An investigation into headphones has found every single pair tested contained substances hazardous to human health, including chemicals that can cause cancer, neurodevelopmental problems and the feminisation of males.

Even products by market-leading brands such as Bose, Panasonic, Samsung and Sennheiser were found to contain harmful chemicals in the formulation of the plastics from which they are made.

Researchers bought 81 pairs of in-ear and over-ear headphones, either on the market in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia and Austria, or from the online marketplaces Shein and Temu, and took them for laboratory analysis, testing for a range of harmful chemicals.

“Hazardous substances were detected in every product tested,” they said.

Bisphenol A (BPA) appeared in 98% of samples, and its substitute, bisphenol S (BPS), was found in more than three-quarters. Synthetic chemicals used to stiffen plastic, BPA and BPS mimic the action of oestrogen inside organisms, causing a range of adverse effects including the feminisation of males, early onset puberty in girls, and cancer. Previous studies have shown that bisphenols can migrate from synthetic materials into sweat, and that they can be absorbed through the skin.

all 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 23 points 8 months ago (2 children)

"Stuff made from plastic contains chemicals that are in plastic."

I'm not sure we needed a study on this.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    They found the forced-fem headphones

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    The one joy I have everyday is listening to music with my headphones on at work, so I don't have to hear my co-workers.

    Can I please have something I enjoy that's not giving me cancer?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    There is no ‘safe’ level for endocrine disruptors that mimic our natural hormones.”

    I think the article is probably right that headphones have these chemicals and it is a bad thing, but as someone wearing headphones a large portion of hours in the day for the past few decades I'm wondering how much risk there actually is, which it doesn't seem to weigh in on very much.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    feminization of males

    This would stir Magats into a frenzy if they could read

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

    No one is eating headphones tho

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    Oh shit is that why I keep getting distracted by the long striped socks when I go shopping and feel tempted to go back to arch?

  • source
  • 30 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 39 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    Uhm, guys, the skin is not a plastic wrap but a organ; it absorbs substances. And while some can be bad for the skin (like, causing rash or cancer), some others can get into the blood stream this way. And some plastic softeners (of earpieces for example) are not allowed in most markets for this very reason.

    Not about the article but about some of the comments here.

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Regarding the feminization of males, I can confirm that as a lifelong music lister and creator, I am now a transgender woman. I do not recall having feelings of wanting to wear dresses, talk about my feelings, and drink appletinis prior to donning the cans around age 8, in order to listen to Metallica’s latest album. It is noteworthy that later CD purchases were often far less macho and included Ace of Base and Alanis Morissette, likely due to my rapidly progressing, toxin-induced feminization.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 49 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

    Clickbait! This is nothing news since the report isn't publicly available. This is just the media working to keep you scared and reading.

    They have updated and included the article/paper 😊

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago

    From my experience reading the guardian, click bait isn’t their thing. Also it says the investigation isn’t finished and they reached out for a comment , which usually means there’s room for an explanation or clarification if their findings are off. This is pretty common to openly ask “correct us if we’re wrong”.

    Also it mentions the organization and European program backed by the EU.

    https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/life/publicWebsite/project/LIFE22-GIE-HU-ToxFree-LIFE-for-All-101114078/awareness-raising-and-behaviour-change-program-to-empower-consumer-citizens-to-live-toxic-free-lives-reduce-chemical-risks-on-their-health-and-the-environment-and-to-upscale-their-positive-impact

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Maybe it's been updated since you commented this, but there's definitely a link that leads to a download of the publicly available report.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 30 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    UPDATE: The article has now linked to the newly published study. It claims a maximum concentration of bisphenols of 351mg/kg, above the 10mg/kg limit proposed by ECHA, but they don't give any concrete numbers on how likely any of those bisphenols are to actually leech from the product into your body. The average sum of all bisphenols/sample was just 15. They note the parts not touching the skin often had more bisphenols than the parts actually touching the skin, with about 50% more of those areas than the non-skin-contacting ones being put in their "green" category, meaning it's fairly in compliance with most protective standards.

    Of the parts touching the skin, 68% were green, 21% yellow, and 11% red.

    And onto flame retardants, 100% of products with HFRs were green, and 84% with OPFRs were green.

    For pthalates, 87% were green, and less than 1% were red.

    Essentially, the TLDR is that most of the things they tested either met most standards, were very close to meeting them, or technically didn't meet standards but mostly just in areas that didn't even come in contact with the skin at all. AKA, it's mostly overblown.

    Original Post:
    No source linked by the article, no visible press releases that don't just pretend to be a real press release while citing the articles, no official blog posts, and the only official sounding mention of this that comes from a more direct source is a coalition on linkedin saying a person at a sub-group of the broader project was gonna talk with them about it.

    No stats, no numbers, just "they found it" in the headphones.

    You could find a chemical well under the safe limit in drinking water, and say "we found x in your water" and make a big scare of it when it's not a big deal.

    While I have no doubt BPA and its counterparts could be used in manufacturing of headphones, without any actual data, this is literally no better than when your uncle at Thanksgiving starts yapping about how the government found some data one time and that means you should never drink tap water again.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago

    The feminization of men

    Fellas I'm willing to run this gauntlet.

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    This seems like a nothing burger. Plenty of things you shouldn't ingest like BPA, plastic, and solder are perfectly benign when used to construct consumer electronics. 

    I'd be more interested to hear they found something that leeches through the skin being used to create the body of the headphones.  

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 22 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    BPAs have been shown to absorbed through the skin. Headphones are increasingly worn for long, continuous periods. Unlike other plastic objects which are handled for shorter periods.

    I’m not entirely convinced of the danger myself (tinnitus seems a bigger worry for headphone use to me), but I thought it was a matter worthy of further discussion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    I did wonder this myself. Can it enter the body via normal usage? And if so, in what dose? Enough for us to care?

    I don't make a habit of putting headphones in my mouth, but young children do things like that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    Is there a way to find out which models are guilty?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    According to the article all of them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    All that we're sampled. So which were sampled?

    They mentioned some brands, but not models.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    we can't eat headphones anymore?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    feminisation of males

    Looks closely

    The guardian

    Well that's all I need to know about this.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I'm also puzzled by this choice of words.

    Looking at the study, 'female', or 'feminisation'/'feminization' isn't used once. But 'oestrogen' appears a lot. I guess some of these materials interfere with hormone activity and they call that feminisation? Still puzzled.

    Bisphenols: Mostly used in the manufacturing of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins, bisphenols are endocrine disruptors that mimic oestrogen , potentially leading to metabolic disorders, reproduc- tive issues, and increased cancer risk even at trace concentrations (Maffini et al., 2006; Rochester & Bolden, 2015)

    PhP (Triphenyl phosphate): The most prevalent OPFR in our samples, TPhP is a confirmed endocrine disruptor (Hu et al., 2023; Li et al., 2025). It interferes with oestrogen and thyroid hormone axes (Ji et al.,

    1. and is linked to obesity and metabolic changes (Wang et al., 2019)

    BPA (Bisphenol A): Binds to oestrogen receptors and alters gene expression and hormone activity (Alon- so-Magdalena et al., 2012). BPA has been detected in amniotic fluid, placental tissue, and umbilical cord blood, indicating transplacental transfer. Studies have confirmed that BPA can migrate from synthetic materials into artificial sweat (Wang et al., 2019), and dermal absorption is well established (Toner et al., 2018). These findings led to the EU ban of BPA in thermal receipt paper in 2020, although it has been widely substituted with BPS (ECHA, 2020)

    BPAF (Bisphenol AF): Demonstrates stronger oestrogenic activity than BPA and is increasingly used in thermal paper and plastic applications (Moreman et al., 2017)

    RDP (Resorcinol bis(diphenyl phosphate)): Used as a substitute to TPhP, RDP is an emerging neurotox- in and acts as an endocrine disruptor that interferes with thyroid and oestrogen pathways. It has been linked to metabolic imbalances in animal studies (Xie et al., 2023). Scientists report stronger oestrogen- ic effects than TPhP and RDP´s exposure showing metabolic disorders in rats and their offspring (Liu et al., 2023).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    Is it muddy bananas?

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago

    Who is chewing on their headphones?

  • source
  • 1 comment in c/publichealth@mander.xyz view that post
    [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    they basically avoided explaining where these chemicals are used… if they are not in the ear pads, the risk they call about transference via sweat would be nill

  • source