Chemicals in Food Containers Linked to Prostate Problems in Developing Mice

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Fetal exposure to man-made chemicals found in oral contraceptives and some food containers can cause male mice to develop deformities in their prostate and bladder, a new study has found. The results indicate that the cellular changes could predispose the prostate to disease in adulthood.

Barry G. Timms of the University of South Dakota School of Medicine and his colleagues studied the effects of very low doses of so-called estrogenic chemicals. Specifically, they studied ethinylestradiol, which is used in oral contraceptives, and bisphenol A, an organic chemical used in the manufacture of plastics, some sealants and the resin lining many tin cans for food storage. The researchers exposed pregnant mice to environmental levels of the two chemicals for five days during the period that corresponds to the 10th week of pregnancy in humans. Male fetuses that developed under these conditions experienced problems with malformation of the bladder and developed more, and larger, ducts in the prostate.

The investigators also subjected a group of mice to high, pharmacological doses of another estrogen chemical that used to be widely prescribed to pregnant women, diethylstilbestrol (DES), and found that it had the opposite effect, inhibiting duct formation. Thus, they argue that results from studies using higher levels of exposure "are not relevant for predicting the effects of exposure to low levels of man-made estrogenic chemicals present in the environment." In addition, because problems in male children of mothers who took DES while pregnant did not become apparent until years later, the team suggests that risk guidelines for ethinylestradiol and bisphenol A should be reevaluated. The findings are published online this week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe