The Pill Shouldn't Be Blamed for Prostate Cancer

on November 15, 2011 at 6:36 PM

Every so often a study comes out showing how certain birth control pills are bad news for us ladies. Depending on your own hormonal "baseline" and lifestyle, some forms can lead to gallstones, blood clots/strokes, totally MIA libido, etc. You'd think it couldn't get any worse. Well, it just did! New research has come out stating that the pill is contributing to higher rates of prostate cancer in men. Agh! WTH!?

The researchers say it has to do with the pill's form of estrogen, ethinyl estradiol, which women taking the drug release as an xenoestrogen (AKA Frankenstein version of estrogen) through our, uh, waste. In turn, the phony estrogen ends up in our water and food supply. Eeeugh. Totally disturbing news, but at the same time ... the solution here has nothing to do with women taking little pink pills.

Actually, my first instinct is that maybe this is a blessing in disguise. See, it usually falls to us ladies to freak out about PCB, bisphenol A (BPA), and phthalates. We try to keep them out of our kids' food, canned goods, shower curtains, toothpastes, etc. But clearly, if there's anything we can all learn from research like this, it's that it is just as important for men to realize how dangerous these phony, lab-created hormones in the environment are. Obviously, they're affecting them, as well.

It bears noting, too, that this isn't the first study to show how "Franken-hormones" lead to prostate cancer in men. There's a whole body of research dedicated to that, and in recent years, researchers have pointed the finger quite often at BPA for ratcheting up rates of the disease. So, clearly, the pill is just part of the greater problem; it's definitely not the only thing contributing to this trend.

As far as I'm concerned, the best thing we can do is to refuse to buy products made with chemicals or compounds that are xenoestrogens. Petition the government to care and enforce regulations about these nasty things. Do our best to get the hormone disruptors out there that we can control wiped out, because putting an end to the pill isn't a realistic or desirable solution.

Does this study freak you out?

Image via Nate Grigg/Flickr

About the author Maressa Brown

has enjoyed reporting and writing for a variety of entertainment and women's magazines and websites. More often than not, you'll find her blogging, reading, researching something on her iPhone, laughing, chatting at an above-"normal" volume, or getting her caffeine fix.

Filed Under: birth control, hormonal imbalances

Comments (7)

Nonmember comment from jice

on Nov 15, 2011 at 7:21 PM

Anything involving the pill freaks me out... I will never ever put something like that in my body.

Report this comment

Katsandkids

on Nov 15, 2011 at 8:22 PM

I total agree with the previous post!

nthmost

on Nov 16, 2011 at 12:52 AM

Why not also support the widespread adoption of non-hormonal methods like the IUD?

TattooedDarling

on Nov 16, 2011 at 1:45 AM

@nthmost- Would be lovely if childless and childfree women could get an IUD. Only barrier methods are viable non-hormonal options for childfree women and well condoms are great for protecting me against STDs but I wouldn’t trust just them or just the pill to keep me childfree. Not saying that women shouldn’t be well-educated about both hormonal and non-hormonal methods and be allowed to make their own decision based on what’s best for their body and lifestyle, but birth control is a fickle and private thing. Difficult to support the wide distribution of anything when a great chunk of your target population can’t or isn’t allowed to use what you’re distributing.

on Nov 17, 2011 at 6:58 PM

I'm not saying IUDs are a one-size-fits-all solution. But it's a myth that childless/childfree women can't get them (it's all up to the skill of the gynecologist in placing them), and the reason they fell out of disfavor in this country -- as opposed to the rest of the world, where they are the #1 go-to for women looking for long-term birth control -- is due to the 1970s IUD recalls. That was a long time ago, and those brands are off the market.

I'm just saying, more awareness of IUDs as an option, along with a healthy dose of myth-busting, would be useful to women everywhere.

MaressaSB

on Nov 18, 2011 at 10:33 AM

@nthmost: I'm with you, sister! I'm a huge advocate of all non-hormonal forms of birth control, like the IUD -- including for non- or not yet moms. I've written about it quite a bit, actually: http://thestir.cafemom.com/healthy_living/125944/miracle_birth_control_rescues_us

on Nov 18, 2011 at 2:43 PM

It's not fitting that's the problem. If you're under 30 and childless, good luck getting an IUD. Most gynos won't even consider giving them to you and few insurance policies cover IUDs for childfree women. I've been trying for either an IUD or sterilization for almost a year and it won't happen before I'm 30,likely not until I'm 40.