Talk:Health effects of Bisphenol A

Medical ref header from 2016

With more than 260 references, it would be more helpful if specific refs were tagged instead of the whole article. I have no idea which references are supposedly problematic.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 01:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 15 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 15:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

---

BPA controversy → Health effects of Bisphenol A – Article was created by splitting the "Health effects" section from Bisphenol A in May 2018. There was no discussion on the title. The "controversy" title is a WP:POVFORK by giving false balance to those that claim BPA has no health effects. The European Chemicals Agency unanimously declared BPA an endocrine disruptor and a "substance of very high concern" in June 2017. --Pudeo (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom, per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and WP:FRINGE, and to be WP:CONSISTENT with a large proportion of similar articles, and for consistency with the intent of the split. That said, some other more specific term could be use if to scope and the source-inclusion criteria were sharply narrowed due to WP:MEDRS squabbling (thus, for example, Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes and Safety of electronic cigarettes, which used to be at Health effects of electronic cigarettes before the [frankly questionable] split which happened after years of tedious debate, and which is still WP:SUMMARY-covered under the "health effects" term at Electronic cigarette#Health effects). In short, we have a clear "health effects" convention in operation (whether it's codified anywhere or not) and from which we're not routinely diverging without [alleged] good reason.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish, I think the second split of e-cigs was the result of the endless shit-fight between vaping evangelists and medical editors, and amounts to a POVFORK, but one we can't really roll back without pouring fuel on the flames yet again. This is less contentious so one article should be sufficient. Guy (help!) 11:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, I certainly agree on all of that (and fled the topic area in terror because of all that entrenched drama, ha ha). I wasn't meaning to suggest this topic requires a split (indeed, I might support a re-merge, depending on article-length considerations). Rather, I mean than even after a raucous split and then a re-split happened in the e-cigs topic, we're still defaulting to the phrase "health effects" except in particular loci (namely the two PoV forks) where editorial and viewpoint feuding have made it difficult to do so.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• This seems like a good idea just on the basis that "controversy" inherently implies rough parity of merit on the two sides, and we shouldn't be taking a position on that. Guy (help!) 19:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mention the Tolerable Daily Intake (TDA)?

https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/bisphenol

The European Food Safety Authority established a new TDI of 0.2 nanograms in 2023 April. Hutxone (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)