The overwhelming majority of the research on any industry is either directly funded by or indirectly influenced by the industry. This is true for everything from the obvious (pharmaceuticals, smartphones, tobacco historically) to the less obvious (say paint, milk, or drill bits.) In other words, "what does the research say" is a different way to phrase "what is financially valuable to the industry?"

One problem I have with what I will term "Trust-the-Science-ism" is that it inherently assumes safety of anything novel; the burden of proof is on the individual to prove it's unsafe, because the corporations care about you, and you should trust the science. PFASs, plasticizers, modern flame retardants, child use of smartphones/social media, general use of screens, et cetera. In reality, who knows if a novel thing is safe? Why not test it out in a truly rigorous fashion? If the benefits from this new thing are so great, we as a society could pay for this thousands of times over. Sadly the incentives never align, these new inventions are rarely challenged, and their studies rarely approach rigor.

So, what does the research say on the subject? Nothing, as it turns out - there's nothing substantial published. Why? Well, we know where the influence and interests lie.