Shrinking Penises! EEK!

Maybe now we’ll clean up our act

No, I’m not making it up to get your attention. It’s been in the press lately that the number of baby boys born with small penises has been increasing. I couldn’t find a number for this trend, but there are readily available numbers for other reproductive trends that are thought to be caused by the same culprit as the shrinking penises. Every year between 1990 and 2011, miscarriages increased by 1%, for a total of a 19% increase in miscarriages over two decades. And likewise, sperm counts have decreased by slightly more than 1% a year between 1973 and 2011, totaling a 53% decline over the studied period. In fact, the sperm decrease has been so large that researchers believe that nearly all couples wishing to become pregnant may need fertility help by the year 2045.

You may be wondering what the bleep this has to do with the environment. Non-environmental factors, such as unhealthy lifestyles, probably contribute to the declines in reproductive health but there is increasing evidence that plastics are a big part of the problem. I’ll expand on that below, but first, there is a deep irony I can’t hold back from discussing. Apparently, many people don’t engage with environmentally positive activities because they view such behavior as feminine, and not in a positive strong Goddess kind way. I don’t know why caring about others is perceived by some as feminine (nor why having feminine attributes is such a horrid thought), but if we care about penis sizes not diminishing we’d better start acting in this perceived-by-some-feminine way and reduce our plastic exposure. Perhaps shrinking penis sizes may actually be a wake up call for some folk who have previously been unmoved by ecological responsibility?

Onto what we know about the impact of plastics on reproductive health. Nanoplastic, fragments of plastic smaller than 0.000001 meters, can cross cell walls. There is one group of plastic, phthalates, which mimic testosterone and another plastic, bisphoneal A or BPA, which mimics oestrogen. The presence of either can trick our bodies into thinking we have enough of a given hormone and thus shut down its production. Problems ensue. Phthalates are used in much of food production and packaging and have been found to reduce sperm counts and libido, and increase the risk of early puberty, miscarriage, and premature birth. BPA is used in some canned food containers and drink bottles and is linked to fertility challenges in women and decreased sperm quality and libido in men. Both are known to be linked to various cancers as well but we’ll just focus on the reproductive implications here.

A causal link between phthalate exposure and low sperm count has been observed in rats. When pregnant rats were exposed to phthalates, their male babies had smaller penises and scrotum and their sperm counts were lower. This is referred to as phthalate syndrome. Of course, we won’t be running similar experiments on humans, so how do we test if this happens in humans? Well, it turns out there is an intermediary phenomena that links increased phthalates and lower sperm count in both rats and humans. This link is well known to predict many reproductive characteristics - it is the distant between the anus and the genitals, or the AGD. For instance, rats who were exposed to phthalates during pregnancy had babies with smaller AGD length as well the previously mentioned reproductive downturns.

Turning to humans, there is an observed correlation found between high phthalate levels in pregnant human urine samples and shortened AGDs in their baby boys. If we could follow those babies to sexual maturity we’d expect them to have low sperm counts. Indeed, a further study of college aged men found just such a correlation between low sperm counts and shorter AGDs. Together, that is a strong indication that phthalates are driving reduced sperm counts, and other reproductive problems, in people.

Another study of human semen exposed to 2 common household chemicals strengthens the case that plastics are disrupting reproduction. Semen exposed to average household levels of the plastics diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) and polychlorinated biphenyl 153 (PCB153), had less mobility and showed fragmentation in their DNA. While PCBs were banned in the 1970s due to health concerns, they still persist in the environment.

It’s a toss up to me which of the following is the most chilling add on to this story: 1. plastics have undetermined, but certainly long, lifetimes, 2. We’re seeing fertility problems linked to plastics in wild animals as well as humans, or 3. exposure to plastics can have multi-generational effects. Perhaps it is door number 4 which is most worrying: the combination of 1, 2 and 3. Behind door number 1, the biodegradation of plastic bags in the oceans is estimated to take 100 years, extending to 500 years to forever on land. I’m not entirely clear about the chemistry involved here, but based on the wikipedia definition of biodegradation this is the time it takes the plastic to breakdown into small enough fragments that it can be assimilated into microbial cells. So doesn’t this mean the plastic is now available to be taken up by animals and mess up their reproductive systems? Just how, or if, the plastic particles become inert or harmless, I have no idea. So that’s disturbing. Onto disturbing aspect number 2.

Other animals are also experiencing fertility problems. For example, dogs’ sperm counts have followed the same trajectory as our and decreased 1% every year over a 20 year study. Killer whales pods have been suffering from such low birthrates, that experts predict that many pods are likely to disappear in the next few decades. This is thought to be due to bioaccumulation of PCBs, which have been observed in killer whale fat at levels 25 times the level known to affect fertility. Polar bears too have recently experienced reduced population growth, also possibly from PCB contamination.

And this brings us to disturbing issue number 3, which is the passing on of plastics to our offspring. Whales are known to pass on PCBs to their calves. And a pregnant human with phthalates in her bloodstream, exposes not just her own child to hormonal disruptions, but her grandchildren’s egg as well. This is because a woman’s eggs start developing when a she is a fetus, so girls in utero absorb plastics from their mother which goes into their eggs, thus passing the plastic onto their own children. Therefore, even if we managed to miraculous wipe all plastics from the environment immediately, the long lifetime of plastic in the environment means it would take generations for humans to recover their reproductive health to pre-plastic days level.

That’s all quite dire. But there is much we can do to drastically reduce our own exposure to and contribution of harmful plastics, and to consequently send those essential social, financial and political signals. First of all, we can easily enough stop drinking from plastic bottles. Beware of green wash labeling which claim to be "BPA free” or “Phthalate free” for it is often the case that manufacturers replace a known plastic evil with a untested one, a so called “regrettable substitute”. It is best to avoid plastic bottles as much as possible. We’d also do well to avoid using Teflon or any coated pan, and never microwave food in a plastic container. We can go further and reduce our use of household and personal care products especially those that scented, for phthalates are used to hold scent. Indeed simple, multipurpose products are best.

And perhaps most important of all, we can eat unprocessed food - ideally organic whole foods. For plastics are used not only in packaging processed food, but in their manufacture as well. As you may recall from last week’s newsletter, eating whole organic foods also contributes to helping soils retaining their superpower status. Likewise, if we want to contribute to clean water - eat unprocessed food, or a stable climate - eat unprocessed food, or to contribute to a toxic free environment, clean air, healthy oceans, biodiversity or a robust wilderness... You get the idea.