Anonymous public comment

To whom it may concern, I work in pesticide safety education, where chemicals known to be harmful to humans and the environment are tested on a regular basis. It is a monumental task. I take issue with using our diminishing resources to test a chemical, Bisphenol A, that has been used for over 50 years with little or no documented evidence of damage to humans. Might there be some level of morbidity connected with our exposure to Bisphenol A? What level and what is the probablilty? It appears this chemical has already been extensively tested, in the U.S. and abroad. The consensus seems to be that there is "some level of concern". Don't we have greater priorities than this? Are you using your time and expertise wisely? And if an accepted level of concern is found, what are the alternatives to BPA? Are there any, and if so, how extensively have they been tested? I suggest a science-based reevaluation of your priorities. Start at the top of the list of untested and potentially harmful chemicals and work from there. Quit flogging a dead horse.