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&#8260;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). 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)
 * , 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 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)