Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Environmental science

The hidden costs of flexible fertility

Urgent public debate is needed over a European proposal to regulate environmental levels of the active ingredient in birth-control pills, say Richard Owen and Susan Jobling.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Jobling, S. & Owen, R. Ethinyl oestradiol: bitter pill for the precautionary principle in: Late Lessons from Early Warnings: Science, Precaution, Innovation (European Environment Agency, in the press).

  2. Kidd, K. A. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 8897–8901 (2007).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  3. Gross-Sorokin, M. Y., Roast, S. D. & Brighty, G.C. Environ. Health Perspect. 114(S1), 147–151 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. European Commission. Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle COM (2000)1 (2000).

  5. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution Report no. 21: Setting Environmental Standards (RCEP, 1998).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Owen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Owen, R., Jobling, S. The hidden costs of flexible fertility. Nature 485, 441 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/485441a

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/485441a

This article is cited by

Comments

Commenting on this article is now closed.

  1. What happened to the principle of "polluter pays"? There are reputed to be abot 3.5 million women in the UK using the contraceptive pill &#8211 about 1/3rd of women aged 16 &#8211 49. So &#8211 if the cost estimate is GBP 30 billion that equates to about GBP 8571 for each current user!

    There are other methods of contraception with smaller environmental costs and it is evidently possible to use them &#8211 c.f. Japan where the pill usage rate is ~1% with a fertility rate 1.21 children born / woman, compared to a fertility rate of 1.91 in the UK...

  2. Aren`t fertility control patches less dangerous for the environment?
    I guess the "polluter pays" principle in practice would probably increase the quantity of teenage mothers on social support system &#8211 also quite heavy for the society.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene