Are chemicals shrinking your penis and depleting your sperm?

Are chemicals shrinking your penis and depleting your sperm?

A doomsday scenario of an end to human sperm production has been back in the news recently, now with the added threat of shrinking penises.

Professor Shanna Swan, a US epidemiologist who studies environmental influences on human development, recently published a new book called Countdown.

In it, she suggests sperm counts could reach zero by 2045, largely owing to the impact of a range of environmental pollutants used in manufacturing everyday products: phthalates and bisphosphenol A (BPA) from plastics, and per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) used, for example, in waterproofing. Under this scenario, she says, most couples wanting to conceive would need to rely on assisted reproductive technologies.

She has also warned these chemicals are shrinking penis size.

Such extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I would argue the evidence is not strong enough.

Correlation doesn’t equal causation

Epidemiologists find associations between disease and potential contributing factors, like lung cancer and smoking. But their work can’t identify the causes of disease – just because two things are associated doesn’t mean one is causing, or caused by, the other.

An article written by environmental activist Erin Brockovich in The Guardian in March leads by referring to “hormone-disrupting chemicals that are decimating fertility”. But causation is far from established.

It’s reasonable to expect chemicals that affect hormone function in our bodies, like BPA and PFAS, could affect reproduction in males and females, given available evidence. But we don’t have irrefutable proof.

Selective reporting

In 2017, Swan and several colleagues published an exhaustive review study showing an apparent drop in men’s sperm counts of 59.3% between 1973 and 2011. This research informs the arguments Swan makes in Countdown and those we’ve seen in the media.

What’s not often mentioned is the fact the researchers only observed a decline in sperm count in groups of men from North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, but not in groups of men from South America, Asia or Africa.

When Swan and her colleagues combined the data from all countries, they saw a decline because the studies of “Western” men outweigh those of men elsewhere (in the number of studies and participants).

Swan and her colleagues worked hard to avoid bias when conducting their study. But selection bias (related to how study participants are chosen), publication bias (resulting from researchers’ tendency to report only observations they think will be of interest) and other limitations of the original work used as the basis for their investigation could be influencing the results of the larger study.

Many studies from different parts of the world show declining sperm counts, which is concerning, but we don’t fully understand the reasons for the apparent decline. Blaming chemicals in the environment overlooks other important factors such as chronic disease, diet, and obesity, which people can act on to improve their fertility.

The problem with extrapolation

Swan’s 2017 study boils down to a straight descending line drawn between sperm counts of groups of men studied at different times between 1973 and 2011.

Just because a straight line can be drawn through the data, this doesn’t justify extrapolation of that line beyond its earliest and latest data points. It’s unscientific to assume trends in data exist outside the range of observations.

We know sperm counts of men in the early 1940s were around 113 million sperm per ml of semen, not the roughly 140 million/ml you get from extrapolating backwards from Swan’s research. Concluding sperm counts will reach zero in 2045, based on extrapolating forward from the available data, is just as likely to be incorrect.

When Swan told news website Axios “If you look at the curve on sperm count and project it forward” she was encouraging unjustifiable and unscientific interpretation of her data – even though she acknowledged it was “risky” to extrapolate in this way. Unfortunately this caution is too often unmentioned.

For example, Brockovich writes: “That would mean no babies. No reproduction. No more humans.” That’s hyperbole. It’s just not science.

Relax, your penis isn’t shrinking

Claims of shrinking penises are obvious clickbait. But only a single study, of 383 young men from the Veneto region in northeastern Italy, links men’s penis size to the types of chemicals Swan attributes to declining sperm counts.

Within Veneto there are geographic zones with varied levels of PFAS contamination. A group of 212 men who live in areas with high or intermediate PFAS exposure and have high levels of these chemicals in their bodies, had an average penis length of 8.6cm, about 10% lower than the average of a group of 171 men from an area without exposure (9.7cm).

But a few features of this study affect the reliability of the observations and whether we can generalise them to other populations.

men were grouped according to where they lived, not where they were born. Since genital size is determined before birth, the environment during their mothers’ pregnancies is more relevant to penis size than where the men lived at the time of the study. Some men will likely have relocated from their place of birth but how many, and where they may have moved to and from, we don’t know the levels of PFAS exposure for men living in the contaminated regions of Veneto are extreme, because of decades of industrial pollution. How the potential effect of such large exposures relates to smaller and more common exposures to pollutants, like from plastic food wrap, we don’t know the study is missing details about its subjects and the conditions under which measurements were made. It’s usual to exclude people with conditions that might affect study outcomes, such as congenital abnormalities, but it’s not clear whether this happened in the study. Variables that influence penile measurements (such as room temperature, posture, and whether the penis is held straight or hanging) are not mentioned.

And from a semantic perspective, for penises to be “shrinking” they must be getting shorter over time, on either an individual or population basis. I cannot find any reports of men’s penises shortening as a consequence of environmental pollution. Available data don’t suggest a decline in penis size over the past few decades.

While environmental pollution is a pressing concern, the evidence suggests the catastrophic collapse of human reproduction and accompanying penis shrinkage is thankfully a pretty unlikely prospect.

/Courtesy of The Conversation. This material comes from the originating organization and may be of a point-in-time nature, edited for clarity, style and length.

Alabama Track and Field Closes 2021 Outdoor Regular Season at LSU Invitational

BATON ROUGE, La. – Alabama men’s and women’s track and field closed its outdoor regular season Saturday at the LSU Invitational in Baton Rouge, La.

The Crimson Tide came away from the one-day event with more than a dozen top-three finishes, including Demetrius Jackson’s win in the men’s 200 meters. In addition, Cherisse Murray took first among collegians in the women’s shot put, while Sydney Milani posted the top collegiate time in the 400-meter hurdles.

Crimson Tide Medalists

Other Top-10 Finishes

Up Next

With the regular season in the books, Alabama opens the postseason with the Southeastern Conference Championships May 13-15 in College Station, Texas

For all the latest information on the team, follow AlabamaTrack on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook. General athletic news can be found @UA_Athletics on Twitter and Instagram and Alabama Athletics on Facebook.

Jose Raymond On Breon Ansley’s Potential In Men’s 212: “I Don’t Think He Would Do That Well”

Jose Raymond shares his thoughts on the possibility of Breon Ansley moving up to Men’s 212.

Breon Ansley has hinted in the past that he might move up to the Men’s 212 division. Though ever since his loss at the Olympia 2020, he has confirmed he’s not changing divisions anytime soon – he still hasn’t ruled it out completely for his future. Some fans believe it’s the change he needs to become more dominant. Others disagree. In our latest GI Exclusive interview, Jose Raymond predicts that Breon Ansley would struggle to succeed in the Men’s 212 division.

Breon Ansley went into the Classic Physique Olympia 2020 looking for revenge. Not only that, he was looking to prove that he is the true and rightful reigning champ in that division. Instead, Chris Bumstead proved himself to be a repeat champion. This tied him for two Olympia wins putting this year’s upcoming Olympia into a true battle for supremacy.

But some fans see Breon Ansley’s third place finish last year as a sign that he is on the decline. Breon has hinted in the past that he was interested in moving up to Men’s 212. While nothing is confirmed – the rumors continue to swirl. Especially after his most recent loss. Would he succeed better in Men’s 212?

We asked this very question to Jose Raymond, a veteran Men’s 212 competitor. How does he think Breon Ansley would fair upping his weight and competing against a bigger set of competitors? Jose Raymond chooses his words carefully and ultimately claims that, in his opinion, Breon Ansley would struggle to succeed at 212 pounds.

Watch our latest GI Exclusive segment with Jose Raymond above!

“I don’t think he would do that well,” Jose Raymond states in our interview. He continues:

“Because he’s structurally a smaller guy kind of like Shaun Clarida but he’s taller obviously. So he’s not meant to have over 200 pounds of muscle on his frame. His quality is incredible. And his conditioning is incredible. I don’t know if he would have that same conditioning at 200 pounds or 205.”

Jose Raymond believes that changing divisions is not the right move for Breon Ansley. In fact, he believes that if Breon goes back to the drawing board and changes up his contest prep – he can still be a powerful Classic Physique competitor. One that earns the Olympia title again in the future.

This is something that Breon Ansley himself seems to be focusing on as well. He has stated that he doesn’t plan to abandon Men’s 212 immediately after his loss. So perhaps he wants to prove himself a victor once again before making any big changes.

While two wins in a row for Chris Bumstead is promising, it doesn’t make him invincible. Breon Ansley learned that these past two years himself. That’s what will make the Olympia 2021 such an exciting match up in the Classic Physique division. Whoever wins will break the tie and earn a third victory. That is, if another competitor doesn’t swoop in and steal the title from both of them.

You can watch Jose Raymond talk in more detail about Breon Ansley’s physique and his chances in Men’s 212 by watching our latest GI Exclusive interview segment above!