If you read the article, one of the chemical in question was found in 87% of newborns had exposure to the chemical. Given that 87% of children aren't malformed or even significantly impacted, its hard to believe that this is some massive threat to society. In fact, reading the article, it was clear that the human impact is so negligible that it was basically thrown in the story as an after thought. The story was about the impact to "endangered species", which is the catch-all environmentalist play when they lack any real substance to stand against something. In the end, I don't know whether the EPA will change the rule or not. But don't be a hypocrite and complain that lobbyists want something for their party donations, much like Solyndra and a dozen other green companies (who donated millions to Democratic campaigns) wanted.