check out care2.com. You should be able to find some direct information and/or a link to some information. It's a larger site so, it may take some time to get to what you're looking for.
My basic view is that petro chemicals are not good for us. Many synthetic materials have some sort of a petro-chemical base. I think that we have not honestly studied current/newly developed synthetic materials in terms of personal health concerns. And, there a number of old standbys that we didn't think to examine in days past and have not revisited in terms of studying the potential health based harms in their use. Further, it seems like the loop hole appears to be "intended use". For example, things slated for age 3 or older are intended for use by those who will not chew on them; if chewing on them will cause bodily harm then, it's not relevant because the item is being used in a manner it was not intended for use. I can tell you that as a "full adult" I have chewed on and/or put a whole number of things in my mouth like pen caps, pens, hair do-dads, jewelry, and more.
I'm not convinced that we know enough to make what would seem to me as rational decisions on a number of items. For example, I'm not sure we need a 5 year study to determine whether or not we should include lead in and on kids' toys, jewlery, decor items, or on the outside portions of dish and serveware intended for use. And, even if we eliminate lead in the production of kid's items, I haven't heard much of a hue and cry about the manufacture of similar adult, general decor, and garden decor items. We pretty well know that lead is an accumulative contaminate and that as little exposure possible is the best course.
Take the PBA-plastic controversary. I suspect that folks did not particularly consider it in the 1950's. I suspect that folks in the know and with a chemistry back ground were already backing away from it long before it was found unsafe for pets and animals. I have minimal faith in the statement that while they were working away from it in animal containers, that "we haven't found that it's a problem for humans, besides we've been using it since the 1950's" is a valid reason to say it's safe and ok. To find a problem with irrefutable evidence, one must at least look into the issue and test for it. But, just like the lead controversary, some things just don't need a large scale, controlled study to determine there might be a problem before actually conducting a study to proove there is a problem and exactly which proportion of the results are directly attributable to the use versus the mis-use of products containing the questionable contaminate.
Take fire retartdants. A number of them are being found to be accumulative and less than great for our bodies. Yet, the formal statement is that our contamination levels are an acceptable exchange for the value they provide. I even read a statement once about baby clothing in that it was not intended to be chewed on or put in a baby's mouth. In terms of synthetic materials, it seems that fire retardants are most prevalent in synthetics.