:::I generally removed sources that are not reliable for scientific content (such as newspapers) and used more reliable scientific sources. The newspaper is fine for starting the main finding of the court case though as I specifically included that piece of information. As you're just coming off your block, please refrain from accusations like "sanitize" though. We currently concisely say a lot that has been noteworthy within the scope of this article about the chemical so far. 

 :::Also, please refrain from mischaracterizing secondary sources as primary sources as you did here. If you aren't familiar with literature reviews in science, please read WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:PSTS. I'm not sure why you're opposed to the source in these cases though. It's saying the same thing other secondary sources are saying, nothing controversial that we'd be concerned about in terms of independence as mentioned above (not claims we really would need independent sources for), and offers some in-depth explanation on mode of action as a review. If the source was going to be used on it's own for claims needing a higher bar, I'd be concerned, but that's not the case here.