All I know is that this is new, untested input into a 4-billion-year-old tangle of spaghetti code.
If you are confident being the guinea pig, since "human health effects of phthalates are not yet fully known but are being studied," be my guest.
* Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate is listed as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen"
* Current levels of seven phthalates posed "minimal" concern for causing reproductive effects.
* High levels of one phthalate, di-n-butyl phthalate, may adversely affect human reproduction or development.
Source: https://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/text_version/chemicals.php?id=24
Source source: https://www.google.com/search?q=phthalate+site:nih.gov
I agree about potential carcinogen. How about actual carcinogen evidence though? Should be easy to get, scrutinize plastic workers.
>The reinforced plastic plant workers showed, in terms of semen quality, better values in the percentages of live sperm and immotile sperm, whereas they had a reduced percentage of normally shaped sperm.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2980348
Source source: https://www.google.com/search?q=site:nih.gov+plastic+workers
Please answer with solid evidence of morbidity. Guardian did not do the homework. The studies on phthalates are quite tenuous for adults. There are a few which link to developmental problems.
This is a very different case from children chewing on phthalate containing foams or sleeping in such. Which has been quite clearly linked. The risk is mainly for pregnant women then?
Regardless, most of the problems would be related to packaging. Ditch styrofoam and plastic. Use ones certified phthalate free.
Oh and Guardian published this some years ago in a better way. Misrepresenting evidence then too.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/10/phthala...
Sounds like some sort of agenda.
The other quotes border on conspiracy theory.