but I do keep up to date on most modern day affairs as possible.

My point is though, just because something might be more harmful to some people, doesn't mean it should be regulated/banned... It's silly really.

Now if the results are that most people tested are effected by it, then sure, ban it... but if you run tests on something and it goes back with only 10% of people tested being effected in one way or another, then that still means 90% of the people are doing AOK using that product....

I'd rather be safe than sorry.. These kind of chemicals should not even be allowed in our water/food unless it was proved to be safe. Case in point: Lead based paints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...