I have just spent 20 minutes trying to understand how much credence to give this article.
There are no obvious links to any site with known reliability - eg: FDA, EU, major hospital or university research.
The credentials of Environmental Health News who produced the article are less than convincing - no major funding sources of repute or legacy of trail-blazing science reporting. They may be (although possibly unfair) a bunch of cranks.
Without spending a r in its infancy but lot more time than I am prepared to - it would be unfair to suggest it is without foundation, that all materials should be handled with care is sensible, but on a scale of 1 to 10 it scores about 3 or 4.