Humorous tone invites readers but belies global problem.

Posted by Emily Barrett at Mar 05, 2010 10:00 AM |

A story in Slate Magazine on February 24th highlights a possible connection between environmental chemicals and impaired male reproductive development, but overlooks the global implications.

In her February 24th article in the online magazine, Slate, Florence Williams takes a jocular approach to a serious subject – the possible effects of environmental chemicals on the development of the male reproductive system. The article, “Little Princes of Denmark: Why do Danes have smaller nuts than Finns – are toxins to blame?”, focuses on research showing an array of emerging reproductive concerns in Danish men.

 

What gets lost in the playful tone of the article and the euphemisms is that rates of male reproductive problems and exposure to environmental chemicals are on the rise across the world, particularly in industrialized nations. For example, one recent paper looked at more than 100 studies of sperm quality conducted between 1934-1996, finding that across the world, sperm counts have dropped by half during that time period. 

The research from the University of Copenhagen comparing Danish and Finnish men and boys on a number of reproductive and genital measures (or as Williams puts it, “ranking their nether regions”) found that the Danes suffer from higher levels of a number of reproductive anomalies, including low sperm counts, increases in testicular cancer, small testicles and penises at birth, and an increasing need for assisted reproduction.
 

 

These problems may all be associated with low levels of the male hormones  – androgens – and Williams introduces the important idea that along with genetics, exposure to environmental chemicals – particularly during development – may be to blame.  In the Danish population, those women whose breast milk had the highest level of exposure to certain hormone disrupting chemicals had sons with higher rates of undescended testicles and lower levels of reproductive hormones. In fact, the Danish data has generated an extensive and important set of findings on how early exposure to hormone disrupting chemicals (such as phthalates, pesticides, flame retardants, and polychlorinated biphenols, or PCBs) may impact the male reproductive system, ultimately impacting fertility and health.

 

Less apparent from the article is that this is by no means a Danish problem alone. Nor is it only a concern in the United States, where Williams mentions the relatively lax laws on chemical use compared to Europe and the high rates of testicular cancer. 

It is not just an issue of “manliness,” as Williams puts it, and she rightfully mentions that fertility, cancer risk and even brain development may be affected by exposure to these chemicals.

The Slate article sometimes crosses the line into sensationalism and sexiness, burying the more serious message within. On the other hand, it may just manage to raise awareness of these important issues among readers who would otherwise shy away from a scientific article.