I think that some of the statements you just read were maybe taken out of context. Specifically, the U.S. NTP and the Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction said very conclusively that there is--bottom line--insufficient human data to indicate that there is harm occurring in humans.
It is a raging debate, there's no question about it. From what we have seen directed at the medical products industry, the data we get presented by the environmental groups is based completely on rodent studies that are done in ways that aren't necessarily relevant to how our products are used. By that I mean it may be very, very high doses, for example, of a chemical like DEHP that a rodent is exposed to, and by a route of exposure, very high oral dosing, that may not necessarily be relevant to how a medical therapy interacts with the human body.
I don't think anybody--any scientist or toxicologist--would question that there is very credible rodent data that shows effects of phthalates at very high levels.