BPA

I find it amusing how people put almost everything after profit. It seems anything that is profitable causes harm. So, naturally, people are always harmed, because no one wants to work against convenience and actually do something. That is what I hate about corporate America; they never act preemptively. If there is no overwhelming amount of evidence, they will always find a way to get around not using it. Look at Avandia, which causes cardiovascular problems. Look at how long it took the FDA to go against it. And look at the company, still trying to prove that Avandia doesn't do anything harmful.
The same with BPA, or Bisphenol A, a compound used often in plastics. It's said to interfere with the endocrine system by mimicking the effects of estrogen, the female hormone. And so, Canada declared it toxic. Good for them. But, the American Chemist's Association immediately caused an uproar over it. Why?! They should congratulate Canada for taking action on it. Instead, they ramble on about how it will hurt industry, and how there has been no conclusive proof of BPA's harm.
The study model for harmful substances makes no sense. It is to make sure of effects before recall. And yet, by the time you finalize studies, some of which take years, how many have been affected? Shouldn't a more effective model be to recall as soon as there is a possibility of harm, and reinstate if it's shown that there is no harm. People really need to become divorced from profit. It's really annoying.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/world/americas/14bpa.html?_r=1 The original is from slashdot, but slashdot is a summary, so I post the real article.