More beef = fewer babies?

Growth promoters in beef may damage sperm

Posted by Julia Olmstead (Guest Contributor) at 9:51 AM on 29 Mar 2007

Read more about: green living | health | food | agriculture

As reported by the BBC, a University of Rochester study found recently that men whose mothers ate lots of beef during their pregnancies had lower sperm counts than the sons of women who ate little or no beef while pregnant:

Among sons of mothers who ate a lot of beef, 17.7 percent had a sperm concentration below the World Health Organization sub-fertility threshold of 20 million sperm per millilitre of seminal fluid. The figure for the sons of lower beef consumers was 5.7 percent.

Lead researcher Professor Shanna Swan said the findings suggested that exposure to growth promoters contained in the beef eaten by the boys' mothers was to blame.

The researchers admit that they cannot pinpoint what chemical specifically caused the sperm damage. Europe banned growth promoters in beef in 1988 (they're so civilized over there), so a study of sperm levels in sons born after 1988 to beef-eating mothers could more conclusively pin this on growth promoters.

In the meantime, it's yet another reason to choose grass-fed, hormone-free beef. Or, hey, just skip the beef entirely (although when I was pregnant, after 14 years of vegetarianism, I had some serious beef cravings. Grass-fed beef cravings, of course.)

For story: More beef = fewer babies?
6 Comments | Post a Comment

Oh my God

That's a cute baby picture (my grandpa genes appear to be switching on).

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 2:21 PM on 29 Mar 2007

This will probably do more...

to reduce meat eating than any talk about the environment!

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

by Jason D Scorse at 9:22 AM on 30 Mar 2007

wait a second...

How is having fewer babies going to make people want to eat less beef? Some people might start eating more, as they smoke cigarettes...

by atreyger at 11:47 AM on 30 Mar 2007

Just a passing thought...

I'm trying to figure out how having fewer babies is a bad thing... I could just be blowing smoke here, but my understanding is that overpopulation--a status which the human race achieved quite some time ago--aggravates every environmental problem we have, as well as driving up crime (faster than the rate of population expansion, I mean), economic problems at every level except the very top, and probably some issues I'm forgetting. Hell. If we were at three billion people on the planet, rather than six, do you think climate change would be a problem at this point? It might depend on which three billion people we're talking about, but I have a feeling the places where people eat the most beef coincide nicely with the places with the most per capita greenhouse gas emissions.

If all they do is kill sperm, I say bring on the growth promoters! If our children crave the pitter patter of little feet, let them adopt kids from countries where people can't afford beef.

by Pathos at 5:16 PM on 01 Apr 2007

Artificial sperm will help

I am not sure that beef is to blame if compared to the time when red meat was basic food and no one complained on the low sperm concentration. But if the situation continues that way soon we are going to use artificial sperm that was grown from human bone marrow samples by researchers from Universities of Gottingen and Munster.

by lorayoh at 6:40 AM on 18 Apr 2007

8 - )

Pathos,

One thing I wonder is whether the presumed environmental benefit of the reduction in fertility would outweigh the harm of a diet that is very high in resource consumption. I would be in favor of people eating much less meat, especially beef, even if it meant some additional children. It's a question of magnitude, but I would be surprised if the effect on fertility be very large, and I have no doubt that diet makes a big difference on our impact.

But to answer your question, reduced fertility is a bad thing in the perception of people who are trying to have children.

Regardless, I would hail the reduction in fertility of beef eating men as good news for the environment. Whether the effect or the news of it results in fewer people being born in families that eat a lot of beef, or a reduction in individual beef eating to preserve male fertility, this is a reason to smile.

by Pandu at 8:21 AM on 18 Apr 2007
[ Parent ]

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.