Global Decline In Male Fertility Linked To Common Pesticides 144
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NBC News: A prolonged decline in male fertility in the form of sperm concentrations appears to be connected to the use of pesticides, according to a study published Wednesday. Researchers compiled, rated and reviewed the results of 25 studies of certain pesticides and male fertility and found that men who had been exposed to certain classes of pesticides had significantly lower sperm concentrations. The study, published Wednesday in Environmental Health Perspectives, included data from more than 1,700 men and spanned several decades. "No matter how we looked at the analysis and results, we saw a persistent association between increasing levels of insecticide and decreases in sperm concentration," said study author Melissa Perry, who is an environmental epidemiologist and the dean of the College of Public Health at George Mason University. "I would hope this study would get the attention of regulators seeking to make decisions to keep the public safe from inadvertent, unplanned impacts of insecticides." [...]
Scientists have long suspected changes to the environment could be contributing, and they've been probing the role of pesticides for decades in studies of animals and in human epidemiology research. The new analysis focuses on two groups of chemicals -- organophosphates and some carbamates -- that are commonly used in insecticides. The researchers looked at data collected from groups of people with exposures to pesticides and others who were not. Most, but not all, of the research centered on exposures in the workplace. The researchers controlled for outside factors that could contribute to lower sperm counts like smoking and age. Perry said researchers aren't sure how pesticides are affecting sperm concentrations and more research will be needed.
It's likely that pesticides are one of many environmental factors that could be contributing to a decline in sperm concentrations. The trend of sperm concentration declines has been widely observed in studies around the world, but it's a complicated topic and some scientists still have reservations. Sperm are notoriously difficult to count and the technology to do so has changed over the years. There are many confounding factors that can affect male fertility, including age, obesity and opioid use, to name a few. Sperm concentrations are one important data point to consider, but other factors -- like how sperm are shaped and how they swim -- are also critical to male fertility. Perry said she hopes agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency begin to factor the impact of chemicals and pesticides on reproductive health in their assessments. "Given the body of evidence and these consistent findings, it's time to proactively reduce these insecticide exposures for men wanting to have families," Perry said.
Scientists have long suspected changes to the environment could be contributing, and they've been probing the role of pesticides for decades in studies of animals and in human epidemiology research. The new analysis focuses on two groups of chemicals -- organophosphates and some carbamates -- that are commonly used in insecticides. The researchers looked at data collected from groups of people with exposures to pesticides and others who were not. Most, but not all, of the research centered on exposures in the workplace. The researchers controlled for outside factors that could contribute to lower sperm counts like smoking and age. Perry said researchers aren't sure how pesticides are affecting sperm concentrations and more research will be needed.
It's likely that pesticides are one of many environmental factors that could be contributing to a decline in sperm concentrations. The trend of sperm concentration declines has been widely observed in studies around the world, but it's a complicated topic and some scientists still have reservations. Sperm are notoriously difficult to count and the technology to do so has changed over the years. There are many confounding factors that can affect male fertility, including age, obesity and opioid use, to name a few. Sperm concentrations are one important data point to consider, but other factors -- like how sperm are shaped and how they swim -- are also critical to male fertility. Perry said she hopes agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency begin to factor the impact of chemicals and pesticides on reproductive health in their assessments. "Given the body of evidence and these consistent findings, it's time to proactively reduce these insecticide exposures for men wanting to have families," Perry said.
So, the discovery of... (Score:2)
The male "Pill" in spray form.
Re:So, the discovery of... (Score:5, Funny)
In other words, a good invention, but alas, you exist, so it came too late.
Re: So, the discovery of... (Score:2)
1/10, you need to work on your bait technique
Re: So, the discovery of... (Score:2)
where dumb people hang out
and mingle with others, hoping for osmosis to work its magic
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, people need to learn to not sniff the Round-Up.
How does it correlate in farmers and farm workers? (Score:5, Interesting)
Farmers and farm workers have a much higher exposure to pesticides than the general public. Is there a correlation there as well? One reason I ask is because in my area are a particular group of people who often work for farms in large numbers, and have an increased exposure as pesticides are handled and sprayed on farms. They also have relatively large families and have for years.
Re:How does it correlate in farmers and farm worke (Score:4, Interesting)
As far as I can see it's a non-problem. If you're still shooting millions of bullets it doesn't matter if half of them are duds. Furthermore as long as people are still reproducing after enough generations, the future generations could end up less sensitive to the pesticides (assuming it even applies enough selection pressure - if it doesn't, there's no problem).
The population declines in many developed nations is mostly because people are choosing to not have children, not because they can't.
I'd be more worried about cancer, congenital problems, Parkinson's and other neurological issues from pesticides.
Anecdotal - I know someone whose kid used to have fits or something like that. Then they stopped having pest control come by regularly and their kid stopped getting fits. Maybe some pesticides are really OK for >90% of the population at the proper dose and usage, but peanuts are OK for >90% of the population too. Doesn't stop a minority from having big problems with the stuff.
The other issue is some pesticides aren't as safe as the studies indicate because the studies only study the "active ingredient" not the "full recipe" or "inerts" which turn out to be not so inert and maybe even more toxic: https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
Until now, most health studies have focused on the safety of glyphosate, rather than the mixture of ingredients found in Roundup. But in the new study, scientists found that Roundup's inert ingredients amplified the toxic effect on human cells - even at concentrations much more diluted than those used on farms and lawns.
One specific inert ingredient, polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA, was more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than the herbicide itself - a finding the researchers call "astonishing."
"This clearly confirms that the [inert ingredients] in Roundup formulations are not inert,"
Re: (Score:2)
You should still be worried about people being infertile on a large scale regardless of the cause.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? What does the continuation of the human race have to do with the remainder of my life. This is like global warming. I won't be alive to see the results and now because of pesticides I can't have children. Seems like a win/win to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of hardy to have empathy for such a huge problem that an individual has zero control over.
Re: (Score:2)
Can dogs detect sarcasm? I know you can't.
Re: (Score:2)
An excellent justification for a maximum voting age if I've ever seen one. Or maybe just a prerequisite test for sociopathy.
Re:How does it correlate in farmers and farm worke (Score:4, Interesting)
> As far as I can see it's a non-problem. If you're still shooting millions of bullets it doesn't matter if half of them are duds.
a) It matters when you don't know what the cut-off number is.
b) That's not what's happening. It's not just duds, it's the number of bullets (sperm count) has halved in the last 50 years, as well as the remaining sperm having reduced motility.
Even if it doesn't yet affect babymaking too much, it should be treated as a symptom of something, and that something is worth finding. The other symptoms you mentioned might, or might not be linked.
Re: (Score:2)
> Evolution and all that. Those who successfully reproduce would have descendants that tend to have similar traits.
Not if the decrease is due to increasing doses of external sources. Each next generation would be more affected, and evolution takes time, 40 years is at best almost two generations, way too short for random selection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How does it correlate in farmers and farm worke (Score:4, Informative)
I recommend you take the time to read this book: Count Down: How Our Modern World Is Threatening Sperm Counts, Altering Male and Female Reproductive Development, and Imperiling the Future of the Human Race, By: Shanna H. Swan,
There are a lot of issues with falling sperm counts, even if there are still plenty of babies being born at the moment. For one, the children being born have health issues.
Re: (Score:2)
The decline in fertility just reduces the odds of getting pregnant. If you have lots of unprotected sex, eventually you will have children in most cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's a meta analysis (an analysis of the results of multiple other studies). If you take a look at the paper, table 2, you'll see what kind of conditions the different component studies looked at. The "biomonitoring" section is the strongest, that's where they actually measured how much pesticide exposure there was.
There are study populations from insecticide manufacturing facilities, agricultural workplaces, etc.
Less bugs and less rug rats? (Score:1)
I fail to see the downside to this. Kids are annoying* and far too often they're used as the justification for more government control which ultimately ends up affecting adults as well.
* Yeah, parents out there in the peanut gallery, I know, you love your kids and they're the greatest thing ever. Some of us just aren't into the whole breeding thing, sorry.
Re: (Score:1)
If 'annoying' is why you don't want to be around kids, I fail to see the point in trying to explain any of these higher levels to you.
I want to come out and personally thank you for letting us know your position on this.
--
Congratulations. - Yogi Berra
Re: (Score:2)
If 'annoying' is why you don't want to be around kids
Ever been to Halloween Horror Nights at Universal? It would be so much more enjoyable if it was an 18+ event. Probably less profitable, but it would be way better without all the kids. Online gaming? Same deal, lose the kids and it would be better. Go out to dinner and someone's kid is screaming up a storm? Yeah, you know where I'm going with this.
I have plenty of friends who have kids, so I know to some people being a parent truly does bring joy to their lives. Some of us are just fine without that
Re: (Score:2)
Go out to dinner and someone's kid is screaming up a storm
It is unfair to blame the kid in this situation. They probably don't want to be there any more than you want them there.
Re: (Score:1)
No, there have definitely been many times I thought of my own kid as being annoying!
Re: (Score:1)
You know you can move to live in a cave and there won't be anybody to annoy you?
Re: Less bugs and less rug rats? (Score:1, Offtopic)
Then he'll have to face the reality that "other people" wasn't ever the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Then he'll have to face the reality that "other people" wasn't ever the problem.
"Kids", not "other people". Children are more like "people in training". Even Reddit agrees. [reddit.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You know you can move to live in a cave and there won't be anybody to annoy you?
Caves have bats. Bats carry diseases. Do you want a new Covid? Because that's how you get a new Covid.
Re: Less bugs and less rug rats? (Score:2)
Well, without kids (even other people's kids), all your retirement savings will be worth nothing. You'll need doctors, plumbers, delivery drivers, and they all will be retired if they are not kids now, or were kids in your adulthood.
sounds good. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Curious, what is your operating proof that the planet is overpopulated. Do you have reference data to share?
Re: (Score:2)
If you believe in things like co2 causing climate change then the world is over populated.
If you don't then it's fine for now.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems plausible, but I was hoping to hear from the OP
Re: sounds good. (Score:1)
What if you don't accept the proposition that co2 and population are somehow inextricably linked?
CO2 production proportional to population (Score:3)
What if you don't accept the proposition that co2 and population are somehow inextricably linked?
Carbon dioxide is put into the atmosphere by people using energy, so I'd say that the link between CO2 and population is pretty clear. Given no change in the way individual people use energy, more people will mean more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
If we change the way we produce energy or the amount of energy we use, we could make less carbon dioxide per person. But even then, less carbon dioxide per person with a smaller population will mean less carbon dioxide, while less carbon dioxide per person wit
Re: (Score:2)
Are you actually denying that the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere will be equal to the average emission per capita times the number of people?
Re: sounds good. (Score:2)
Variance in per capita co2 emissions proves that while linked, population is not the only factor.
Re: (Score:3)
Variance in per capita co2 emissions proves that while linked, population is not the only factor.
"Is not the only factor" is not the same as "is not a factor".
In fact, I'd point out that the total world carbon-dioxide emissions is the product of two factors: average carbon dioxide per person, times number of people.
So you can lower total CO2 emissions by lowering the average CO2 emitted per person, or lower the number of people, or (most effectively) doing both.
Or so the math says.
Re: (Score:2)
The moral of my story was that while population matters, it's not the only thing that matters.
Take for example foam insulation. You might assume it's all bad for the environment, and that's probably true, but some types are vastly less impactful to manufacture than others. Polyisocyanurate foam insulation in particular is very low-impact. It takes little energy to produce, it is made from relatively benign precursors, and the process does not have high GHG emissions. Polystyrene foam is much more impactful,
Re: (Score:2)
It's not people. It's what people do and how they choose to live.
This is a great big fat logical fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, I'm willing to bet your average California homeless person has a significantly smaller footprint then your average worker and above. In fact, the richer you become the larger your co2 output seems to be. So maybe we need fewer rich people to save the world. Guess we're screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
in percentages of biomass: 4% of all living mammals are wild. The remaining 96% are humans and their livestock.
Farmed chickens account for almost 60% of all bird biomass, 30% are wild birds. The other 10% are whatever other birds we're farming.
Re:sounds good. (Score:4, Interesting)
> Curious, what is your operating proof that the planet is overpopulated. Do you have reference data to share?
Where have you been? This planet has been classed as overpopulated by practically anyone studying related subjects for the last 20 or more years.
The metric? Water. Water is the scarce resource. Thats FRESH water mind, the stuff you drink, cook and wash with. There simply hasnt been enough for a long while and we have just been managing as it is. Going forward, access to fresh drinking water (and safe) will be increasinly an issue. Already with weather patern changes we have access issues in the south UK during summers, the resevoiurs just dry up in the south while the west of the country floods, which then just rus off into the sea and becomes useless for anyone.
The UK's aquifers have shown a net drop in supply year on year for a long time now, just not enough rain and too high a demand equals a deficit. When it does rain, it hammers it down and thus like already mentioned just floods homes and runs into the sea, leaving just a little to top up the aquifers for next year.
LAst winter for example it barely rained in the south UK at all. Plenty of dull cloud, for weeks on end but no rain or snow for months and so we actually had droughts in winter would you believe!
You might think that there is plenty of space in rural France, the USA etc? But ask yourself: Why is there nobody there already? Why didnt settlements get built hundreds of years ago already? Why is it mostly empty? Well, food and water. Where there is water and no people, there are farms, needed to export food to countries like the UK that cant sustain itself on its own green pastures (UK has been over populated for decades). Where there is no water, just that which falls from the sky, well again nobody would build a settlement there. Villages are built next to or on a water course.
Re: (Score:2)
So your real problem isn't lack of rain but your government's obviously lack of interest in capturing enough to sustain your population. As you mention, you let a large portion of it just run off into the ocean. California has the same problems.
There is plenty of water if both our societies could be bothered to invest in water catchments and a bit of engineering things to be more sustainable. We already have the technology but naturally it would cost our water companies money so screw that.
I do agree we are
Re: (Score:2)
Minimal working mental abilities. You obviously lack those.
Re: (Score:2)
Class action suit against Bayer / Monsanto? (Score:5, Funny)
My balls were not Round-Up Ready (tm)(r)(c).
So how much influence? (Score:2)
How much influence does it have? 1% as much influence as the subject being obese? Or maybe even 2%?
Mouse wankers? (Score:1)
Are mice different "down there"? Why didn't high-dose mice tests catch this?
Poison is poison (Score:3)
Who would have expected that ...
Gender changes? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
While the name is new the condition isn't, so any link would be with incident rates and not the existence itself.
There are also social factors that will have raised reporting rates, making teasing out any really solid data is a statistical challenge.
Pesticides (Score:3)
They say that as if it was a bad thing (Score:2)
It's not.
Re:Decline linked to... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is like the cancer argument. "everything causes cancer, so who cares".
Smoke all you want, eat bacon and hang out in xray machines why don't you.
Small contributions add up to large problems in large numbers in large populations.
Re:Decline linked to... (Score:4, Funny)
It's porn. All those guys wanked themselves sterile.
Re: Decline linked to... (Score:2)
Another study said chemtrails.
Re:Decline linked to... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's probably all of those. What you put in your body influence your endocrine system among other things, testosterone levels are also tanking which increases risk of obesity, and decreases fertility. There are studies showing that phtalates are one of the causes, and "birth control" would definitely count as another.
It does not have to be only one thing. We're removing ourselves so far from nature, it could be accumulation of a dozen different things we replaced nature with.
Phtalates and testosterone impact study:
https://academic.oup.com/humre... [oup.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Decline linked to... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What hasn't male fertility been linked to now??? One study says birth control in the water. Another says pollution. Another says the stress of being connected online 24/7. Whatever.
Yeah, it's an extremely complex situation we find ourselves in, and anybody trying to link fertility to any one given thing can probably find a connection because, hey, environmental factors have an affect on things living within an environment. Who woulda thought?
The only reason it's a concern at this point is the fear that population decline will lead to lost profits for the business sector. We've operated on the "always more people" premise for so long we've become addicted to the concept. Whether the Ea
Re: (Score:2)
Government also really doesn't want to see a reduced headcount. All our social schemes need more people to pay in. Immigration is probably the only reason things haven't gotten worse since we as a society are having fewer children. With fewer children becoming tax paying adults, who's going to fun all the social programs?
Re: (Score:2)
Government also really doesn't want to see a reduced headcount. All our social schemes need more people to pay in. Immigration is probably the only reason things haven't gotten worse since we as a society are having fewer children. With fewer children becoming tax paying adults, who's going to fun all the social programs?
Much, much, MUCH more importantly? Who's going to continue to fund the war machine?
Re: Decline linked to... (Score:2)
Eligibility for those programs is based on comparing income to various percentages of the federal poverty level, which is based on the federal minimum wage. So the answer is, states with their shit together will pay for them
Re: (Score:2)
It's because men are snowflakes and their sperm wilt easily?
Re:Decline linked to... (Score:5, Informative)
Many of the previous hypotheses were silly. Do you really think "stress" is a new thing? A century ago, do you believe that watching three of your five children die of smallpox wasn't stressful? Or losing a leg in the trenches of the Great War?
The pesticide hypothesis is correlated not only with increased use of the toxins but with the individual levels in the subjects tested. That is much stronger evidence.
It also explains the differences between countries. For instance, Denmark is a sperm powerhouse. Danish men have three times the sperm count of American men and Denmark is a major exporter of sperm for IVF. The different types of pesticides allowed can explain that.
Re:Decline linked to... (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you really think "stress" is a new thing?
Stress isn't new, but lifestyle changes are. One of the best ways to combat stress, which is correlated with elevated levels of cortisol (which has an inverse correlation to testerone levels) is diet and exercise. Especially exercise when it comes to stress management. So it's not that stress is new, but as more and more people start living sedentary lifestyles, it could be that symptoms related to stress become more prevalent.
It's not a silly hypothesis because the lifestyle of a modern day office worker vs a farmer or construction worker are radically different.
Re: Decline linked to... (Score:3, Insightful)
What does being tall, white and blond have to do with them having much higher sperm counts?
Re: (Score:2)
Being tall means the sperm are at higher altitudes, thus more exposure to cosmic radiation and lower oxygen levels. It's especially bad for sperm with acrophobia. In the middle ages when men were shorter their fecundity was much higher. Q.E.D.M.Fs!
Re: Decline linked to... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, these studies always analyze correlation, not causation. Male fertility has declined in recent decades, so anything that has increased in the same timeframe will show positive correlative value. That's just math. These studies are are useless as the asshats who conduct them. If you want real hard science, use the scientific method. Make a hypothesis. Test your Hypothesis. Control for your hypothesis. Reach your conclusion.
*SNIP*
Danish men are also tall, white, and blonde. Genetics that are highly sought after. The pesticides they use should be experimented on. Make California abide by their rules for 15 years and see what happens. That is experimentation.
These studies are are useless ... really? Let's take an example on how this works from the late 20th century: Lung cancers are increasing, statistical analysis shows that the more a person smokes the more likely he/she is to get lung cancer. That's how people first made the connection between tobacco and cancer. That was long before anybody had a clue exactly how tobacco smoking causes cancer but these days hardly anybody outside of the tinfoil hat wearing community has an issue with the idea that tobacco very significantly increases your odds of getting lung cancer. Similarly: Male fertility is decreasing, male fertility decreases more the greater a male's exposure to certain pesticides. That at least makes it worthwhile to concentrate some resources on investigating a connection between the two. Studies like this are very useful to sort the wheat from the chaff so to speak. Think of it a way to find the most promising leads to start hypothesising about.
Re: Decline linked to... (Score:2)
Did any studies examine whether the participants tried to use a butt?
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that's bad, consider that "representative surveys" are basically coffee ground readers asking crystal ball owners for their unfounded opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, an assumption! You know what happens when you make assumptions don't you? If you re-read (or read for the first time?) the summary carefully, some warning bells might go off. Then if you read the paper you might see where you've gone wrong.
Also, you don't know much about the scientific method, but if you're willing to volunteer for a pesticide dosing experiment on fertility I'm sure the world would be grateful.
Re: Decline linked to... (Score:2)
Itâ(TM)s impossible to have a control group in an environment where exposure is unavoidable
Re:Decline linked to... (Score:5, Informative)
Explain liberal logic and modern feminism.
Liberal logic and modern feminism are strongest in Nordic countries, where sperm count has not declined.
So your hypothesis doesn't fit the evidence.
Re:Decline linked to... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Decline linked to... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Decline linked to... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Decline linked to... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
History [Re:Decline linked to...] (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not my fault that history is racist against white Americans.
Actually, my knowledge of history shows that history is racist against pretty much every society everywhere.
Oddly, with the one historical exception of Genghis Khan. He was rigorously equal opportunity: if you opposed him he would kill you and your family and your village regardless of race, creed, or color. But if you allowed yourself to be conquered, he didn't distinguish based on race or ethnicity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah feels same here. I'm over 40, and my wife is late 30s.
We started trying shortly before our wedding date because we thought it would be difficult. It wasn't.
We nailed it on the first unprotected ovulation cycle. Making babies seems to still be pretty easy.
Re: (Score:2)
Same with me. We had two kids, and both times, she was knocked up on the first try.
But we grow much of our own food with no pesticides, so maybe that helped.
Re: (Score:2)
I had two kids without any conception issues while working as a pesticide applicator in a greenhouse.
Re: (Score:2)
they have fertility issues too to a point china discontinued their one child policy.
even if it weren't so, people are having less children and are marrying later due to improved healthcare and curves that hit countries like US and europe end up causing issues to other countries like china later as healthcare and nutrition/agriculture improves.
it's not one or the other... a lot of things happen simultaneously
long story short, before you can say it doesn't check out, you have to examine a lot of environmental
Re: (Score:2)
China's low birth rate is due to socio economic conditions, not environmental chemical issues.
Re: This does not quite check out ... (Score:2)
By fertility issues, I meant the rate at which people reproduce in general, not chemical issues (as in the summary). Granted words like fertility rate, or natural replacement rate would have worked better and could be clearer, you could still get the idea from the rest of the post
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd gladly take a shot over a knife to the balls to prevent children.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No those are OTHER chemicals and they are not making frogs gay, they are changing sexes or just becoming BOTH to the point they can breed with themselves!
I'm surprised industry has been clever enough to keep the homophobes from latching on to the problem as the cause for the rapid increase in gay humans. That would at least (correct or not) get more people active against the PR that keeps us from quickly solving the problems. Instead the nutjobs think conspiracies are out there to convert your kid to gay w
Re: (Score:2)
not pesticides.Synthetic hormones get studied doing unusual things and continue as they keep making chemicals with similar affect on biological systems...
UNUSUAL means more than rare cases.