This comment may well be removed, but I make a statement of fact when I say that this article contains a lot of factual errors.
Of course parabens are chemicals - everything in creation is chemical, irrespective of its origin, but methylparaben, ethylparaben and propylparaben have been detected in many plant species (eg, strawberry, blueberry and many more) some insect species and in female dogs during oestrus.
The fact that they exist in nature does not make them safe, but many of the studies that have caused concern over the use of parabens have been misinterpreted or, in the case of Darbre et al in 2004, are so deeply flawed that few scientists give them any credence. Darbre claimed to have detected parabens in human breast cancer tissue. What most people don't realise is that she also detected parabens in the "blank" control samples. Not only were there parabens detected in the controls, but the highest control was lower in concentration than 12 of the tissue samples (and the second highest control was lower than 9 of the tissue samples). The presence in the controls was ascribed to contamination, and it is illogical to assume that the controls were contaminated, but the tissue samples were not, especially as the ratios of the different parabens were statistically the same in both the tissues and the controls.
It is incorrect to state that many people get allergic reactions to parabens. A true allergic reaction to parabens is extremely rare, and irritation reactions are relatively uncommon also.
Migration through the skin and into the bloodstream does bypass the gastro-intestinal system, but it does not bypass the liver, which removes unwanted substances from the blood. The author should really check facts thoroughly before making such statements, as this is entirely misleading and suggests a level of toxicity that is not there!
Methylparaben has been determined to have zero oestrogenic activity (Routledge et al (1998) in an in vivo study. In the same study, he determined butylparaben to have an oestrogenic activity 100,000 times weaker than oestradiol - in other words, extremely weak. Oestrogenic activity is NOT the same as mimicking oestrogen, despite the confusing terminology, and there is no evidence that parabens mimic oestrogen.