I appreciate that objective viewpoint and backing it up with data. If Consumer Reports presented it that way, I wouldn't have an issue with their reporting. A p

I appreciate that objective viewpoint and backing it up with data. If Consumer Reports presented it that way, I wouldn't have an issue with their reporting. A person can read that and have a much better understanding of the potential risk and what they want to do about it. But CR just goes for the attention-grabbing headline, a scary article with meaningless phrases like "while there is no level that scientists have confirmed as safe", no access to their raw data, and no reference to how whatever the found compares to the food safety standards (especially with the way they lumped all the phthalates together). To give them a modicum more credit: I missed the link to this PDF the first time, which at least discloses the testing methodology and has a page listing the applicable safety standards. https://article.images.consumerreports.org/image/upload/v1704381057/prod/content/dam/surveys/Consumer_Reports_Test_Methodology_for_Bisphenols_and_Phthalates_in_Food_01-24.pdf https://article.images.consumerreports.org/image/upload/v170... There's something I find very interesting in there: they added phthalates and phthalate replacements together and reported it as phthalates. Phthalate replacements are also known as "non-phthalate plasticizers", which as the name implies, are not phthalates, and are used in products that want to be "BPA and phthalate free". To what extent are those reported numbers actually coming from DEHA in pthalate-free polyethylene wrappers? To me, this crosses the line from simple clickbait to dishonesty. I don't have a horse in this race apart from being the kind of person who just wants to know what is actually true. Industry will absolutely lie and poison us to make a buck, but at the same time, everything is chemicals, and many "natural" substances are incredibly toxic. Ultimately it is farcical to think that any of us are in a position to do or even properly evaluate research and we rely on experts and reputation to try to make sense of these technical fields. CR publishing it doesn't make it untrue, but unfortunately I think it's a mistake to rely on them either. At best it's a pointer that there may be something interesting and worth seeing if anyone else has done a better job.