[hugh3]

I remain skeptical of the claims of "random internet guy" that "commonly used household product" is (without doubt) causing "horrible disease" and that "ban-happy government agency which is in charge of these sorts of things" hasn't got around to doing anything about it yet.

[Alex3917]

Well if you had already read the academic literature for yourself then you wouldn't have to rely on a "random internet guy" for your health information. But if you're not willing to actually read the primary sources, the best you're going to get is second hand information.

edit: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280349/?tool=pm...

http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Estrogenic-Phthalate-Esters...

[hugh3]

I have enough trouble keeping up with the academic literature in my own field, I'm not going to monitor the toxicology literature as well just in case. I doubt you do, either.

Anyway, while I'm perfectly willing to accept that phthalates are dangerous in sufficiently large quantities (this holds for pretty much any organic chemical) I remain unconvinced by the unproven assertion that it holds a significant risk of sterility when applied externally to the skin in small quantities in the small concentrations present in cheap cologne. Alcohol is also present in colognes, and that's well known to have all sorts of bad effects at large dosages.

I'm also skeptical of the even broader claim that exposure to phthalates is why one in five couples is infertile. Infertility has a zillion different causes, from Robertsonian translocations to endometreosis, and is a common human problem dating back to antiquity (see, for instance, the Bible, where every second woman is apparently infertile, at least until God shows up).

[mahmud]

if you had already read the academic literature for yourself

The burden of proof is on you, and you have yet to cite a reference :-)

Or did you just want us to do our own research, and somehow find that paper, which you might be talking about and come to an agreement with you?