It's still a good counterbalance to the equally absurd claims that plastic is harmless. Someone might look at both sides, start to investigate, then write a more accurate analysis.
The odds ratios should be reported because they are striking. They should also be accompanied by probabilities, nevertheless. I do not think this is an issue of counterbalancing, what would that even imply?
Forgive me, my terminology may not be correct. What I'm trying to say is it's better to have idiots saying that plastic is completely harmless and idiots saying plastic is the end of the world, than just idiots saying plastic is harmless (which is pretty much what's been happening in the past, and it's why the ocean and every living thing has a lot of "harmless" plastic in it now).