In the news today

[Animeniax]

Animeniax, let's get something straight (Ryll's already said this before, but I'll just go over).

The three studies you guys have cited don't conflict with each other. They show different things. Your study shows that by reducing BPA packaged foods, you can reduce your exposure to BPA. Ryll's studies show that BPA has tiny amounts in the body with most of it being excreted.

Neither of those studies answer the question of What does BPA do to the human body?, only that the more you eat the more you pee out, and that not a lot is left in the body regardless.

Innocence gets the benefit of doubt. If it's not known to kill/harm you, it should be allowed.

I disagree, innocent until proven guilty is bullshit. You wouldn't be a suspect if there wasn't reason to suspect you. BPA may or may not be bad for you, but the fact that it is suspected of having negative effects on the human body should be enough to keep it out of our food stuffs, not to mention other possible chemicals used to preserve and store food. When have chemicals leaching from storage containers into our food ever been a positive benefit?

[Buffalobiian]

I disagree, innocent until proven guilty is bullshit. You wouldn't be a suspect if there wasn't reason to suspect you. BPA may or may not be bad for you, but the fact that it is suspected of having negative effects on the human body should be enough to keep it out of our food stuffs, not to mention other possible chemicals used to preserve and store food. When have chemicals leaching from storage containers into our food ever been a positive benefit?

No one is talking about it being positive or a benefit. We're talking about whether it has any significant negatives. Ceramic plates holding food doesn't positively benefit food, nor does it negatively impact on it. BPA has a similar structure to endogenous hormones, so it is proposed that it may cause problems in our body. But will it?

You're right that it wouldn't be a suspect if there wasn't a reason to suspect it. However, suspecting is not enough. You know, I don't even like the use of the word suspect here because it implies that BPA was suspected to be a criminal (agent responsible for the crime). Right now, BPA just looks like it could be a criminal. We don't even have a crime/problem for it to be suspected of.

In other words, we're saying "Hmm, BPA has the structure similar to hormones. That could be a problem", not "We've got high rates of breast cancer (the crime). I think BPA could be a cause (the suspect to the crime) because of various reasons."

[Animeniax]

No one is talking about it being positive or a benefit. We're talking about whether it has any significant negatives. Ceramic plates holding food doesn't positively benefit food, nor does it negatively impact on it. BPA has a similar structure to endogenous hormones, so it is proposed that it may cause problems in our body. But will it?

You're right that it wouldn't be a suspect if there wasn't a reason to suspect it. However, suspecting is not enough. You know, I don't even like the use of the word suspect here because it implies that BPA was suspected to be a criminal (agent responsible for the crime). Right now, BPA just looks like it could be a criminal. We don't even have a crime/problem for it to be suspected of.

In other words, we're saying "Hmm, BPA has the structure similar to hormones. That could be a problem", not "We've got high rates of breast cancer (the crime). I think BPA could be a cause (the suspect to the crime) because of various reasons."

Sorry I was being sarcastic, of course there is no positive benefit to chemicals leaching from containers and adulterating our food, particularly substances that could be hormonal or close enough to mimic them.

Negative effects of chemicals on the human body is the ongoing "crime" we're dealing with, though the criminal analogy can't be used as far as whether a crime/problem exists when talking about chemicals in our food.

[Buffalobiian]

Sorry I was being sarcastic, of course there is no positive benefit to chemicals leaching from containers and adulterating our food, particularly substances that could be hormonal or close enough to mimic them.

Nah, I got that part. I was pointing out that there needs not be. The implications of your words was that since they're never "good", they might as well be bad (or we must treat them as such if they're suspected of being bad, since there's no "good" to balance them out with).

[Ryllharu]

not to mention other possible chemicals used to preserve and store food. When have chemicals leaching from storage containers into our food ever been a positive benefit?

I've been ignoring this one for a while, but I probably shouldn't have.

What other possible chemicals used to preserve and store food? You mean salt? That's the most common, and often then only preservative ingredient in canned vegetables and beans. Many cannned fruits have none at all. That's how canning works. Most of the things on canned foods will simply be the ingredients or the spices. Canning itself is a preservative process.

Let's look at some other canned foods I have:
- Ascorbic acid. Better known as Vitamin C. Used to preserve color. Or citric acid, which also occurs naturally.
- Calcium chloride. It's generally recognized as safe (GRAS) and used in sports drinks, as table salt substitute, and in beer.
- Potassium chloride, used as a salt substitute for preservation (to prevent the taste from getting saltier).
- disodium EDTA. Ooo, that sounds scary. That last part is short for Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, which sounds super scary. Except it's primary purpose is to prevent benzene from forming in soft drinks, which is much worse. It also prevents metals from leeching into things and changing their color. Even at its worst, the LD50 (rat) of EDTA is about 2.2 g/kg, meaning the average person would need to eat 170 lbs of the stuff to die 50% of the time in a given time period...which isn't going to happen by eating it out of cans.