Birth control—meant to be protection but could have generational
and environmental repercussions. 62% of women at the reproductive age in the
United States claim to use some form of contraception, and of that population,
27%, or 10.2 million women, claim to use the pill method. A widely praised, and
obviously popular, method for contraception and balancing hormones is seemingly
harmless, however the basic ingredients prove to have various dangerous
complications, as with any substance that alters the body. These synthetic
hormones need to pass through the digestive system without being denatured by
the acidic environment, thus meaning they wind up as waste products; these waste
products eventually end up in the ecosystem and can therefore cause
unintentional implications in any living organism that may digest it second
hand.
Women who consume hormonal birth control first hand might
not seem to have any lingering implications, however studies have shown an
increase in difficulty getting pregnant or sterility altogether after ceasing
use. In 1966, Barbara Seaman commented on the pill’s ability to disrupt menstruation
cycles in women either making them irregular or nonexistent altogether. In her book,
The Doctor’s Case Against The Pill,
she also introduced reader’s to a theory known as “oversuppression syndrome,”
coined by Dr. M. James Whitelaw, in where the underuse causes atrophy and thus damage
to the lining in the uterus. He also concluded this rate of infertility to have
increased 10% due to the use of hormonal birth control. Dr. Roy Hertz built off
Dr. M James Whitelaw’s claims saying hormonal birth control could damage the
endometrium microscopically and increase the possibility of atrophy and cancer.
The endocrine system in the human body is very specific and reactive, so even
the smallest amounts of synthetic hormones could disrupt it and the production
of the natural hormone.
Second hand digestion also has caused a variety of
implications. As formerly stated, these synthetic hormones will eventually end
up as waste products and invade the water supply; this invasion renders all living
organisms susceptible to consumption. Ethinyl estradiol, an active substance in
this form of contraception, mimics estrogen, but has 100x stronger of an effect
than that of the natural hormone. That being said, Canadian researchers conducted
a study in 2007 to analyze the effects of this chemical on aquatic animals;
they estimated the level of waste product that would invade the environment and
concluded that this hormone caused a “near extinction” of the fathead minnow
population since the Ethinyl estradiol feminized the male fish. Effects also
reached green frogs and mink frogs. Similarly, the United States Geological Survey
found that 80% of male bass living in the Shenandoah and Monocacy Rivers were
beginning to grow eggs. Obviously, the invasion of this chemical has
detrimental effects on the environment and can even cause extinction of certain
populations thus radically altering the diversity and ecosystem.
Contraceptive devices are valuable, and should continue
to be an option, however the side effects must be considered and combated to
prevent any consequential changes in the environment. There are two routes to
be considered to fix this problem: increasing the advertisement of non-hormonal
contraception or bettering the sewage system to remove the Ethinyl estradiol from
entering the water source. The first option should be the most cost effective,
however it still has a variety of challenges facing it. Cost effectiveness and accessibility
are the number one things contributing to the popularity of the oral
contraceptive device; other methods are either inaccessible or are not cost
effective for women. The latter option is harder to enforce and less cost
effective as the technology and sewage systems would have to be updated. Either
way, these studies provide evidence of the detrimental effects these synthetic
hormones have on the environment, and it is something that needs to be
addressed sooner rather than later.
References:
The environmental effects you bring up are horrifying to think about. Non-hormonal alternatives definitely sound promising as a solution. I would also want to look into forms which, while acid stable, could be degraded enzymatically to at least reduce the environmental footprint without disrupting the benefits associated with the ability to regulate your own hormones. On the note of infrastructural changes, anaerobic digestion looks like an interesting option although if not already present would most likely be difficult to implement. It’s unfortunate that synthetic estrogen acts as a double edged sword. That it won’t denature in the stomach is a major part of why it’s an environmental problem.
ReplyDeleteThis post is very eye opening to the blindness behind the waste humans create and how they effect the environment. I don't think non-hormonal contraceptives will go away any time soon, as some people use them for other reasons than for sex, like reducing acne for example. I find it very disturbing that Ethinyl estradiol has such a vast effect on fish and makes me wonder, since it is not being removed from the water system, if it could have potential effects on humans? I am not familiar with water treatment, but is there a possibility that this chemical (among all the others we put into our water systems) could have detrimental effects on humans in the long run?
ReplyDeleteI would hope it wouldn't, but who knows how future generations will be impacted if studies are only now being conducted on the implications of using such forms of birth control. This is such a small subset of the human waste problem, but disastrous nonetheless, so it's very important to consider all the other effects we have on the environment as well. If this chemical that's meant to withstand the acidity of the stomach can make it into our water supply, what other chemicals from medication can also disturb the environment? I'm not saying these medicines are bad, as they have proven to have many wonderful effects, however it's definitely something that needs to be considered and fixed for future generations before the problem spirals out of control.
DeleteI never thought about the environmental effects of taking certain pills. I've thought about the effects pills have on the body even after taking them before though. However, I never read about the consequences of taking oral contraceptives. Oral contraceptives have multiple benefits, ranging from balancing hormones to helping acne. I would say a lot of women take them to not get pregnant at that time, but when they stop taking these pills, they believe it's time to have a baby. From the findings in your article, it's seen that their rate of infertility is increased which comes to a conundrum. This is where the two routes of fixing the problem come into play and it seems like the non-hormonal contraceptives would be the fastest route to solving the problem.
ReplyDeleteExactly, it seems like there's always a downside to every positive, and it's up to us to either find a way to fix the negatives or to decide which we can live with more: harming the environment and potentially causing later problems for future generations or accepting the benefits and only focusing on the positives in hopes that everything sorts itself out. Personally, I see the wide range of benefits hormonal birth control offers besides the contraceptive aspect, and I hope that more research will be conducted to find a non-hormonal alternative that also provides the same benefits. While what's best for us now seems tempting, it doesn't always mean it will be best for us in the long run.
Delete