| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Tree Hugger says the pill is turning Walleye into hermaphrodites. |
| 2009-03-07 |
| Now that spring is right around the corner, my mind has turned to thoughts of love—and all the waste that love produces. Condoms are surely clogging landfills around the country, but my partner insists that the birth control pill is turning all our fish into hermaphrodites. What form of birth control is kindest to the planet? The Green Lantern heartily approves of sex as an eco-friendly activity. Besides the puffs of CO2 emitted by mood-setting candles and the electricity used to play that Sade CD, sex ends up being a pretty low-impact way to kill a few hours. (Plus, it can keep your heating bill down.) At the same time, population growth taxes our environmental resources, so doing your part to prevent unwanted offspring is itself a green endeavor. If you're concerned about how your birth control is affecting the environment, though, there are ways to mitigate that impact. The two leading forms of nonpermanent birth control in the United States are the oral contraceptive pill and the male condom. Each takes its toll on our environment. While it's true that most of us have never come across a stray Ortho-Tri-Cyclen package on the beach or a city sidewalk, that doesn't mean the contents of the pill won't find their way into the environment just the same. The hormones in these products—either progestin or a combination of progestin and estrogen—are known as endocrine disruptors, and women who take the pill end up passing some of them through their urine. If they make it through the wastewater systems, the hormones can flush into rivers and streams. The bulk of the research done on the environmental impacts of contraceptives has focused on estrogen, which has been linked to the feminization of male fish living downstream from municipal sewage treatment plants. We can't place all the blame for this problem on the pill, though: Women excrete several kinds of estrogen—both natural varieties and the synthetic kind that comes in some versions of the pill. (Natural estrogens are more prevalent in our waterways, though the synthetic sticks around a little longer.) So simply cutting out contraceptives won't solve the problem of intersex fish: What's really needed is better sewage treatment. If you're concerned about your estrogenic contributions, though, switch to a progestin-only contraceptive, which you can take in pill form or—if you want to take things a step further and cut down on packaging waste—as a one-time shot or implant that lasts three months to three years. However, you'd still be taking a bit of an ecological gamble—the effects of progestin on aquatic wildlife haven't been studied much, and we don't know how much of it regularly appears in our waterways. (Endocrine disruptors can have effects at extremely low concentrations, and it's only in the past decade or so that toxicologists have had the technology to detect these trace amounts.) What about condoms, the baby-prevention method favored by 18 percent of American women? Most condoms sold in the United States are made of biodegradable latex. However, they also contain preservatives and hardening agents to make sure the rubber can withstand a fair amount of friction. Those additives also make it harder for the condoms to break down in the landfill. Lambskin condoms are biodegradable, but chemical additives may inhibit the process. Naturalamb, the only widely available animal-based brand in the United States, does lubricate the lamb intestines they import from New Zealand, so it's unclear just how easily its product breaks down. Natural condoms, however, are still likely to be a greener choice than latex condoms, and are equally as effective at preventing pregnancy. (Polyurethane condoms, which make up about 3 percent to 4 percent of U.S. sales, won't break down at all.) If you're still curious, balance at the link. (last para is a doozie) |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #2 Estrogen emitters emit estrogen |
| Posted by: badanov 2009-03-07 15:57 |
| #1 Oh, thank goodness! I thought the writer was going to suggest getting rid of all the estrogen emitters! |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-03-07 15:32 |