As American epidemiologists have become increasingly political and disenfranchised from the science community they have become more available to allies in environmental lawyer groups, using low-level chemical exposures. The groups that helped scare the public (i.e. new mothers) by creating statistical correlation about BPA have now turned on the replacement, BPS.
They think media and moms are so scientifically illiterate they can suggest calories are not the strongest driver of obesity in kids, it's this new chemical, and people will buy it.
This is carefully worded so it can't really be called lying, "has been recognized" can mean anything. But it is not true and no legitimate scientists have been able to show otherwise.
They manufactured their link without doing any original studies, they simply took data from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys in the years 2013-2016 and created associations between BPA/BPS/BPF and body mass outcomes among kids 6-19. They concluded that children who had greater levels of BPS and BPF in their urine were more likely to have obesity compared to children with lower levels.
What is the biological mechanism for this? There is none, nor do they need one. This is media click bait. As further evidence this is an effort to mobilize the public against science, they leave out of their paper that these compounds only bind to estrogen 1/20,000th as well as actual estrogen. And that can be found in lots of foods. The cans are irrelevant, unless your career is built on promoting chemophobia, and corresponding author, Melanie Jacobson, Ph.D., M.P.H, of New York University has her funding reliant on scaring people about BPA.
So its no surprise this claim was created, it will be surprising if an increasingly fatigued public falls for this endocrine disrupting hype again.