"This study postulated that "environmental influences," particularly widely used chemical compounds with an impact like that of the female hormone estrogen, might be contributing to a drop in fertility among males."
While the article begins with the discussion that teenage pregnancy has dropped by some 28% it ends up by advising that we don't blindly give this credit to all the efforts, both right and left wing, that have gone into this.
The impact, socially, economically and politically if all that this article claims to be true is so would be of extremely huge proportions.
"Among the evidence presented are several trends that seem to point to a subtle feminization of male babies: a worldwide rise in hypospadias, a birth defect in which the urethral opening is located on the shaft of the penis rather than at the tip; a rise in cryptorchidism, or undescended testicles; and experiments Swan has done showing that in male babies with high exposure to compounds called phthalates, something called the anogenital distance is decreasing. If you measure the distance from a baby's anus to the genitals, the distance in these males is shorter, more like that of girls."
This indicates that the chemicals we are using could possibly be slowly moving our male genes, namely the Y chromosome, into oblivion. It means that if this research is accurate, give it an insignificant amount of time in political timeframes, our debates will change drastically. It means that the church may have to reconsider its stand on gay and lesbian situations. It also means we as a species are on the way to becoming extinct. Let's first discuss the present.
Churches and morally upright groups are forever up in arms against gay and lesbian practices. I can see why the church needs to harness this situation. What I've always felt about this is that the church needs to take a stand and stick to it. If you're thinking that the church has denounced homosexuality, and that's taking a stand, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about in responding to, "what is gay?". There are two theories when thinking of homosexuals. Either as having made a moral decision to have different sexual tendencies, or as being born that way, and having no choice in the matter. If you pick the former, gay people then are just simply promiscuous, and should be handled just like the prostitutes as far as religion goes. If you pick the latter, then these people need a lot more understanding support and research money invested to save them from this...Whateverr word the churches want to use to complete that sentence. Churches or not, homophobic or not, I believe any one forming an opinion on this issue should base it on one of these two theories.
This article though seems to support the latter. That gay is becoming an issue that we are causing. Let's talk about the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) here. Numerous lobbyist groups have been talking to this body in regards to making safer regulations, first by investing in due diligence when it comes to research and also choosing safety before money. They have been resistant and really don't seem interested in making major changes. Maybe because I'm female, but if these tests continue to show that men are becoming extinct, thanks to what the FDA approves, who wants to bet the quickest turnaround in their opinions? Maybe this is the saving grace. Maybe because of this, obesity will be managed.
What about politicians? Here in the US, they influence votes of different issues by adding a homosexual related vote into the ballots. The religious states always go with whomever is anti-gay. The constant manipulation of simple beliefs and practices. What would they say to us, if we could prove that they've caused this? This article expressly mentions that the 3rd world countries seem to be unaffected. This is largely due to the fact that they are mainly eating organic foods, now. All that is beginning to change slowly and they too will start to experience the same symptoms, if they haven't already. Ass far as this conversation goes, the person that is altering a gene, is the male species. While women are developing cancers from excess estrogen levels, men are becoming estrogen filled. Men are, everyday, shifting towards becoming women.
What if this trend continues? What about the future. Does that mean say in 2 centuries, Lesbian couples will be normal, and gay men forbidden, because the few men that exist must be used to continue the species? How would that affect political debates? Protected classes such as gender equality?
Reuters has been asking if we trust the media. Let me answer that by asking a question. Would an article such as this one, given its expected economic impact, ever make its way to the major headlines? Would the media companies be willing to risk going into battle with major economic giants to highlight such information? Would they risk lawsuits, losing major sponsors and all so that the average citizen would be aware of the possible effects of the food he consumes?
In a nutshell, men you now have a reason, beyond obesity, to watch carefully what you eat. Women it may translate to the fact that obesity is directly proportional to the chances that, that male's male offspring will be gay. Or maybe not. Maybe I read too much into this article.