Summary of the Article ''Too Safe for Our Own Good?''

325 Words2 Pages
In the article “Too safe for our own good?” published in “The Washington Times” July 21, 2010, the authors Henry I. Miller and Gregory Conko report the overuse of the ‘’precautionary principle’’, which is defined as ‘’a belief that governments should implement regulatory measures to prevent or restrict actions that raise even conjectural threats of harm to human health or the environment’’. As an example, the authors discussed Bisphenol-A (BPA), a chemical contained in consumer products. The authors state that The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) denied the banning of BPA because it was not found evidence that this chemical can cause negative effects on people’s health. Conversely, environmental activists sustain the idea that BPA causes considerable damage, because of this it should be banned. In addition, Miller and Conko argue that regulatory decisions should be based on risk-benefit. In this way, the authors explain that chemical toxicity is attributed to the quantity and length of chemicals substances exposition in the body and that BPA is considered as safe for those levels in which it is utilized and for those people are exposed. In contrast, environmental activists persist in regulations based on ‘’precautionary principle’’, arguing that the existence of a serious risk requires the implementation of measures that may predict this damage. Due to this current abuse of precautionary theory, factories can close and economic problems can appear. Also, activists claim that in very high doses, BPA can result in abnormalities because it behaves like the hormone estrogen in our bodies, they also state that artificial chemicals can cause diseases related to the endocrine system. However, the authors assert that laboratory test animals revealed that human are being exposed to these chemicals at a ‘’magnitude lower than the lowest level known to cause any harm’’.

More about Summary of the Article ''Too Safe for Our Own Good?''

Open Document