Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

How Environmental Pollutants Are Causing Reproductive Problems

By Molly M. Ginty, Women's eNews. Posted December 20, 2006.


Across the U.S., female animals exposed to toxic chemicals are suffering from a flurry of health problems, from shrunken ovaries to spontaneous abortions. What does this mean for female humans?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Molly M. Ginty

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

This below story includes both parts of a two-part series.

In California, female sea lions are spontaneously aborting their fetuses.

In the Great Lakes area, mother gulls are sharing nests and raising eggs together because their male partners have forgotten how to parent.

In upstate New York, female frogs have as much testosterone in their bodies as males.

Scientists say these aberrations all share a common link: exposure to toxic chemicals called "endocrine disruptors," which pollute the air, soil and water.

"At the rate this pollution is going, we will likely have population decreases in many wildlife species, especially amphibians and fish that are more susceptible to toxins because their skin is constantly exposed to these chemicals in an aquatic environment," says Sarah Janssen, a science fellow at the New York-based Natural Resources Defense Council. "These animals serve as canaries in the coal mine for human females, teaching us how synthetic chemicals might affect our nervous system development, immune function, fertility and other health outcomes."

In the past six decades, U.S. manufacturers have unleashed an estimated 100,000 synthetic compounds into the environment.

When animals come into contact with these pollutants, which have been detected in rainwater and in the rivers and soil of even the most remote areas, they absorb synthetic chemicals into their bloodstreams and their bodies. Researchers are finding that the female halves of many species are displaying biological reactions.

Earthworms Dosed With Prozac

Synthetic compounds have been detected in even the simplest life forms. According to a 2006 study by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), earthworms now have an average 31 pollutants in their bodies, including perfumes, household disinfectants and the antidepressant Prozac.

"As you go up the food chain, the numbers or relative amounts of synthetic chemicals can be even higher," says Diana Papoulias, a USGS biologist in Columbia, Mo. "Mammals, in particular females, have more fat in their bodies than other animals and therefore can have more toxins in their fat."

Years after they were created and put into common use, many synthetic chemicals were found to be endocrine disruptors, which means they interfere with the action of hormones that regulate animals' growth, development and fertility. These chemicals are of particular concern to female animals, since their hormones, like those of human females, fluctuate more than those of males.

Common endocrine disruptors include pesticides, phthalates (which make plastic flexible and make cosmetics adhere to the skin) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs, industrial cooling agents banned in the United States in 1979 but still present in the environment.) Individual chemicals such as these -- or groups of them working together -- are making animals' hormones go haywire.

In Washington state, endocrine disruptors have been tied to the deaths of mother orcas, whose orphans have been adopted by other female whales. Some waterfowl and fish are experiencing 'feminization' from chemicals.

In Alaska, they have caused female polar bears' ovaries to shrink.

In Massachusetts, they have lowered the over-winter survival rates of female tree swallows.

In Florida, they have accumulated in the milk of mother dolphins, poisoning and killing their calves.

In addition to harming female animals, endocrine disruptors can cause the "feminization" of males. In Arizona, these chemicals have shrunken the gonads of largemouth bass and common carp. In the Midwest, they have spurred male waterfowl to grow female organs. In Washington, D.C., they have caused male fish to produce eggs.

Small Amounts, Big Impact

Just as alarming as these problems is the low level of exposure at which they are occurring. When Tyrone Hayes, an assistant professor of biology at the University of California, Berkeley, studied the endocrine-disrupting properties of atrazine, a common weed killer, he discovered reproductive abnormalities in affected leopard frogs at 0.1 parts per billion parts water, 30 times less than the Environmental Protection Agency's limit for atrazine in drinking water.

Though proof that endocrine disruptors can harm female wildlife is mounting, scientists say it is difficult to assess the total damage.

"In the wild, subtle outcomes such as length of gestation, litter size and the age of onset of puberty are difficult to ascertain," says Janssen. "You would have to know exactly when these females became pregnant and gave birth. You would have to anesthetize them to take blood samples. You would have to carefully observe and measure life events that are difficult to track in the field. Measuring these effects would ideally involve more controlled studies."

In laboratory settings, studies have repeatedly shown the adverse effects of some of the most prevalent endocrine disruptors.

Consider phthalates, those chemicals that help prevent makeup from smudging. In 2003, an Environmental Protection Agency study found these substances could reduce fertility in rodents, causing female rats to bear 50 to 90 percent fewer offspring.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: toxins, pollution, endocrine disruptors, reproduction

Molly M. Ginty is a freelance writer based in New York.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
decent
Posted by: rsaxto on Dec 20, 2006 2:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we had decent corporations and decent governments no chemicals would allowed in human-used products that were not tested rigorously for adverse effects. Since this is not the case it is clear that most US institutions are guilty of mass negligence, mass incompetance and profit-driven stupidity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: decent Posted by: symcokid
marie
Posted by: denise on Dec 20, 2006 5:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lobbyists for the chemical companies give tremendous amounts of money/bribes to our elected officials. This allows them to write the laws and policies that govern chemicals in our environment. In addition, the EPA, which is supposed to be protecting us and our environment, has been compromised with pressure from elected officials who receive these bribes. This is not only happening in the US, but chemical lobbyist are at work in Europe, watering down their laws too.

To solve this we need to insitute campaign reforms that will: 1-institute short campaigns, 2-fund them with public dollars, 3-allow no contributions from corporations, individuals, or any other outside influence, 4-have a watchdog group to ensure these laws are followed, 5-have serious consequences to officials that break these laws including: financial fines, jail time and not being allowed to run for any office.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

changes are needed
Posted by: denise on Dec 20, 2006 5:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lobbyists for the chemical companies give tremendous amounts of money/bribes to our elected officials. This allows them to write the laws and policies that govern chemicals in our environment. In addition, the EPA, which is supposed to be protecting us and our environment, has been compromised with pressure from elected officials who receive these bribes. This is not only happening in the US, but chemical lobbyist are at work in Europe, watering down their laws too.

To solve this we need to insitute campaign reforms that will: 1-institute short campaigns, 2-fund them with public dollars, 3-allow no contributions from corporations, individuals, or any other outside influence, 4-have a watchdog group to ensure these laws are followed, 5-have serious consequences to officials that break these laws including: financial fines, jail time and not being allowed to run for any office.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's think about better regulation! That's an idea!
Posted by: VannaLaRoche on Dec 20, 2006 7:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah, and by the time you turn that ship around we'll all be using our flippers for navigation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hormone disrupters are creating a reproductive "ozone" hole
Posted by: kungfoofighterx on Dec 20, 2006 8:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article touched on a really important problem that needs to be addressed quickly. Most do not think about the consequences of pollution on human fetal development or fertility. They are linked because the cells that eventually produce gametes (sex cells) develop very early on during fetal development. The proper development of these types of cells to form functional sex organs requires a complex orchestra of signals that can be disrupted by chemicals. Whole populations are effected by this type of pollution for example in Denmark as much as 25% of 19 year old men exhibit very low sperm counts. This large decrease in fertility may be due to hormone disrupting pollution. People need to push regulatory agencies to screen all compounds for their ability to affect fetal development and reproductive health.
If you are interested in finding out more
google with some of these words
sertoli cells, pollution, xenobiotics, reproduction, antiandrogen

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Exactly. Posted by: maxpayne
You can always count on AlterNet being thoroughly feminacentric
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Dec 20, 2006 8:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the article: Scientists say women are especially sensitive to synthetic chemicals because these substances can interfere with female hormone cycles and because they adhere to body fat that is more prevalent in women than in men.

Poor babies. Too bad that's not the whole story.

These chemicals also interfere with the male system, just in a different way. Since sperm are manufactured more or less in real time, whereas eggs are present at birth, men have a comparable set of issues in this regard. The human reproductive system is finely tuned on both sides, and each needs to work correctly if success is to be achieved. If I understand things correctly, male sperm counts are down some 50% from a generation or two ago and constitute an important cause of fertility problems.

So it would have been nice if the article had been less sexist and more balanced. But we all know men are second class citizens who aren't of much concern even though men are way more likely to work on a day-to-day basis in direct contact with potent chemicals of the sort which causes these problems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: feminacentric??? Sexist??? Posted by: Ghoulman
Environmental Estrogen
Posted by: jaby on Dec 20, 2006 8:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was suprised at not having read about environmental estrogen in this article (maybe it was there and I missed it). Environmental estrogens have been throwing off the balance of males and females in nature for many years now and there is priliminary evidence that it is starting to affect humans (see below). Certain plastics and other things act as environmental estrogens, but here is the dirty little secret: women on birth control pills secrete copious amounts of excess estroge into the ecosystem through their urine.

Just another reason for us ladies to get our doctors to let us use IUD's. Or maybe the Catholics were right about birth control pills for the wrong reasons.

This site offers a great primer on the problems with environmental estrogen
http://e.hormone.tulane.edu/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: nvironmental Estrogen Posted by: Krain61
Thank you Alternet. This is what we need to counter the fake "pro-lifers".
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 20, 2006 9:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's time to take this article into perspective and reframe the ENTIRE debate on "pro-life". I would also add that an earlier poster pointed out that men and babies are also HEAVILY AFFLICTED and it's time the men, women, and kids united against the rightwing ELITE. Next time you meet another "pro-lifer", force him or her to respond to the environmental causes of birth defects and/or abortion/miscarriage due to corporatists policies against the environment. Either they'll listen and come to grips with those causes or they'll stay the IGNORANT course. Either way, you would have put the bad ones on the defensive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No Taxation or Illness W/O Representation
Posted by: edith on Dec 20, 2006 9:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Public health boards, the EPA, FDA, and other agencies concerned with eco-health must have ordinary non-PHD women on decision making boards and review panels. Health care is run by MD's and PhD elitiests who are looking to publish articles and find glory, not to protect the lives of people these "experts" wouldn't be caught dining with or living next to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Government is not the Problem
Posted by: HistArch on Dec 20, 2006 10:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The pollution problem and solution lies with us. We are the ones who bought the products that caused this pollution. But, on that note we are also the ones who can stop this pollution. Its easy to blame politicians because they are supposed to be in charge but who elected them. So far voting machines have not been able to elect candidates on their own so someone out there voted for these guys. And we can't blame manufacturers because they will: 1) continue making this stuff as long as people buy it, and 2) they will stop making it if we dont buy it.

How can we stop this. With our dollars and sense. Try not to buy stuff that was made with pollution, not for Christmas, not in an emergency, not ever. Don't use harmful chemicals. Look 'em up online and avoid, avoid, avoid. Use your (and your coworkers, and families, and church groups ect.) to show elected officials that they won't get re-elected unless they do something. Go online and see how they voted and forward this info to your friends and families.

The world was around for millions of years and it will be for millions more. It's people who might not be. Action is the best answer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pollution
Posted by: rafey on Dec 20, 2006 11:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes. I think it rather ironic that the very party that pretends to be "pro-life" is the major contibutor (in terms of policy) to death in utero and teratological disorders !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You can't escape it! Without change in your life
Posted by: Krain61 on Dec 20, 2006 12:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I moved to the country from the city we{my family} hardly ever got sick..Since they all moved back they get sick alot! We see where people spray there yards and wonder why there dogs get tumors! DA
We are just as bad as they are because we buy the stuff..We know they can't be trusted with our health..They have over 15,000 chemicals they don't have to list on the labels that goes in to your food.They put a form of toxic waste in your water{Floride} It sovles the problem of hauling it away.The chorine they put in your water turn in to gas when you take a hot shower and you breath it in..Not Good..Then your forced to use everything pasturized products which remove emzimes that your body needs to fight illnesses..They keep making your body weaker..Hea I guess you could go to the doctor and get some drugs{synthentic} to fix you up..Look at what they spay your food with from the time before the seed even gets in the ground..You can drive the roads and if there spaying the fields or if the Goverment is spraying for for bugs you will get it in your body..If you can smell anything it got in your body though your nose atleast..I would say if your pregnet don't use any kind of chemical and eat only natrual food and don't use makeup of deordorant atleast till you deliver..And if you are going to breast feed well You should know what not to do!Don't eat anything processed.And read Kevin Trudea's book to learn more..Use natrual cures instead of drugs..Drugs just cover the symtoms up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

'What does this mean for female humans?"
Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle on Dec 20, 2006 2:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nothing, because the Bible tells us God mad Man separately from the animals.

Sorry, just kidding. ;-)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Birth Control
Posted by: dkm on Dec 20, 2006 6:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It has occurred to me that this is the Republican Party (business plus fundamentalist nutcases) answer to the problems with abstinence training and contraception prohibition. With the removal of birth control, the population will grow faster than it can be cared for, so something must be done to control population growth. The Fundies won't tolerate abortions or contraception so that means some other means must be applied. That gives us interminable wars to kill people before they have the chance to get serious about having kids. Now we have chemical warfare against the fetal population. What a great idea! What a bunch of jerks!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» We Don't Need Birth Control Posted by: Krain61
Bush is a quack ~ there is no "cure" for autism
Posted by: yankhadenuf on Dec 20, 2006 7:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This money would be better spent on finding THE CAUSE of autism (however, the Canadians already did) :

http://tinyurl.com/tzc27

and as compensation to autistics due to mercury contamination from coal-fired plants while their mothers were pregnant, and from vaccines with thimerosal while they were infants:

http://tinyurl.com/y9cer5

"For the millions of Americans whose lives are affected by autism, today is a day of hope. The Combating Autism Act of 2006 will increase public awareness about this disorder and provide enhanced federal support for autism research and treatment. By creating a national education program for doctors and the public about autism, this legislation will help more people recognize the symptoms of autism. This will lead to early identification and intervention, which is critical for children with autism. I am proud to sign this bill into law and confident that it will serve as an important foundation for our Nation s efforts to find a cure for autism."

- President George W. Bush, 12/19/06

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pollution victim here
Posted by: scryberwitch on Dec 22, 2006 9:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have endometriosis. As stated in the article, it is most likely caused by exposure to polluntants like dioxin or other xenoestrogens (or "environmental estrogens," as another poster put it). I just want to make a couple of points. First, endometriosis is very, very common. Estimates take 10 - 20% of American women have it (though it's hard to exactly pin down because it's often undiagnosed or dismissed as "painful periods"). Secondly, and more importantly, it is awful. It is *extremely* painful and can be life-threatening (when a cyst bursts, there is a significant chance of continued hemorraging which can kill you if it isn't surgically sealed up). I have lost jobs because of missing too many days from pain. My sex drive is hovering near zero (discomfort and pain tend to do that). Yet I have no recourse - I can't sue any specific company, I can't qualify for disability, I just have to live with it.
This is totally an opinion here, but I think that if this were a man's disease, we'd already have cured it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» We are all Pollution victim Posted by: Krain61
So glad...
Posted by: Pirate1 on Dec 23, 2006 1:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That you put this in AlterNet... this information has been around a while but mainly in science and health magazines so your average jock/shopper American doesn't necessarily get exposed to them. This is extremely important stuff, right up there with climate change; in fact, both phenomena can be seen to share a common source. Historically, I don't see humanity capable of major change... we revere tradition and once something is done for a generation, there seems this unexamined imperitive to continue doing it. {ie; nuclear weapons, monoculture farming, hula hoops, burning oil, circumcision, burning period.} But there are social traditions so old that their origins are no longer clearly know or understood and are interpreted by moderns who often have a stake in them continuing. We carry on with traditions that made sense when we believed the Earth to be flat and dreamed up ideas of colossal scale humanoid gods who had to have MADE it all because then we lacked the understandings of the quantum world and believed everything was crafted somehow by someone... someone who had to be appeased with sacrifice or some form of self mutilation so they would send the rain and steady the Earth and bring the spring to warm them from winter's cold; when we were a minoity species living in fear of becoming something's lunch. We carry on with these things in the face of all rational evidence to the contrary that has been laboriously discovered over the eons. We believe things that are counter intuitive because we have been told we must from birth. I think it will take something like a die off of say three fourths of the world's human population and all but some hardy creatures like crows, starlings, snakes, rats and roaches before enough of us will GET it that we aren't separate and never have been but are one strand in a delicately balanced web of life that we, through our industries and traditions/habits are currently the chief cause of unravelling. All this belief is fear driven... fear of punishment after you die, or worse yet, while you're alive but we miss that what we should fear most is the loss of an Earth with conditions conducive to life as we know it happening at all... Earth will go on, probably come up with entire new ecosystems that will live of all the pvc, pcb, pesticide, "softener" residue that will be our main legacy if we don't wake up. They will marvel and theorize what we were as we do the dinosaurs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not a new idea
Posted by: putman9 on Dec 25, 2006 7:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
PCB has a half life of TEN THOUSAND years. That comment saying its still around 30 yrs after it was banned should be no surprise.
Don't think that contaminants made by companies are the only things affecting our reproductive cycles and that of our fauna in our environment. I recall seeing a science show by David Suziki that reported on the rising levels of estrogen in the Great Lakes area. Birth control hormones are eventually expelled by the human body and take time to breakdown in our environment. Now lets see how many boys are having problems in that area in developing secondary sex characteristics?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not a new idea Posted by: Krain61
I feel for the animals..humans; not so much
Posted by: Artemis3 on Dec 31, 2006 7:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All the earth's problems can be traced back to the influence of mankind. Maybe it's a good thing that humans' fertility is decreasing-it's just one of the ways that Mother Earth is going to try to rid this planet of it's worst parasite-human beings!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We reap what we sow
Posted by: Krain61 on Jan 1, 2007 5:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We know synthetic drugs are not normal but we take them{not me}and we know chemicals are bad for our body since they are man made and not grown.We eat the food! We say the bugs bug us spray more! It has been known for years that if effects the wild life so why are we surprised?This is nothing new! Our corporations have been comitting geniced daily in this country for many years..We have one of the highest rates of birth defects and mortality rates and more cancer than other countries.But as we sell our drugs and chemicals to these others countries they'll catch up with progress..If I was in goverment in one of those countries I would stop all this crap from coming in my country..We {big Pharmicutical companies} are killing 5000 people aday in our country from drugs..And we are surprised about the birth rate..More females are born now than ever..I think God is telling us something! Half of them will be lesbian and if were lucky maybe half will bare kids.. Stop using it and they'll stop making it if there is no one to buy it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]