Sustainability, Artificial Contraceptives, and Natural Family Planning.

A few weeks ago, my English 101 teacher assigned a research paper on the topic of sustainability. Sustainability as in saving trees, saving poor lil' animals, recycling, global warming, that kinda stuff. Green stuff. Now, I'm not a real big tree hugger. I'm all for reusing paper and recycling and all that, but I'm not gonna obsess over it. So I was having a really hard time coming up with a topic cause I just don't know a lot about these sorts of things. So I had this skype date with my sister who lives in Michigan, and I was all "I don't know what to write about, I don't know what to do, I don't know anything about these topics, I'm gonna FAIL AND MY LIFE WILL BE OVER." And then she sent me this: Click here. NOW.
You read it? yes? yes? okay. SO. Karen's like "well, if you wanna be really gutsy... you could talk about how Natural Family Planning is a more sustainable then artificial contraceptives." and then I'm like "HECK YEAH LETS BE GUTSY AND WRITE A CONTROVERSIAL PAPER ABOUT ARTIFICIAL CONTRACEPTIVES AND NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING!!!"
So. I present this to my teacher and she's like "there's no way you can do this." Let me tell you, I have never been more determined to do this in my life.... I fought. and guess what? I WON. I wrote an essay on some of the negative effects artificial contraceptives have on the environment, and how much better life would be if everyone used Natural Family Planning. And I would like to present it to you. Because I'm pretty dang proud of myself. My English class thinks I'm totally nuts, but I bet you no one has ever written on this topic before. Talk about standing out on your first quarter of college....
So Here ya go. Introducing Cc the scholar. This is my gutsy essay on birth control.

Considering the Sustainability of Family Planning Methods

Family planning is an important part of our culture, but has the common society ever considered the sustainability of family planning methods? This paper will compare the sustainability of two contraceptive choices: natural family planning and artificial contraceptives such as the pill. It will examine the effects artificial contraceptives and natural family planning have on the environment, taking into consideration waste water pollution, and solid waste minimization. The evidence suggests that natural family planning is a more sustainable method of contraception.

According to the Encyclopedia of Women’s Health, natural family planning is a method of avoiding or achieving a pregnancy by learning the signs and patterns of fertility and abstaining from intercourse during fertile times. Couples observe signs of fertility in the woman by tracking the woman’s body temperature, mucus secretion and other signs. This method is also referred to as the fertility awareness method, the rhythm method, or periodic abstinence (“Natural Family Planning”). It has been proven that natural family planning is as effective as artificial contraceptives. According to Professor Petra Frank-Herrmann, of the University of Heidelerg, Germany, “for a contraceptive method to be rated as highly efficient as the hormonal pill, there should be less than one pregnancy per 100 women per year when the method is used correctly.” Professor Frank-Herrmann conducted a study involving 900 woman using the symptothermal method (STM) of natural family planning. She reports that “the pregnancy rate for woman who used the STM method correctly in our study was 0.4%, which can be interpreted as one pregnancy occurring per 250 woman per year” (“Natural Family Planning As Effective As Contraceptive Pill, New Research Finds”). Since the effectiveness of natural family planning is equal to, or greater than that of artificial contraceptive methods with the failure rate of Oral contraceptives currently standing at 0.7%, (Jurgen Dinger et al.) Professor Frank-Herrmann maintains that natural family planning is “an effective and acceptable method of family planning” (“Natural Family Planning as Effective as Contraceptive Pill, New Research Finds”).  Natural family planning can be seen as an acceptable and possible method of contraception.

Not only is natural family planning as effective as artificial contraception, it is also less harmful to our environment. Artificial contraceptives negatively effect the environment by introducing hormones into the water. Hormonal contraceptives prevent pregnancy by increasing the levels of certain hormones in a women’s body. Traces of the hormones are present in the urine of women who use contraceptives such as the pill, patches, and vaginal rings.  As recorded in an article in Biotech Business Week “Researchers at Umea University and the Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden have discovered that traces of many medicines can be found in fish that have been swimming in treated waste water” (“University of Gothenburg; Medicine residues may threaten fish reproduction”). The article continues “the study shows that levonorgestrel - which is found in many contraceptive pills, including the morning-after pill - can impact on the environment and constitutes a risk factor for the ability of fish to reproduce.” Joakim Larsson at the Sahlgrenska Academy, one of the researchers behind the study states that “If we know how our medicines affect the environment, we will be in a better position to choose environmentally friendly alternatives“(“University of Gothenburg; Medicine residues may threaten fish reproduction”). Natural family planning is one alternative that will not hurt our environment.

Another factor to consider in comparing the two carbon footprints is the amount of solid waste generated by each contraceptive method. A truly sustainable form of contraception would not produce waste that contributes to landfills. Christopher Mims describes the importance of reducing waste in his article “Landfills” published in Scientific American.

Americans generate 2.50 million tons of trash every year, of which only 83 million tons--about a third--gets recycled or composted. The rest goes into landfills, which are essentially giant factories that convert garbage into toxic materials and greenhouse gases. Water leaching through the detritus picks up industrial chemicals and heavy metals, all too often depositing those poisons in nearby groundwater supplies. Meanwhile anaerobic bacteria convert organic matter into methane, a greenhouse gas more potent than carbon dioxide.

It is highly important that we minimize the amount of waste we are producing. Artificial Contraceptives generate waste from their packaging. This may seem like a small impact, but a study in 2008 shows that 61 percent of women in the United States use contraceptives (Mosher WD, Jones J.). When we put into perspective the amount of women using the pill, we can estimate the large amount of solid waste this is creating. Natural family planning generates no waste. Even if it seems like a little thing to cut down on waste like packaging from contraceptive methods, it is highly beneficial to the environment when we minimize our waste and decrease our carbon footprint.

Natural family planning is an effective and sustainable method of family planning, using only the tools Mother Nature has presented us with. It creates no waste, releases no hormones into the environment, and leads to a healthier life style. Natural family planning could be one small step in our road to sustainability and healthy living.

Work Cited

Dinger, Jurgen et al, “Effectiveness of Oral Contraceptive Pills in a Large U.S Cohort Comparing Progestogen and Regimen.” Obstetrics & Gynecology 117.1 (2011): 1. Web. 5 Nov. 2011

Herrman, Frank P., et al. “The Effectiveness of a fertility awareness based method to avoid pregnancy in relation to a couple’s sexual behavior during the fertile time: a prospective longitudinal study.” Human Reproduction. 22.5 (2007): 1310-1319 ProQuest Research Library. Web. 25 Oct.2011

Mims, Christopher. “Landfills.” Science American 303.3 (2010):70. Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 Oct.2011

Mosher, WD, and J. Jones. “Use of contraception in the United States 1982–2008.” National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23.29. 2010.

“Natural Family Planning Method As Effective As Contraceptive Pill, New Research Finds." ScienceDaily. N.p. 21 Feb. 2007. Web. 25 Oct. 2011.

“Natural Family Planning." Encyclopedia of Women's Health. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media, 2004. Credo Reference. Web. 26 Oct. 2011.

“Universidy of Gothenburg; Medicine residues may threaten fish reproduction.” Biotech Business Week 3 May. 2010: 1. Proquest. Web. 25 Oct. 2011

So, the next essay we were assigned was a persuasive essay on the same topic. A "take a stand" kinda thing. So, I wrote about how Natural Family Planning needed to be included in the sexual education curriculum. this has a lot of the same info in it, but more of a tone. and I liked it a lot better then the other one. :) Here's my essay on Sexual Education:

Education for a Future of Sustainability in Sexual Education

We are constantly reminded to make sustainable choices in our everyday life. Grocers offer reusable bags as we leave the store. Stickers promoting waste reduction decorate our paper towel dispensers. Commercials remind us to reduce, reuse, and recycle. Eco clubs are formed in schools to protect the environment. But one factor people rarely consider when committing themselves to a sustainable lifestyle is their choice of contraceptive methods. However, new studies show that our contraceptive choices effect the environment. If these consequences were better understood, people would be in a position to make more sustainable choices. Often the first information people gather on contraceptives comes from sexual education programs.  Public schools should introduce methods of contraception that are both effective and sustainable. Natural family planning is one such method. In order to create a sustainable future, Natural Family Planning should be taught in sexual education classes.

Natural family planning (NFP) is a method of avoiding or achieving a pregnancy by learning the signs and patterns of fertility (Encyclopedia of Women’s Health). The woman tracks her fertility by recording her body temperature, mucus secretions, and other signs. In order to avoid pregnancy, the couple abstains from intercourse during fertile times. This is referred to as the symptothermal method.  NFP is also known as the fertility awareness method, the rhythm method, or periodic abstinence. This method, though it takes a considerable amount of commitment, is effective and beneficial to the environment.

Unlike NFP, artificial contraceptives negatively affect the environment by introducing hormones into the water through waste water. Hormonal contraceptives prevent pregnancy by increasing the levels of certain hormones in a woman’s body. Traces of these hormones are present in the urine of women who use contraceptives such as the pill, patches, and vaginal rings. Researchers at Umea University and the Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, discovered traces of these same hormones in the blood of fish that have been swimming in treated waste water. (“University of Gothenburg; Medicine residues may threaten fish reproduction”). An article in Biotech Business Week reports, “the study shows that levonorgestrel - which is found in many contraceptive pills, including the morning-after pill - can impact on the environment and constitutes a risk factor for the ability of fish to reproduce.”
In choosing hormonal contraceptives, we alter the eco system for the worse.

When measuring the impact of our contraceptive choices on the environment, we must also consider the waste generated by each method. A study in 2008 found that 10.7 million women in the united states were currently using oral contraceptives (Mosher and Jones 19). Consider how much packaging this generates. Much of this packaging is disposed of in landfills. In his article “Landfills”, Christopher Mims describes the negative impact this has on the environment:

                        landfills, […] are essentially giant factories that convert garbage into toxic materials and greenhouse gases. Water leaching through the detritus picks up industrial chemicals and heavy metals, all too often depositing those poisons in nearby groundwater supplies. Meanwhile anaerobic bacteria convert organic matter into methane, a greenhouse gas more potent than carbon dioxide.  (Mims)

In comparison, NFP generates no waste, and therefore does not contribute to toxic landfills that threaten our environment.

One reason educators might be hesitant to include NFP in a sexual education curriculum is due to concerns about its effective rate. This is partially because of its historical background. When the method was first developed in the 1930’s, it consisted of recording only the length of the women’s menstrual cycle, and the days in between in order to determine the fertility of a the women. This is referred to as the rhythm method, and is not very effective. In an article in The European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care Scientist Gunter Freundl explains that, because the length of a woman’s cycle varies, the length and timing of the fertility window changes with each cycle. (Freundl 116). The rhythm method is often what comes to mind when people hear the phrase “Natural family planning.”  

However, as science has developed through the years, factors such as tracking mucus secretions and basal body temperature have been discovered, creating a far more accurate and effective method. This is known as the Symptothermal method (STM). In fact, it has been demonstrated that NFP is as effective as artificial contraceptives. In 2007, Professor Frank-Herrmann of the University of Heidelerg, Germany conducted a study involving 900 woman using STM. She reports that “the pregnancy rate for woman who used the STM method correctly in our study was 0.4%.” (“Natural Family Planning As Effective As Contraceptive Pill, New Research Finds”). The failure rate of Oral contraceptives currently stands at 0.7%, (Jurgen Dinger et al.) Since the effectiveness of NFP is equal to, or greater than that of artificial contraceptive methods. Professor Frank-Herrmann maintains that NFP is “an effective and acceptable method of family planning” (“Natural Family Planning as Effective as Contraceptive Pill, New Research Finds”). NFP has evolved since the 1930’s; therefore, educators need not hesitate to include NFP as an option in their sexual education programs.

As an additional benefit, NFP is free from negative side effects.  Contraceptives come with many health risks including blood clots, heart attacks, strokes, depression, ovarian cysts, and other serious conditions. (Office on Women’s Health. 8) Minor side effects include weight gain, vision problems, irregular menstrual bleeding, dizziness, headaches, abdominal bloating or pain, and others. (Office on Women’s Health. 8)  The education systems should be cautioning their students on these risks, as well as giving them the option of a healthier alternative.

Many object to NFP because of the commitment it requires. But when we compare the other sustainable life style choices, such as recycling, composting, using reusable bags for grocery’s, buying products that require less packaging, or eating a vegan diet, we can see that sustainability always requires commitment. Teachers don’t hesitate to share information with students about vegan diets, neither should they hesitate to share information about NFP.

Educators already incorporate information about, recycle and energy conservation and endangered species into their curriculum. There is no reason why schools shouldn’t include natural family planning in sexual education programs to give students a more sustainable alternative. It is commonly said that children hold the future in their hands. But it is also what we teach them that will effect what our future holds. It is educators job to provide students with sustainable alternatives, and it is the responsibility of each of us to take the information we’ve been given, and make good choices.

Works Cited

Dinger, Jurgen et al, “Effectiveness of Oral Contraceptive Pills in a Large U.S Cohort Comparing Progestogen and Regimen.” Obstetrics & Gynecology 117.1 (2011): 1. Web. 5 November 2011

Freundl, Gunter, Irving Sivin, and Istvan Batar. “State of the Art of Non-hormonal Methods of contraception: IV. Natural Family planning” The European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care 15. (2010): 116 Web.

Herrman, Frank P., et al. “The Effectiveness of a fertility awareness based method to avoid pregnancy in relation to a couple’s sexual behavior during the fertile time: a prospective longitudinal study.” Human Reproduction. 22.5 (2007): 1310-1319 ProQuest Research Library. Web. 25 Oct.2011

Mims, Christopher. “Landfills.” Science American 303.3 (2010):70. Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 Oct.2011

Mosher, WD, and J. Jones. “Use of contraception in the United States 1982–2008.” National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23.29. 2010.

“Natural Family Planning Method As Effective As Contraceptive Pill, New Research Finds." ScienceDaily. N.p. 21 Feb. 2007. Web. 25 Oct. 2011.

“Natural Family Planning." Encyclopedia of Women's Health. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media, 2004. Credo Reference. Web. 26 October 2011.

United States. Dept of Health and Human Services. Office on Woman’s Health. Birth Control Methods 2009. Web.

 “Universidy of Gothenburg; Medicine residues may threaten fish reproduction.” Biotech Business Week 3 May. 2010: 1. Proquest. Web. 25 Oct. 2011

But yeah. This was the exciting project I got to work on. It was really hard. I had a break down probably every week and my big sister who's a college graduate had to hold my hand through it all. But it was a good experience. There were several aspects of this subject that I didn't get to touch on, which made me sad, but I was glad I was able to do what I did. It was exciting to be able to stand up for what I believe in. Most of my class had never even heard of natural family planning, so I was able to shed some light on the subject, and everyone was really excited about it which was really cool. 

I go to school. I'm half a college student. I'm doing big things and making people think. I'm learning that I'm not stupid, which is really cool. Life is good. God is good. Amen? Amen.