This is the perfect article for HN because the problem is still real and the recommendation to avoid black plastic around food is still good. But because there was an error that affects but does not undermine the conclusion, the entire premise is rejected.

I think of this as "too technical to be correct." It's a really good example of how when writing for HN as an audience, it's best to use as few concrete details as possible. They will be scrutinized endlessly, and any flaw or inconsistency in them no matter how trivial or spurious will be taken as refutation of the entire statement.