The articles cover an actual study, that wasn't theoretical but based on data of sampling. What kind of just-the-facts reporting do you actually want?

The language it uses to describe the story is clearly designed to make parents feel like the environment is unsafe.

Cherry picking scientific articles to cover that will cause fear is not just-the-facts reporting.

It... probably is unsafe for human babies (or even adults) to be ingesting compounds known to disrupt hormone production in mammals...

Contrarianism has become a mental disorder

It’s not actionable information though.

Sure it is. People should be outraged about this and demanding vastly more testing, more research, and more regulation.

The vast majority of information published anywhere at any time is not any more "actionable" than that. You just don't like this information because it makes you uncomfortable... as it should.

I don’t like this publication, I think the actual scientific study is good information.

The information should be considered by regulators and scientists. They should read the scientific journals directly. I want to be able to trust in institutions to make informed decisions to improve environmental factors that require collective action.

I don’t think informing citizens about danger so they can demand policy reform is the actual purpose of The Guardian article. I’d love to be wrong on this, but that’s a fairy tale about how the system actually works.

I'm quite confident that scientists (and hopefully regulators) read the source journals.

> I want to be able to trust in institutions to make informed decisions to improve environmental factors that require collective action.

And you want to be able to do that without the public being informed enough to even care and hold them accountable for that? Why on earth would a politician make a costly decision like introduce regulations that makes plastics a lot more expensive when the public literally has no reason to want such a thing?

> I don’t think informing citizens about danger so they can demand policy reform is the actual purpose of The Guardian article

The "actual purpose" of any published information is pursuit of incentives, so sure, you're right. Guardian publishes this article to get ad views. The journalists publish it to increase their notoriety and hopefully get a promotion. But the same applies to the information published in journals. The "actual purpose" of putting it there is to increase the researchers' stature in the research community.

> that’s a fairy tale about how the system actually works.

Not really. The entire system, insofar as any system works whatsoever, is to co-opt people's own imperfect incentives (like pursuit of ad clicks or personal notoriety) to produce positive externalities (like an informed public).

Pointing out that people and institutions have imperfect incentives and therefore the system is broken, that is the fairy tale that people tell themselves to avoid engaging with reality as it exists.