Having looked at a few of these studies I found the following problems 1. Industry sponsorship. Which has been shown to produce wildly biased results. 2. Smal

Having looked at a few of these studies I found the following problems 1. Industry sponsorship. Which has been shown to produce wildly biased results. 2. Small, short term studies which can only find a "significant" (i.e. statistically significant) effect if the effect is large and immediate. In some of the studies an effect showed up close to statistical significance but the headline was "no effect found" 3. I don't know about this one, but some analyses have found that a majority of review papers were ghost written by industry PR hacks who them paid professors to put their names on them. I suggest read the papers closely and looking hard at sponsorship issues before believing them. Also note that these studies were on adult men. There is every reason to suspect that the developing male fetus is orders of magnitude more vulnerable to environmental hormone disruptors of all kinds.