Day: May 5, 2017

The sign informed us that BPA was contained in cans and other things and that the sate of California had determined that this chemical had been shown to cause reproductive harm to women.

What went through my mind was WTF? 

For years it’s been known or at least surmised that this same chemical caused reproduductive harm to men and boys. But apparently it’s only important when it’s also affecting women.

After all why be gender specific?

Why not simply say this material has been shown to cause repoductive harm in general?

As I’ve said before, the war on women is biasing what we think is important. 

If BPA causes limp dicks in men and testosterone imbalances in young boys… It’s a sure bet that it’s going to cause reproductive problems across the board.

Why is it that this is only “important” when women are involved?

We are a binary gendered species and, as the old saying goes “It takes two to tango.” 

A better question is why if we’ve known this from EU studies for several years, then why haven’t we outright banned the substance if only out of an over abundance of caution?