• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Fading Human Fertility: Causes & Consequences

lopaka

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Sep 17, 2001
Messages
2,011
Plastics: Cause of Our Female Future

Plastic's harmful side effects

Chemicals in common household products disrupt the development of reproductive organs in unborn baby boys, scientists report.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Ian Sample



May 27, 2005 | Scientists in America have found the first evidence that common chemicals used in products as diverse as cosmetics, toys, plastic wrap and plastic bags may harm the development of unborn baby boys. Researchers have long known that high levels of substances called phthalates have gender-bending effects on male animals, making them more feminine and leading to poor sperm quality and infertility. The new study suggests that even normal levels of phthalates, which are ubiquitous, can disrupt the development of male babies' reproductive organs.

The discovery poses a huge problem for the chemical industry, which is already embroiled in a battle with the government over the European Union's proposals on chemical safety.


Several types of phthalates, which are used to make plastics more pliable, and have been around for more than 50 years, have been banned, but many are still produced in vast quantities.

The study was carried out by scientists from centers across the United States, including the University of Rochester and the National Center for Environmental Health. The researchers measured the levels of nine widely used phthalates in the urine of pregnant women and compared them with standard physiological measurements of their babies. Tests showed that women with higher levels of four different phthalates were more likely to have baby boys with a range of conditions, from smaller penises and undescended testicles to a shorter perineum, the distance between the genitals and the anus. The differences, say the authors, indicate a feminization of the boys similar to that seen in animals exposed to the chemicals.

Shanna Swan, an obstetrician at the University of Rochester and the lead scientist on the study, said researchers must now unravel what kinds of products were most to blame. One way that phthalates get into the bloodstream is when they seep into food from plastic packaging. "It's going to take a while to work out which of these sources is most relevant to human exposure," she said.

Although the observed differences in body measurements were subtle, they indicate that what is generally regarded as the most ubiquitous class of chemicals is having a significant effect on newborns. "Every aspect of male identity is altered when you see this in male animals," said Fred vom Saal, professor of reproductive biology at the University of Missouri at Columbia. Levels of aggression, parenting behavior and even learning speeds were affected, he said.

Andreas Kortenkamp, an expert in environmental pollutants at the School of Pharmacy in London, said: "If it is true, it is sensational. This is the first time anyone has shown this effect in humans. It is an indicator that something has gone seriously wrong with development in the womb -- and that is why it is so serious."

He added: "These are mass chemicals. They are used in any plastic that is pliable, whether it's [plastic wrap], kidney dialysis tubes, blood bags or toys. Sorting this out is going to be an interesting challenge for industry as well as society."

The work, which is to appear in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, is due to be presented at the Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals Forum in San Diego on June 3.

Gwynne Lyons, a toxins advisor to the World Wildlife Federation, said: "At the moment, regulation of the chemicals industry is woefully inadequate." She added: "Right now the government is looking at how the regulation of hormone-disrupting chemicals could be made more effective under new E.U. chemicals law, but the chemicals industry is lobbying very hard to water down this legislation. Political agreement on this legislation is not expected until later this year, so it remains to be seen whether the U.K. government has the guts to stand up to industry lobbying. If they don't, wildlife and baby boys will be the losers."


salon.com

salon.com/news/feature/2005/ ... _and_boys/
Link is dead. The MIA article (quoted in full above) can be accessed via the Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/2011021...om/news/feature/2005/05/27/plastics_and_boys/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hmmm...

Writes memo to self - Do not wrap genitals in plastic bag.

(Er, not that I ever do of, of course.. :oops: )



But this does raise questions about condoms... :shock:
 
Aren't condoms made from rubber, rather than plastic?
 
Cling film. I hate it when shopkeepers wrap cheese in f*cking clingfilm!

Why not just sprinkle crushed up contraceptive pill as a pizza topping? :furious:
 
Info about the composition of cling films can be found here
 
Long article from the Telegraph (which I quote in full.)
Link is dead. No archived version found.

Are these sperm doomed?
(Filed: 15/06/2005)


Male fertility is falling. New evidence shows that phthalates - chemicals found in plastics and cosmetics - can damage boys' reproductive development at much lower doses than thought and that hormone exposure in the womb could cause disease later in life, perhaps in future generations. Roger Highfield reports



Among fertility scientists, the human male is the laughing stock of the animal kingdom. Compared with other species, we are hardly fertile. The joke is beginning to wear thin, however. More than a decade ago, Copenhagen University researchers concluded that sperm counts of this already subfertile species were falling in the West.

Some scientists doubted that the decline was real, questioning the quality of old data that had been gathered by a variety of doctors for other reasons and whether it could be stitched together to reveal a historical trend. But the doubts have been settled by newer studies of younger men, revealing that one fifth have an abnormally low sperm count in some European countries.

The average is "remarkably low", comments Prof Richard Sharpe of the Medical Research Council's Human Reproductive Sciences Unit in Edinburgh, adding that we can expect to see similar data from studies in Britain.

Human exposure to pesticides and industrial chemicals has long been under suspicion. Principal suspects include "gender- bender" chemicals that act like the human sex hormones oestrogen (female) or testosterone (male), or which block their action in the body. They are called endocrine disrupting chemicals, a reference to the endocrine glands that secrete hormones. They include what are called xeno-oestrogens, which mimic oestrogen.

Compelling evidence has been amassed to show how wildlife can be affected, with exposed fish, birds, frogs, shellfish and other animals sometimes becoming all male, or all female, or something in between. But it has been much harder to link exposures of men over a lifetime - even before birth - to the decline in sperm count and rise in defects, such as undescended testes, and testicular cancer.

To add to the confusion, there is widespread hype. Pressure groups try to generate headlines by using ultra-sensitive techniques to hunt for traces of synthetic chemicals in the body without asking whether they are doing harm. Some even seem confused about what chemicals are. An article in the latest issue of Which? says: "It's almost impossible to avoid some contact with chemicals." In fact the food we eat is made of chemicals, along with the air we breathe, our bodies, brains and anything else we come into contact with.

Nature herself bombards us with many natural hormone-like chemicals such as phyto-oestrogens in soya. And even everyday chemicals such as refined sugar - glucose - can have profound effects on the hormonal balance of the body, says Prof Sharpe.

In the past few weeks some key pieces of the hormone puzzle have started to fall into place, notably evidence that suggests that ubiquitous chemicals called phthalates - found in plastics, cosmetics and many other products - can affect the reproductive development of baby boys at doses that are lower than observed in animal studies.

The study, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, is the first to "support the hypothesis that prenatal phthalate exposure at environmental levels can adversely affect male reproductive development in humans", say the authors.

The work of Prof Shanna Swan of the University of Rochester, New York, and colleagues in America and Denmark provides rigorous evidence that some phthalates have antiandrogenic effects, meaning they may suppress hormones such as testosterone. "It is the first paper that bridges the gap between animal research and human exposures," says Prof Sharpe.

The finding builds on reproducible effects of phthalates seen in animal studies, including the demasculinisation of the male reproductive tract, increases in the likelihood of undescended testes, lowered sperm counts and a decrease (more female-like) in the distance between anus and genitals (anogenital distance) and were presented at the Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals Forum in San Diego last week.

The study of 134 boys aged between two and 30 months is thought to be the first to investigate the effects on genitals of prenatal exposure to phthalates, based on an analysis of urine samples taken from 85 mothers during pregnancy. Exposure causes "a cluster of genital changes" consistent with what is called "phthalate syndrome" in animals.

The main finding of the study was that the anogenital distance decreased with rising concentration of some phthalates. The distance, based on data on rodents and limited human data, appears to be about twice as long in males as females and to be under the control of male hormones, providing a sensitive measure of anti-androgen action which will be invaluable for follow-up work. The descent of the testicles was also impaired, consistent with rodent experiments. And the smaller anogenital distance was correlated with a smaller scrotum and penis.

Prof Swan found that the concentrations of phthalate breakdown products linked with the effects she had observed were lower than those found in around 25 per cent of the women in the United States and concludes that "these data support the hypothesis that prenatal phthalate exposure at environmental levels can adversely affect male reproductive development in humans".

But this milestone study is small. Phthalates are associated with problems but the study falls short of proof that they actually cause them. There are inconsistencies: for example, a drop in anogenital distance was associated with a phthalate that earlier animal studies suggested was inactive.

Prof Swan, along with Prof Sharpe, stressed that bigger studies were urgently needed to confirm whether phthalates do indeed "undervirilise humans" and to measure the consequences in later life. "We need to know much more to be able to place these findings in context, such as how anogenital distance varies in the normal population," says Prof Sharpe.

Worryingly, phthalates are common. An earlier study of the environmental uptake of phthalates in the general population by Prof Jürgen Angerer at the University of Erlangen-Nürnberg revealed that levels are far higher than previously believed, especially in children.

"The general population is exposed to relatively high amounts of phthalates and we could show that the margin of safety is, with respect to the tolerable daily intake, decreasing," says Prof Angerer. Some groups bear much higher risk than average, notably those in contact with plastic medical devices. "For premature [babies] in intensive care we measured values that are some orders of magnitude higher than the tolerable daily intake."

Cocktails of chemicals that have gender-altering effects can have a far greater effect cumulatively in our water supply than can be discovered by testing for the chemicals singly, according to a groundbreaking study using freshwater minnows by Prof John Sumpter of Brunel University.

The contaminants arise from a large variety of products such as the contraceptive pill, toiletries, household cleaning fluids and fertilisers. "Put simply, we may need to consider tougher safety margins to fully protect wildlife and humans," he says.

Meanwhile, animal studies continue to raise concerns. One study, published in the journal Endocrinology by Prof Ana Soto of Tufts University, Boston, showed that in experiments with mice, bisphenol-A - a ubiquitous and weak oestrogen mimic used to make polycarbonate plastic, also found in resins that line food cans - can, when administered around childbirth, even at very low doses, alter mammary gland development at the time of puberty.

These alterations, were they to take place in humans, could contribute to an increase in the risk of breast cancer and prostate cancer. Once again, however, the work is suggestive rather than conclusive: it fails to show a direct link with cancer in the animals. And, of course, what goes for humans may not go for rodents and vice versa.

Work in another American laboratory has shown how exposure to these hormones early in life, perhaps even before birth, could solve the riddle of why only some people who inherit a fault in a cancer-causing gene go on to develop the disease.

Published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by a team at the University of Texas, the study shows for the first time that exposure of the foetus to a synthetic hormone can permanently "reprogram" tissue in a way that determines whether tumours will develop in adulthood.

The study was conducted with diethylstilbestrol (DES), a banned anti-miscarriage drug that mimics the female sex hormone. The experimental subjects were female rats that are genetically predisposed to develop uterine leiomyoma, the same kind of benign fibroid tumours that many women have.

By the time they reached adulthood (16 months), almost all of the rats exposed early to DES had developed leiomyoma, and the tumours were larger and more numerous than in the control group. In contrast, none of the DES-exposed rats that lacked the genetic defect had developed tumours by 16 months.

Exposure to DES had permanently "reprogrammed" the rats' normal response to oestrogen, making the uterus "hyper-responsive" and leading to the development of tumours in the animals with the inherited genetic defect. These conclusions are likely to have relevance for humans who inherit defective tumour suppressor genes, such as BRCA1 and BRCA2, that make them susceptible to a number of different cancers, notably breast cancer.

"The kind of developmental reprogramming we see from this work could represent an important determinate of risk in people genetically susceptible to hormone-dependent tumours, such as uterine, breast and prostate cancer," says the study's principal investigator, Prof Cheryl Lyn Walker.

While more work is needed, "we need to open our eyes to the notion that cancer that develops in adults may have been put in motion before a person is born", adds the first author, Jennifer Cook, a graduate student.

To add to the alarm, other research seems to suggest that the effects of gender- bender chemicals can be passed down the generations. Published in the journal Science by a team from Washington State University, Pullman, the study suggests that the decline in men today could result from the exposure of their great-grandmothers to an environmental agent.

The chemicals appear to alter the activity of an animal's genes in a way that is transmitted through at least four generations. "It's a new way to think about disease," says Prof Michael Skinner.

His team exposed pregnant rats at the time the sex of their offspring was being determined to vinclozolin, a fungicide commonly used in vineyards, and methoxychlor, a pesticide that replaced DDT. Both are endocrine disruptors and both were used at levels higher than normally present in the environment.

The result was male offspring with low sperm counts and low fertility. Those males were still able to produce offspring, however, and when they were mated with females that had not been exposed to the toxins, their male offspring had the same problems.

To the surprise of the team, the effect persisted through all generations tested, with more than 90 per cent of the male offspring in each generation affected. "This new phenomenon could be a factor in the sperm number decline previously identified in some regions, and could explain why in some regions and not others," says Prof Skinner.

The Washington study shows the potential impact of so-called epigenetic changes, in which DNA sequences - the genes - remain the same down the generations but chemical modifications alter the way in which some of them work.

The find carries echoes of earlier work by Prof Yuri Dubrova of the University of Leicester, who found that when male mice were exposed to high levels of two kinds of radiation, the resulting boost in mutation rate was passed on to their offspring, even when the offspring had not been exposed to the radiation - and the mother had not been irradiated.

This higher mutation rate even persisted in the grandchildren of the exposed mice. "The impact of these results, if confirmed in humans, could be enormous," says Prof Dubrova.

Commenting on the Skinner lab work, Prof Sharpe says it was "a dramatic and unexpected finding which runs counter to much of our present thinking and understanding.

As with all such new, and potentially important, developments, the first requirement of good science is that these effects are reproduced [that is, confirmed] in an independent laboratory. If this proves to be the case, we will have to rethink about the mechanisms via which adverse effects of environmental chemicals or lifestyle practices can be passed from one generation to the next."

Until then, the jury is out on whether there is a hormone time bomb. However, the new studies do underline how the few months we spend in the womb exert a profound influence on disorders suffered in later life.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Going back a few years there was a media flurry about teenage students using the clingwrap off their school lunches as makeshift condoms.
:shock:

Who knows what damage the plasticisers leaching out of the cling wrap could have caused? :?

Let's just hope they took the time to remove the sandwiches first ... they could have been even more damaging! :p
 
The Handmaiden's Tale to come... Vaguely apocalyptic, but with an essence of truth.
'Infertility time bomb' warning

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4112450.stm

"Infertility is set to double in Europe over the next decade, a leading UK fertility expert has warned.

One in seven couples now has trouble conceiving naturally, but Professor Bill Ledger from Sheffield University warned this could rise to one in three.

He told a European fertility conference that women should be offered career breaks so they could have children younger, when they are more fertile.

Obesity and sex infections were also increasing infertility, he said.

The incidence of chlamydia, a sexually transmitted infection which carries a risk of infertility, has doubled over the last decade - and 6% of girls under the age of 19 are currently classed as obese.

A potential rise in male infertility could also affect couples, Professor Ledger said. Both the quality and quantity of sperm appeared to be in decline.

Time bomb

"Young people of today will become tomorrow's patients in infertility clinics," Professor Ledger said.


YThe sustainability of the population of Europe is at risk because there are too few children being born
Professor Bill Ledger, Sheffield University

He warned the rise in sexually transmitted infections in young teenagers was likely to cause blocked fallopian tubes in some.

"Later, when these young women want to become mothers, they find they can't conceive."

Professor Ledger added: "The obese child is almost certain destined to become an obese adult. Many women who are overweight will not ovulate as efficiently."

'Too few children'

Inflexible working hours and financial and career aspirations mean many women are putting off having a family until they are in their late 30s and early 40s, he said.

"The sustainability of the population of Europe is at risk because there are too few children being born. It is a threat to the future."

But he said it was not too late to reverse the trend, with many countries, such as those in Scandinavia, introducing policies to encourage women to have children earlier.

He suggested the UK also follow the lead of France by introducing tax relief and giving greater support to women who want to take career breaks to start a family.

"Women are simply not as fertile after 35," Professor Ledger said. "It's easier and more straightforward to do whatever you can to encourage women to have children naturally, rather than waiting to the point at which IVF may be needed."

'Growing concern'

Dr Becky Lang, from the Association for the Study of Obesity said the issue of fertility and obesity was often overlooked.

"Being obese can significantly reduce your fertility as well as causing more complications when they do become pregnant.

"We have just been asked by the NHS to conduct more research into this as it is of growing concern to health professionals."

A spokesperson for the Department of Health said: "The government is committed to improving the health of nation, reducing obesity, promoting healthy living, increasing physical activity and tackling sexually transmitted infections.""

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4112450.stm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dumb question: isn't lower population growth a *good* thing, particularly in affluent countries?
 
Leaferne said:
Dumb question: isn't lower population growth a *good* thing, particularly in affluent countries?

It reaches a critical level and most developed countries are balanced about right. Even then there is an increasing number of elderly. If population falls beyond where it is now then it hits real crisis levels with massive stress on pensions and the whole economic infrastructure.

Lowering birth rates is really only desirable when moving from a developing to a developed society.
 
Leaferne said:
Dumb question: isn't lower population growth a *good* thing, particularly in affluent countries?

Don't some countries have problems with that though? I seem to recall that some European countries are actually experiencing a reduction in population (I could be wrong).
 
One of my 2 dissertations was on teenage pregnancy. I discovered many interesting facts about fertility rates and patterns, including the looming dramatic drop in birth rates among the professional classes. More educated couples tend to put off or avoid having children so their families, if they have them, are smaller than in the past.

The only highly fertile people in Britain, and in all industrialised countries, are teenagers from lower socio-economic groups. This is a problem as the children are disadvantaged from birth.

Industrialised countries need to sustain the workforce or there will be too few people working to pay for the growing elderly population.

There are only limited ways to do this.
One is to produce more babies - unlikely, and too late. The babies we have already are largely the 'wrong sort'.
Another is to encourage immigration - politically unpopular, although it's still a non-runner as there aren't enough suitable potential immigrant workers to go round.
The third is to encourage presently inactive workers back into the workforce. Disabled people, the longterm sick, parents of families, could all be wheedled back into work with lucrative enough taxation breaks and benefits.

I spent 6 months on this.
We're doomed. :(
 
Wasn't there some conjecture last year or so about human males becoming 'extinct', due to some sort of evolutionary factor? I seem to remember a lot of hub-bub about it.

Maybe we're destined to become an asexual species!
 
I think that Matt Riddley in either the 'Red Queen' or 'Nature via Nurture' demonstrates why science thinks that won't happen.
 
This assumes that the most important thing in the world is maintaining the current GNP. I'd find this hard to agree with and, given how incredibly rich we are compared to how we were even a few decades ago, I'd be happy to see a cut in GNP and an improvement in quality of life. Less people means less pollution, less traffic, less housing problems etc etc.
 
My thoughts were along the same lines as Wembley's, although I've heard that we're already going to face a bit of a sticky situation, as the Gen-X workforce will have to support all those retired/incapacitated Baby Boomers in a few years. (Is it true that Britain didn't have a postwar Baby Boom like North America did?)
 
Would-be mums told to avoid soya
13:05 22 June 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Michael Le Page, Copenhagen

Women trying to conceive should consider not consuming soya for the few days around ovulation, according to a UK researcher. Her study shows a compound found in soya causes human sperm in a dish to “pop their caps” prematurely, rendering them useless. But it remains unclear whether eating soya has any actual effect on fertility.

Lynn Fraser of King’s College London studied the effect of very low levels of genistein - a compound found in leguminous plants such as soya - on human sperm in a liquid medium similar to that found in the female reproductive tract. “It was very striking,” she says. “Within an hour a third of the sperm had gone all the way.”

This means that the genistein had prematurely triggered the sperm to undergo what is known as the acrosome reaction. The acrosome is the cap on the tip of sperm that contains the enzymes needed to penetrate the thick outer layer of the female’s egg once the sperm has reached it. If it is lost early, sperm have no chance of fertilising an egg.

Fraser says other studies have shown that genistein gets into the blood of people who eat soya products. She believes that in women, it could end up in the reproductive tract and damage their chances of conceiving. “From what we have seen, women should restrict their diet for a short time over the period of ovulation.”

Effects on males
But other experts are not convinced such advice is necessary. James Kumi-Diaka of Florida Atlantic University, US, says his team has also found that genistein has a dramatic effect on sperm - so much so that he has toyed with the idea of incorporating genistein into condoms as a contraceptive.

His team has also found that when genistein is injected into male rats three times a week, it reduces the size of the litters they father, from about 11 pups at most to five. Even low doses had an effect, he says. That would seem to hint that men, too, should worry about eating soya when trying to father children.

But Kumi-Diaka stops short of such advice. “It depends on so many things,” he says. “How the food is prepared, how often you eat it, whether it is eaten alone.” If genistein really does affect fertility, Kumi-Diaka points out, you would expect to see fertility problems in Asian countries, where many people consume soya products daily - but there is no such evidence.

Combining chemicals
Fraser first reported that genistein triggers the acrosome reaction in mouse sperm in 2003. In other studies on mouse sperm, she has found two other chemicals can also trigger the acrosome reaction. One, called 8-prenylnaringenin, is found in hops and is thus is present in some beers, but Fraser does not know what levels are typical. The second chemical, nonylphenol, is found in products such paints, pesticides and cleaning products. “There could be a whole range of chemicals with this effect,” she says.

What is more, Fraser found that combinations of these chemicals, which she calls xenobiotics, had a much greater effect than any one alone. “Given the likelihood that we are exposed to several xenobiotics at any one time, we need to investigate their possible effects on fertility as quickly as possible.”

Her latest studies were presented at a meeting of the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology in Copenhagen, Denmark, on Wednesday.

newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7559
Link is dead. The MIA article (quoted in full above) can be accessed via the Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20050730080410/http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7559
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hard times for the humble sperm
18:27 19 October 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Alison Motluk, Montreal

From steroids to sexual lubricants, researchers have found many things that give sperm a hard time.

New research suggests that men who use anabolic steroids to bulk up their muscles, for example, may be compromising their ability to produce sperm – and risking their chance at fatherhood. The study is the first ever to investigate a group of men who are having difficulty conceiving and have a history of steroid use. “The longer the steroid abuse, the more the likelihood of sterility,” says Stanton Honig, at the University of Connecticut, US.

Honig and his colleague Justin Cohen, at Yale University, also in Connecticut, found that out of 15 patients with a history of steroid use, 11 showed low blood-hormone levels indicative of classic anabolic steroid-induced infertility.

Of this 11 patients, nine “had absolutely no sperm in their ejaculate”, says Honig – they had become azoospermic. “And the others had very little sperm.” One of the men had stopped using steroids 19 years earlier, but five were still using and told to stop. Although fertility was restored in 7 of the azoospermic men, 2 remain sterile even after treatment.

The researchers call the illicit use of anabolic steroids a major public health problem. Most users – who range from professional athletes to law enforcement officials – are not aware of the potential impact on their fertility. “It’s hard to convince a 20-year-old that it matters,” says Honig.

Unexpected trap
But even men who have strong, healthy sperm risk completely immobilising them if they use common lubricants, such as K-Y, Astroglide or FemGlide, found another study.

Ashok Agarwal, at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, US, and colleagues incubated semen from 13 men in a synthetic analogue of vaginal fluid mixed with a 10% concentration of a lubricant for 30 minutes, simulating a typical single use, he says.

Only one lubricant involved in the study, called Pre-Seed, did not impair sperm movement, or motility, compared with a medium of human fluid alone, Agarwal says. Pre-Seed (with which the researchers have no affiliation) left 64% of sperm able to swim. Astroglide, on the other hand, a product often recommended to infertility patients, spared only 2% of sperm.

Agarwal also investigated the longer-term effects of lubricants by looking at how 4 hours of incubation affected sperm DNA. Again, Pre-Seed did not differ from control, whereas the two others tested, FemGlide and K-Y, damaged sperm DNA. “There’s a great deal of confusion,” he says. “People think that since these lubricants don’t contain spermicides, they don’t cause harm.”

The studies were presented at a meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine in Montreal, Canada.

newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8183
Link is dead. The MIA article (quoted in full above) can be accessed via the Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20051228051419/http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8183
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Infertility: handle with care
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 20/04/2008

................despite the constant warnings of 'biological clocks' and older IVF mothers, infertility appears to be rising across the board. 'We see the full range of ages,' says Clare Brown, the chief executive of Infertility Network UK. 'Couples in their early twenties through to their forties, with the full range of reasons.'

And often, no reason at all. Roughly one third of infertility remains 'unexplained', a third is female-related - apart from the fact that women are trying for children later, sexually transmitted infections and polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) are on the rise - and the rest is male-related. Studies across Europe have recorded an alarming drop in sperm counts and a study not yet released has found the same here in Britain. 'Something has changed in the past 20 or 30 years,' says Allan Pacey, the secretary of the British Fertility Society. 'We don't know what it is, but we need to be very concerned.'

Many modern-day habits are known to play a part - drinking, smoking and overeating for example. What we don't know is whether there's something else going on - in the air we breathe, water we drink and food we eat. The thousands of invisible chemicals that have poured into our world since the Second World War to make life non-breakable, non-stick and flame-resistant are being linked to miscarriage, PCOS, endometriosis, and low sperm counts - as well as testicular cancer, breast cancer and prostate cancer.

Shanna Swan, an epidemiologist at the University of Rochester School of Medicine & Dentistry in America, has spent the past 20 years studying environmental reproductive risks. 'There's no question now that chemical exposures impair fertility,' she says. 'We have 80,000 chemicals in circulation and when we look we see strong evidence that comes out constantly in scientific journals and in small conferences. Yet somehow we haven't reached the tipping point where people take notice. With global warming, it took 20 years. The American surgeon general said in 1964 that cigarettes caused cancer. How long did that take to get around? Maybe it takes a disaster - and I think impairing our ability to reproduce is potentially the most serious disaster there is.'

Two highly ubiquitous chemicals, phthalates (the 'ph' is silent) and bisphenol A, are the cause of most concern. Both chemicals are everywhere - tin cans, baby bottles, water bottles, CDs, plastic toys, the list is endless - and because of their 'leachy' nature (they're not very good at binding to their products) they are in us, too. In a study by Shanna Swan of mothers and babies, all the babies had measurable phthalate levels - and those exposed to the most baby-care products had the highest. Often described as 'endocrine disrupters', phthalates mimic the female hormone oestrogen, so could play havoc with hormones and reproductive systems - particularly in men.

'There's good evidence that sperm counts are falling and that something environmental is going on,' confirms Pacey. Male infertility is now the reason for half of British couples having IVF. While our grandfathers probably had a sperm count of about 120 million in one millilitre of seminal fluid, the average male sperm count now stands at about 60 million. (Anything less than 25/30 million is classified as infertile.) At the same time testicular cancer, which is linked to low sperm counts, is rising fast.

'There seems to be a strong relationship between what the mother does while she's pregnant and what her son's sperm count turns out to be,' says Pacey. For example, if she lives in Denmark her son will have a significantly lower sperm count than if she lives in Finland. However, if a man moves from Finland to Denmark, his sperm count won't change - the determining factor is place of birth, rather than place of residence. The problem seems, somehow, to form in utero.

Richard Sharpe, from the Medical Research Council's Human Reproductive Sciences Unit, agrees that there's likely to be an environmental link to infertility. Sharpe is studying testicular dysgenesis syndrome (TDS), an increasingly common reproductive disorder in boys. TDS, which can result in the testes failing to descend and the urethra opening being located on the wrong part of the penis, is linked to low sperm counts in adulthood.

By exposing pregnant rats to phthalates, Sharpe can cause TDS in their offspring. 'The problem is translating that into humans,' says Sharpe. 'It's very hard to assess the exposure of a foetus in the womb and look at the impact of the mother's make-up, her lifestyle, her environment, in terms of sperm count 20 years later. I'd say there's a very good chance that environmental chemicals play a role. But that's based on reason - not evidence.'

Frederick Vom Saal, a professor of biological sciences at the University of Missouri, has conducted similar experiments with bisphenol A and found that, even in minute doses, it causes reproductive disorders and cancers of the uterus, breast and prostate in mice. Other studies have linked it to PCOS and recurrent miscarriage.

Vom Saal himself is sufficiently concerned to have installed a filter to ensure his home supply of water is bisphenol A-free. His family do not eat or drink out of cans (the chemical lines them) or plastic containers. 'Bisphenol A should not be in food or beverage contact products,' he says. 'Japan banned it from food and drink cans a decade ago.'

Part of the difficulty in knowing whether or not to be worried is that countries - and even individual cities in America - have all assessed the dangers differently. San Francisco banned bisphenol A from children's products last summer - but this was repealed after chemical and toy companies filed lawsuits. :roll: The European Food Safety Authority has judged it safe for use in food application while, last year, the Canadian government identified it as 'inherently toxic' and in need of further investigation. Meanwhile, the European Parliament has banned three forms of phthalates from toys and childcare items and restricted the use of three others.

In June 2007 the European Union passed probably the biggest piece of environmental legislation ever, Reach, which requires the chemical industry to register any chemical used in the EU, evaluate it and seek authorisation to use it. About 30,000 chemicals will have to go through this process. Finally the onus is on the chemical industry to test its products and reveal evidence of safety.

Steve Elliott, the chief executive of the Chemical Industries Association, says it's important to maintain perspective. 'The presence of a chemical is a blade of grass in a football field. We need to understand there's more danger to our children when they cross the road for school in the morning. In life there are risks, trade-offs - we need to make choices.'

Swan thinks the only way the industry will change is if consumers understand their options. 'If consumer pressure was there, if we knew what to look for on a label, the industry would have to find safer alternatives.'

In fact, this is slowly happening. Bisphenol A-free baby bottles and beakers are available online. Wooden toys are growing ever more popular. You can, if you look, find phthalate-free skin products, teething rings, changing mats, sex toys, you name it. There are countless more 'precautions' you can take - flasks instead of water bottles, brown paper for sandwiches instead of plastic wrapping, jars instead of plastic containers. But would this be a pointless drop in our ocean of plastic?

Elizabeth Salter Green spent a decade directing the WWF's toxic programme and now heads ChemTrust, an environmental charity that aims to protect humans and animals from harmful chemicals. She doesn't think so. 'I can't put my hand on my heart and say that we're becoming less fertile or seeing more cancer because of any chemical,' she says. 'But I feel they play a part. And what do you want to give the benefit of the doubt? A chemical that makes your plastic softer? Or future generations of girls and boys?'

THE WORST OFFENDERS

Bisphenol A


Originally created as a 'synthetic oestrogen' - a man-made hormone - it was adopted by the chemical industry when it was discovered that it could make plastic light, clear and shatterproof
Found in Tin cans, plastic lunch boxes, plastic water bottles, baby bottles, mobile phones, DVDs and thousands of other products
Linked to Breast cancer, prostate cancer, male infertility, polycystic ovary syndrome, miscarriage, insulin resistance and obesity

Phthalates

Produced in high volumes to make plastic more flexible and cosmetics smoother
Found in Children's toys, shower curtains, plastic food wrap, car interiors and beauty products
Linked to Male reproductive disorders starting in utero, and the early onset of puberty and premature breast development in girls

PBDEs

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers are used as flame retardants. In some countries, concentrations in human breast milk have been doubling every five years. Though most PBDEs have been banned from new products, Deca-BDE is still allowed and is very controversial
Found in Sofas, carpets, computers, televisions, mobile phones, bedding, some school uniforms and children's nightwear
Linked to Neurological impairment and liver damage in animals

PFCs

Chemicals with strong water- and oil-repelling qualities, which make products non-stick, waterproof and stain-proof. They do not degrade
Found in Saucepans, sofas, outdoor clothing, fast-food containers and carpets
Linked to Birth defects, immune system disorders and thyroid dysfunction

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=/health/2008/04/20/st_infertility.xml&page=1
Link is dead. The MIA webpage (quoted in full above) can be accessed via the Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/2008043...=/health/2008/04/20/st_infertility.xml&page=1


Food for thought...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe it takes a disaster - and I think impairing our ability to reproduce is potentially the most serious disaster there is.'

How and in what way would this be serious?

Except to selfish women.

Men must be breathing a sigh of relief...
 
So it is 'selfish' for women to reproduce, and a 'relief' for men not to?
What a very strange view of human nature you have.
 
Maybe I expresed that wrong.

`He pays she plays`

Even in this day and age, many pregnacies are still unplanned; and if they are planned, its her who does the planning.

I have seen many men ruined by reproduction
 
rynner said:
Infertility: handle with care

...

Phthalates

Produced in high volumes to make plastic more flexible and cosmetics smoother

Found in Children's toys, shower curtains, plastic food wrap, car interiors and beauty products

Linked to Male reproductive disorders starting in utero, and the early onset of puberty and premature breast development in girls

...
I really hate it when they wrap cheese in cling film 'to keep it fresh.' If ever there was a fatty food, phthalate could dissolve into, that's one. Remember, no direct contact, with the clingfilm and the food, please.

When I occasionally have ago at shopkeepers about it, they think i'm mad, of course. :(
 
I don't see this as a problem myself. Surely fewer people on the planet means fewer problems with the evironment. Even if not, it's fewer people to get in my way when I'm shopping ;)
And don't get me started on anyones (mens or womens) "right" to reproduce. There is no such "right".
Sometimes nature has a way of limiting species, and perhaps human infertility is it. It may be personally tragic for the individuals, but it may well be better for all of mankind.
And for the record, because I have no desire for children, I have already had the snip. Better to be safe...
 
blackhand2010 said:
...
Sometimes nature has a way of limiting species, and perhaps human infertility is it. It may be personally tragic for the individuals, but it may well be better for all of mankind.
And for the record, because I have no desire for children, I have already had the snip. Better to be safe...
Not much natural about plastic convenience products, especially if, like the tobacco industry, the plastics industry is really only too aware of the risks involved.

Not everybody is as self-abnegating. Some of us even have families to feed, as healthily as possible.
 
Thats what Im saying, Blackhand.

Currently in GB, a quarter of women are childless (with the inferral that there is also a quarter of men to go with them) and that is likley to rise.

Fertility is not the problem.

Its how the chemicals are affecting us in other ways.
 
Pesticide residues coating non-organic fruit and vegetables may be harming men's fertility, new research suggests.

Scientists demonstrated a link between the chemicals, sprayed on to crops to prevent damage by insect pests, and reduced sperm count and quality.

The study of 155 men found that those who ate the most fruit and vegetables with high pesticide residue levels had a 49pc lower sperm count than those who consumed the least. They also had 32pc fewer sperm that was normally formed.

Leading British fertility expert Prof Allan Pacey, from the University of Sheffield, said: "This is a very interesting paper that raises the possibility that pesticide residues in our food may be a contributory factor in male infertility, at least in some men. ...

http://www.independent.ie/life/heal...uit-can-cut-sperm-count-in-half-31106804.html
 
It doesn't appear to have slowed the rise in population...
 
Back
Top