This stuff has been known for several decades at least, so I wouldn’t say it’s “news”. There is some very solid science demonstrating common environmental pollutants - pesticides, plastics and their monomers or breakdown products, pharmaceuticals in water, etc - having identifiable biological effects on humans.
While I agree that journalists invariably misunderstand science, I don’t see much in the article to criticize except that it’s too vague and too brief. But I can’t see anything that’s misleading or factually incorrect. The only silly bit is the policy recommendation: labeling hazardous chemicals. That’s just daft on several different levels.
Personally, I think the underlying problem is that the government already has interfered extensively in the market. A lot of plastic waste and chemical effluent, for example, is a direct result of foolish food regulations, which are themselves based on bad science (or sometimes just somebody’s opinion). Agricultural pollution is a direct result of peddling faulty science/technology to farmers, who mostly just believe what they’re told by their elders and betters. There are any number of situations where, if the government hadn’t tried to fix what wasn’t broke, there would be a lot less mess.