From my experience reading the guardian, click bait isn’t their thing. Also it says the investigation isn’t finished and they reached out for a comment , which usually means there’s room for an explanation or clarification if their findings are off. This is pretty common to openly ask “correct us if we’re wrong”.

Also it mentions the organization and European program backed by the EU.

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/life/publicWebsite/project/LIFE22-GIE-HU-ToxFree-LIFE-for-All-101114078/awareness-raising-and-behaviour-change-program-to-empower-consumer-citizens-to-live-toxic-free-lives-reduce-chemical-risks-on-their-health-and-the-environment-and-to-upscale-their-positive-impact

BPAs have been shown to absorbed through the skin. Headphones are increasingly worn for long, continuous periods. Unlike other plastic objects which are handled for shorter periods.

I’m not entirely convinced of the danger myself (tinnitus seems a bigger worry for headphone use to me), but I thought it was a matter worthy of further discussion.

I did wonder this myself. Can it enter the body via normal usage? And if so, in what dose? Enough for us to care?

I don't make a habit of putting headphones in my mouth, but young children do things like that.

Wait.. What do you mean with shouldn't injest.. I thought it was perfectly fine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Lotito

Only Beets by Dr Dre.

No, you just have to have the anxiety of which toxic chemicals you are in contact with every time you use your headphones. You're welcome.

According to the article all of them.

I'm also puzzled by this choice of words.

Looking at the study, 'female', or 'feminisation'/'feminization' isn't used once. But 'oestrogen' appears a lot. I guess some of these materials interfere with hormone activity and they call that feminisation? Still puzzled.

Bisphenols: Mostly used in the manufacturing of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins, bisphenols are endocrine disruptors that mimic oestrogen , potentially leading to metabolic disorders, reproduc- tive issues, and increased cancer risk even at trace concentrations (Maffini et al., 2006; Rochester & Bolden, 2015)

PhP (Triphenyl phosphate): The most prevalent OPFR in our samples, TPhP is a confirmed endocrine disruptor (Hu et al., 2023; Li et al., 2025). It interferes with oestrogen and thyroid hormone axes (Ji et al.,

2022. and is linked to obesity and metabolic changes (Wang et al., 2019)

BPA (Bisphenol A): Binds to oestrogen receptors and alters gene expression and hormone activity (Alon- so-Magdalena et al., 2012). BPA has been detected in amniotic fluid, placental tissue, and umbilical cord blood, indicating transplacental transfer. Studies have confirmed that BPA can migrate from synthetic materials into artificial sweat (Wang et al., 2019), and dermal absorption is well established (Toner et al., 2018). These findings led to the EU ban of BPA in thermal receipt paper in 2020, although it has been widely substituted with BPS (ECHA, 2020)

BPAF (Bisphenol AF): Demonstrates stronger oestrogenic activity than BPA and is increasingly used in thermal paper and plastic applications (Moreman et al., 2017)

RDP (Resorcinol bis(diphenyl phosphate)): Used as a substitute to TPhP, RDP is an emerging neurotox- in and acts as an endocrine disruptor that interferes with thyroid and oestrogen pathways. It has been linked to metabolic imbalances in animal studies (Xie et al., 2023). Scientists report stronger oestrogen- ic effects than TPhP and RDP´s exposure showing metabolic disorders in rats and their offspring (Liu et al., 2023).