No. Like I said, PE and PP - which are the vast majority of plastic packaging, especially for foods, because the materials you are referring to are not food-safe in the first place - are biologically inert.

In fact, the monomers of PE and PP (ethylene and propene) are also not toxic, which is uncommon (compare with e.g. PVC: vinylchloride is toxic in all sorts of ways, polystyrol: styrene is also toxic in a few ways and damages DNA, teflon: it's monomer is also a carcinogen). This is important, because making plastics generally leaves precursors in the finished product: the more the worse the process control is, which costs money and requires know-how.

See e.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23862761/ for a study looking at whether these are EDC; they're not: "There were no significant differences between test and control groups in vagina or uterine weight. Data suggest that effluents from plastic food containers do not appear to produce significant adverse effects according to Hershberger and uterotrophic assays."

The single most problematic plastic for health purposes is PVC. PVC in its chemically pure form (difficult to do) isn't bad, either. But pure PVC is a hard, brittle plastic, which is not that useful. So most PVC products consist of a large portion of plasticizer; some products (e.g. cables and other types of very soft PVC) are actually more plasticizer than PVC both by weight and volume. Both PVC and toxic paints are a popular choice for all kinds of toys.

It's true that not all plastics are EDC, but that doesn't mean that accumulation of those non-toxic plastics in our bodies is harmless either. There is very little research on this at this time, but studies done in animals (mostly sea critters) suggest that plastics accumulating in their bodies could lead to problems such as metabolic disorders, reduced feeding, energy deficiency, infertility, immune responses and inflammation, oxidative stress, etc.

"It is not always necessarily the chemistry that harms us. Sometimes it's the shape and the presence of foreign particles in our bodies," (https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-08-autopsies-microplasti...)

It's too soon to say what health impacts these plastics in our own bodies are having which makes it far far too early to have any confidence that there are none.

It's a good point to make that something can be inert and non-toxic and still cause issues. And we indeed don't have the data yet to say for certain what the result is, however, what we can tell so far is that there are no overt issues; the article uses asbestos as an example, but we're pretty confident that the effect level isn't anything like that.

Personally it seems far more likely to me that globally observed health issues are caused by the proliferation of chemicals in everyday life that we know are definitely toxic. So IMHO an excellent plastic to blame if you need one is e.g. PVC (and also PTFE because OH BOY WHAT A SMART IDEA TO PUT THAT SHIT ON PANS WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG I HAVE NO IDEA).

(This part made me laugh a little: "Microplastics are plastic fragments less than 5 millimeters in diameter, or about 0.2 inches, barely visible to the human eye. ")