The Link Between Birth Control Pills and Depression

Birth control pills are among the most popular forms of contraception in the US, but new research highlights their risks to women's mental health. Artificially manipulating your sex hormones with the synthetic hormones in hormonal contraception could have serious adverse effects, including depression.

October 20, 2016 

Story at-a-glance

• Women who used hormonal birth control had a 40 percent increased risk of developing depression after six months compared to women who did not
• The risk of developing depression after hormonal contraception use was greatest among adolescents
• The use of hormonal birth control was also associated with subsequent use of antidepressant drugs

By Dr. Mercola

Birth control pills are the most popular form of contraception among U.S. women. They're taken by 16 percent of this population, while just over 7 percent use long-acting reversible forms of contraception, such as a hormonal intrauterine device or implant.

What these pills, devices and implants have in common is that they're forms of hormonal birth control — that is, they contain or release synthetic forms of hormones, such as estrogen and progestin (a form of progesterone), which work to prevent pregnancy in various ways.  

The problem is that these sex hormones also affect mood and other biological processes and artificially manipulating them can lead to many unintended consequences in your body, some of them uncomfortable and some quite serious, including altering your mental health.

Birth Control Pills Linked to Depression

Researchers from the University of Copenhagen in Denmark analyzed data from more than 1 million women over a period of 14 years. None of the women, who were between 15 and 34 years of age, had been diagnosed with depression at the start of the study.1

However, the analysis showed that women who used hormonal birth control had a 40 percent increased risk of developing depression after six months compared to women who did not. The risk was greatest among adolescents.

The use of hormonal birth control was also associated with subsequent use of antidepressant drugs. Certain types of hormonal contraception had varying risks. Specifically, the use of:

• Progestin-only pills led to a 1.3-fold higher rate of antidepressant use
• Combined birth control pills led to a 1.2 higher rate
• Transdermal patch led to a 2-fold increased risk
• Vaginal ring led to a 1.5-fold increased risk

Anecdotal Reports Suggest Hormonal Contraceptives Lead to Mood Changes

Lead study supervisor, Dr. Øjvind Lidegaard, a professor at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, told CNN:2

"We have known for decades that women's sex hormones estrogen and progesterone have an influence on many women's mood.

Therefore, it is not very surprising that also external artificial hormones acting in the same way and on the same centers as the natural hormones might also influence women's mood or even be responsible for depression development."

Despite this knowledge, many health care professionals are reluctant to suggest that the risks of hormonal birth control may be too steep for some women, especially those with a history of depression.

While scientific validation has yielded some conflicting results, one report in the Oxford Medical Case Reports journal detailed two cases of women with a history of depression who developed depressive symptoms after treatment with hormonal contraceptives (the combined oral contraceptive pill, progestin-only pill and combined contraceptive vaginal ring).3

Case Reports Detail Onset of Depressive Symptoms After Use of Hormonal Contraceptives

In one case, a 31-year-old woman experienced gradual improvement of her depressive symptoms after she stopped using the vaginal ring. However, "a sudden and acute worsening occurred" shortly after she started using a combined birth control pill.

About a month later, she again experienced a worsening of symptoms "almost simultaneously with the initiation of treatment with combined contraceptive vaginal ring." The researchers noted:4

"HC [Hormonal contraception] was again interrupted, with a subsequent clear improvement in depressive symptoms. The patient remained stable without depression for the following [six] months."

In the second case, a 33-year-old woman developed depressive symptoms shortly after starting a progestin-only birth control pill. Her symptoms disappeared completely within one week of stopping the pill. The researchers concluded:5

"Caution should be used when starting up treatment with HC in women diagnosed with depression, since it might in some cases lead to worsening of the depressive symptoms.

Likewise, attention should be paid to the pre-existing use of HC in women who develop depression, as discontinuation of HC might in some cases be sufficient to treat the depression."

Hormonal Contraceptives Are Linked to Glaucoma and Other Health Risks

Women who used oral contraceptives for longer than three years were more than twice as likely to have been diagnosed with glaucoma, a leading cause of vision loss and blindness, according to one study.6

The results were so striking that the researchers recommended women taking the pill for three or more years be screened for glaucoma and followed closely by an ophthalmologist.

It might seem unusual that contraceptives could affect your vision, but it's important to understand that there are body-wide repercussions of artificially manipulating your hormones.

Most birth control pills, patches, vaginal rings and implants contain a combination of the derivatives of the hormones estrogen and progestin. They work by mimicking these hormones in your body to fool your reproductive system into producing the following effects:

• Preventing your ovaries from releasing eggs
• Thickening your cervical mucus to help block sperm from fertilizing an egg
• Thinning the lining of your uterus, which makes it difficult for an egg to implant, should it become fertilized

However, your reproductive system does not exist in a bubble. It is connected to all of your other bodily systems, and therefore hormonal contraception is capable of altering much more than your reproductive status.

According to one report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 30 percent of women who have used the pill and nearly half of women using other hormonal contraception methods stopped their use due to "dissatisfaction," which was most often caused by side effects.7 Potential health risks include:

Cancer: Women who take birth control pills increase their risk of cervical and breast cancers, and possibly liver cancer as well.	Thinner bones:Women who take birth control pills have lower bone mineral density (BMD) than women who have never used oral contraceptives.	Heart disease:Long-term use of birth control pills may increase plaque artery buildups in your body that may raise your risk of heart disease.
Fatal blood clots: Birth control pills increase your risk of blood clots and subsequent stroke.	Impaired muscle gains: Oral contraceptive use may impair muscle gains from resistance exercise training in women.	Long-term sexual dysfunction: The pill may interfere with a protein that keeps testosterone unavailable, leading to long-term sexual dysfunction including decreased desire and arousal.
Migraines	Weight gain and mood changes	Yeast overgrowth and infection

The Pill May Be a Libido Killer

About 15 percent of women taking oral contraceptives report a decrease in libido, likely because they lower levels of sex hormones, including testosterone.8 One study also found seven times the amount of the libido-killing sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) was present in women who took oral contraceptives compared to women who never used the pill.

Even though SHBG levels declined in women who had stopped taking the pill, they still remained three to four times higher than they were in women with no history of using oral contraceptives, which suggests oral contraceptives may kill a woman's libido for the long-term. Researchers concluded:9

"Long-term sexual, metabolic, and mental health consequences might result as a consequence of chronic SHBG elevation [in women who take, or have taken, oral contraceptives]."

Synthetic Hormones in Drinking Water May Be Increasing Cancer Rates in Men

It's not only women who are at risk from synthetic hormones contained in hormonal contraceptives. An analysis of data from 100 countries found oral contraceptive use is associated with prostate cancer, which may be due to exposure to synthetic estrogens excreted by women that end up in the drinking water supply.10

While it's been argued that only a small amount of additional estrogen is excreted by a woman using this form of contraception, this "small amount" is compounded by millions of women, many of whom use the pill for long periods of time. Also, synthetic estrogen and progestin does not biodegrade rapidly and is far harder to remove through conventional water purification systems, resulting in greater accumulation in the environment.

While this study did not prove cause and effect — that is, it did not prove that environmental estrogen from women's oral contraceptive use causes prostate cancer in men — it did find a significant association between the two that deserves further investigation, especially in light of estrogen's well-established role in a wide range of cancers and the prevalence of hormonal contraceptive use.

Non-Hormonal Methods of Contraception

Women and men looking for reversible non-hormonal options of contraception may be surprised to learn that there are many options. Conventional health care providers typically steer patients toward the popular hormonal options, but they are far from the only ones.

Barrier methods, which work by preventing the man's sperm from reaching the woman's egg, include the diaphragm, cervical cap, sponge and male and female condoms. None of these are foolproof, which is why many couples use them in combination with fertility awareness-based methods.

Fertility awareness involves knowing when a woman's fertile period occurs each month, and then avoiding sexual intercourse during (and just prior to) this time (or using a barrier method if you do).

When used consistently and correctly, fertility awareness is highly effective at preventing pregnancy; fewer than 1 to 5 women out of 100 will become pregnant using fertility awareness in this manner.11 In order to track fertility, a number of methods can be used by women, including tracking basal body temperature, mucus production, saliva indicators and cervical position.

Many women use a combination of methods, and there are also commercially available ovulation monitors that can be used in conjunction with the other methods. Ninety-nine percent of U.S. women of reproductive age have used at least one contraceptive method at some point in their lifetime, with 88 percent choosing hormonal options.12

However, you may be relieved to learn that you don't have to subject yourself to the risks of hormonal contraception, or learn to live with the side effects, in order to take control of your reproductive health. An experienced holistic health care provider can help you choose the best non-hormonal contraception options for you.

You Might Also Like

• 
  Real Contraceptive Choices: Alternatives to Risky Hormone Pills, Patches and Shots
  147,758 Views
• 
  Birth Control Pills May Be Less Effective Than IUD
  54,507 Views
• 
  How Women May Be Contributing to Men's Rising Cancer Rates
  234,426 Views

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/10/20/birth-control-pills-depression.aspx

Hurricane Floodwaters Cause CAFO Waste Lagoons to Overflow

Floodwaters from Hurricane Matthew magnify the risks posed by concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in North Carolina. The waters may breach so-called waste 'lagoons,' allowing untreated, disease-ridden waste to flow freely into the surrounding environment.

October 25, 2016 

Story at-a-glance

• U.S. CAFOs produce 500 million tons of manure annually, which is three times the amount of sewage produced by humans
• Much of the waste is stored in open-air “lagoons” that may be breached by floodwaters from hurricanes
• North Carolina waste lagoons have overflowed due to hurricanes repeatedly; in 1996 following Hurricane Fran, in 1998 following Hurricane Bonnie, in 1999 following Hurricane Floyd and in 2016 following Hurricane Matthew

By Dr. Mercola

While pig farms exist in virtually all U.S. states, pig concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are heavily concentrated in a handful of states, namely Iowa, North Carolina, Minnesota and Illinois.1

Of these, North Carolina faces a unique threat that the others don't: hurricanes. Some CAFOs treat animal feces in open-air lagoons and dispose of the waste by spraying it onto nearby fields.

The creation of new CAFO lagoons, and the spray systems, were banned in 2007, but older farms were allowed to continue their use. The term "lagoon" is a misnomer, by the way.

Cesspool would be more accurate, as CAFOs do not treat the animal feces in any way. They simply add it to the often-unlined lagoons until they figure out where they can spray it.

In the meantime, the liquefied waste often leaches into groundwater and wells, poisoning drinking water. When it's sprayed onto fields, it often runs off into waterways, where the excess nutrients lead to algae overgrowth that depletes the water of oxygen and kills fish and other marine life.2

Manure from farms is often considered to be an innocuous, even healthy, form of "waste" that can be used to fertilize fields. It can be, but only when it's produced in amounts that can be safely used — and when it's not contaminated with antibiotics and pathogens, like most CAFO manure is.

U.S. CAFOs produce 500 million tons of manure annually, which is three times the amount of sewage produced by humans.3 This is far more manure than can be safely applied to farm fields and represents a top source of pollution in the U.S. — which brings us back to hurricanes.

Hurricane Floodwaters May Cause Toxic CAFO Lagoons to Overflow

North Carolina is the second biggest pork-producing state, and the third-largest chicken producer in the U.S., which means it's home to more pig and chicken CAFOs than average. This, combined with the area's proximity to the coast, makes it an environmental nightmare in the making.

Floodwaters from hurricanes can cause the already dangerous lagoons (which emit toxic fumes and often leach toxins into groundwater) to overflow, allowing tons of untreated animal feces to flood the area.

This isn't only theoretical; it's already happened in 1996 following Hurricane Fran, in 1998 following Hurricane Bonnie, in 1999 following Hurricane Floyd, practically every year in many locations — and this year following Hurricane Matthew.

While the North Carolina Pork Council continues to state that pollution due to hog lagoon breaches by Hurricane Matthew floodwaters has been minimal, aerial photographs obtained by watchdog group Waterkeeper Alliance suggest otherwise. According to Mother Jones:4

“ … [T]he Waterkeeper Alliance published aerial photos of hog farms depicting a grim scene — massive cesspools, known by the industry as lagoons, leaking into floodwater or just completely subsumed.”

CAFO Animals Drown by the Millions in Confinement, Floodwaters Pose Infection Risk

Sadly, many chickens and pigs also drown in confinement when flooding occurs, since many of the CAFOs are placed in flood-prone areas.

After Hurricane Floyd, 3 million chickens and turkeys and more than 3,000 hogs drowned,5 and at least 1.8 million turkeys and chickens have been reported drowned due to Hurricane Matthew, likely while still in their cages.6

Aside from the ethical ramifications, there is also the added issue of how to dispose of millions of decaying and likely disease-ridden chicken carcasses.

The state bought out some of them after Hurricane Floyd in order to prevent the catastrophic lagoon flooding that occurred from happening again but many still remain.

The year of Hurricane Floyd, eastern North Carolina experienced a "large increase" in visits to health services for intestinal infections in counties with high concentrations of pig farming that were affected by the hurricane.7 Even a splash of floodwater on your face or open cut could be enough to cause infection.

Travis Graves of the environmental nonprofit Sound Rivers told The Atlantic, "We've literally got hundreds of lagoons on the eastern coastal plan." They continued, "The southeastern corner of North Carolina, where pig farms are concentrated, is unfortunately also the area hit hardest in the latest hurricane."8

It's unclear how extensive the pig-waste lagoon breaches will be due to Hurricane Matthew's historic floodwaters. Local news agencies doing flyovers in the region reported seeing at least 100 hog waste lagoons at or near capacity, and at least one with hog waste overflowing into adjacent fields.

Farmers were also witnessed spraying hog waste onto fields, which is illegal to do when a flood watch is in effect because the waste may runoff and contaminate nearby surface water.9

We're Talking About 15,000 Olympic Pools' Worth of Waste

It's hard to imagine the magnitude of waste being produced by North Carolina CAFOs, but this may help — the state's pig CAFOs alone produce nearly 10 billion gallons of fecal waste annually, which is enough to fill more than 15,000 Olympic-size swimming pools, according to an analysis of maps and data of the state's CAFOs by the Environmental Working Group (EWG).10

The fact that other states where CAFOs are located may not be prone to hurricanes does not make them less dangerous — they, too, pollute their surrounding environments. However, hurricanes have the potential to quickly detonate what is an already ticking time bomb.

In addition, EWG found that poultry operations in North Carolina produce more than 2 million tons of dry animal waste annually. The wet animal waste is often applied to croplands as "fertilizer" or dumped into waste lagoons. Of the state's more than 4,100 waste pits, EWG found that:

• 37 were located within one-half mile of a school
• 288 within one-half mile of a church
• 136 within one-half mile of a public water well
• 170 within the state's 100-year floodplain

Catastrophic Flooding Could Become Increasingly Common

In addition to risks from CAFO waste, North Carolina is also threatened by toxic coal ash, which is a byproduct of burning coal for power. The ash contains arsenic, mercury, lead and other heavy metals and, like CAFO waste, is often stored in unlined storage ponds.

The pits often leach into groundwater and if flooded can send the toxins into drinking water supplies. Catastrophic flooding from hurricanes has increased significantly over the last 200 years, and one study suggested, “It is very likely to increase more sharply over the 21st century.”11

What this means is that regulators should be taking steps to clean up waste storage in flood-prone areas to make up for what Graves described as the culmination of "decades of bad policy,"12 but this isn't happening. Graves told Think Progress:13

"Advocates in North Carolina have been working for years, sometimes decades, trying to get the coal ash cleaned up, trying to get these antiquated waste lagoon systems replaced with better alternative technologies [which] are available but unfortunately the legislature has been very kind to industrial meat production in North Carolina and very kind to coal-fired power generation."

Make a Difference With Your Next Meal

I encourage you to support the small family farms in your area, particularly local organic farms that respect the laws of nature and use the relationships between animals, plants, insects, soil, water and habitat to create synergistic, self-supporting, non-polluting and GMO-free ecosystems.

Whereas industrial agriculturists want to hide their practices from you, traditional farmers will welcome you onto their land, as they have nothing to hide. The differences in farming practices, and their effects on the environment, are immense. As Civil Eats reported:14

"In the 1970s, family farmers raised an average of 60-some hogs per location and let the animals roam around outside, using their waste as crop fertilizer. In the 1980s and '90s, as contract hog growing expanded and the industry consolidated, individual farms became much larger. Today's farms house an average of 4,000+ animals each."

Bigger is not better when it comes to food production — not for the animals, the environment or the future of food. So make a point to support those who are still farming using sustainable, humane and earth-friendly practices.

You can do this not only by visiting the farm directly, if you have one nearby, but also by taking part in farmers markets and community-supported agriculture programs. The following organizations can also help you locate farm-fresh foods in your local area, raised in a humane, sustainable manner.

You Might Also Like

• 
  The Price of Pork
  30,503 Views
• 
  Toxic Crisis Facing the Globe: Are Your Air and Water Safe?
  30,319 Views
• 
  GMOs and CAFOs Drive Disease Statistics and Destroy Communities
  249,426 Views
• 
  

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/10/25/cafo-waste-lagoons-hurricane-floodwaters.aspx