Chemicals Of Concern In The Environment As Scientists

300 500 Wordschemicals Of Concern In The Environmentas Scientists And

As scientists and engineers work to produce products that make people's lives easier and safer, there is the possibility that these new products could have negative consequences on individuals and the environment. Select 1 of the chemicals listed below, and discuss its role in improving lives as well as the potential unintended consequences that it may have. Be substantive and clear, and use examples to reinforce your ideas. Chemicals of Concern (Select 1) Regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Brominated flame retardants: These are added to plastics and fabrics to make them more flame-resistant. Cadmium: This is an element that is known as a heavy metal. It is used in batteries, paints, and plastics. Regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA): Phthalates: These are chemicals that are added to plastics to make them more flexible. Bisphenol-A (BPA): This is a chemical that is added to plastics to harden them while keeping them light.

Discuss the following for this assignment: What role does the chemical you selected play in the modern world? What are some possible detrimental health effects that are associated with this chemical? Explain the position of the FDA or EPA regarding your selected chemical. What is the position of your state government regarding your selected chemical? Do you feel that your chemical should be more tightly regulated in the United States? Why or why not? Would label requirements be enough? Explain why or why not.

Paper For Above instruction

For this discussion, I have selected Bisphenol-A (BPA) as the chemical of concern. BPA is a synthetic compound widely used in the production of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. Its primary role in the modern world is to provide durability and clarity to a variety of consumer products, including water bottles, food containers, and can linings. Its use has become pervasive due to its cost-effectiveness and the desirable physical properties it confers to plastics, making it integral in packaging, medical devices, and other everyday items that facilitate safe storage and transportation of food and beverages (Vandenberg et al., 2010).

However, despite its utility, BPA poses significant health concerns. The chemical is known to mimic estrogen, a hormone vital to reproductive health and development. Studies have demonstrated that BPA exposure can lead to hormonal disruptions, increasing the risk of reproductive abnormalities, metabolic disorders such as obesity and diabetes, and even certain cancers (Rochester, 2013). Infants, pregnant women, and young children are particularly vulnerable to these adverse effects due to their developing endocrine systems. The widespread presence of BPA in the environment also raises concerns about chronic exposure even among populations that do not directly handle BPA-containing products.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has taken a cautious stance regarding BPA. While it initially approved BPA use in food contact materials, ongoing scientific research has led to increased regulation and restrictions, especially concerning products intended for infants and children. The FDA has banned the use of BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups and continues to monitor new scientific findings to reassess its safety parameters (FDA, 2012). Nonetheless, the agency still permits BPA in other food packaging, citing a lack of conclusive evidence demonstrating outright harm at current exposure levels.

At the state level, attitudes toward BPA vary. Several states, including California, have enacted legislation to restrict BPA use in products aimed at children. California’s Proposition 65 mandates warning labels on products containing BPA, reflecting a precautionary approach to consumer safety (California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2016). These local regulations often push federal agencies to reconsider existing standards and increase oversight.

In my opinion, BPA should be more tightly regulated in the United States. Current regulations permit continued exposure through various consumer products, and the scientific evidence linking BPA to adverse health effects is robust and growing. Relying solely on label requirements may not be sufficient because consumers might not always read or understand these warnings, and exposure can occur unknowingly through contaminated food and environment. A more comprehensive approach, including outright bans on BPA in food packaging for vulnerable populations and encouragement of safer alternative materials, would better protect public health. Regulatory agencies should adopt a precautionary principle, prioritizing health over economic convenience, especially given the availability of safer, cost-effective alternatives (Gore et al., 2015).

References

• California Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2016). Proposition 65 List of Chemicals. https://dtsc.ca.gov/ Prop65
• FDA. (2012). Update on Bisphenol A (BPA). U.S. Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/update-bisphenol-bpa
• Gore, A. C., et al. (2015). Executive Summary of the Endocrine Society’s Second Scientific Statement on Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals. Endocrinology, 151(4), 775-797.
• Rochester, J. R. (2013). Bisphenol A and human health: A review of the literature. Reproductive Toxicology, 42, 132-155.
• Vandenberg, L. N., et al. (2010). Human exposure to bisphenol A (BPA). Reproductive Toxicology, 24(2), 139-177.