Reproductive health impacts of the BP oil spill

Last week at Truthout Lucinda Marshall raised the topic of the reproductive health impacts of the BP oil spill. We don’t know all the chemicals in the oil and dispersants, but what we do know already contains some pretty disturbing information. Benzene, a common ingredient in oil, may impair fertility. As for the dispersants:

Corexit, the dispersant that is being used by BP contains 2ButoxyEthanol, which “may damage the developing fetus. There is limited evidence that 2-Butoxy Ethanol may damage the male reproductive system (including decreasing the sperm count) in animals and may affect female fertility in animals,” according to the safety sheet.

Marshall followed up the original article with a blog post detailing new information that’s come out about the chemicals used. BP is still trying to reveal as little as possible, but there are definitely toxic substances included, some of which are known to have reproductive health impacts.
The effects of dumping toxins into the Gulf of Mexico are being felt first by people who live and work on the coast, including clean up workers. Folks in this area will likely feel the worst of the spill’s impact for a while. But toxins will of course move into our food after becoming part of the aquatic food chain. They’ll be spread through weather, too, including acid rain as Marshall points out.
It’s hard to overstate the devastating environmental impact of the BP spill. One of the results of the spill will be negative reproductive health impacts. I’m very grateful Marshall’s doing the hard work of raising this topic and trying to find answers. We need a lot more information from BP to understand the devastation they’ve caused. And we need to keep paying attention to every aspect of the spill and its aftermath, including the link here between environmental degradation and reproductive oppression, which is being caused by the spill.

and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. Comrade Kevin
    Posted June 15, 2010 at 10:56 am | Permalink

    I can’t even watch the news. My Grandmother lived on Alabama’s Gulf Coast and I hold many fond memories of summers spent there. Those who have been there recently say that the smell of oil is overpowering.
    I thought I’d never say this, but perhaps if a hurricane hit the Gulf, it would at least bring all, if not most of the oil onshore where it would be easier to remove. As it stands right now, isolated plumes of oil have been washing ashore one by one. And, it would be less destructive than if it hangs around, destroying wetlands, marshes, and estuaries in the process.

  2. CzarSketch
    Posted June 15, 2010 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

    I agree, this is really, really bad news for reproductive health. It’s bad for anyone, though, regardless of reproductive status. Benzene is a known carcinogen, affects the immune system adversely, and acute exposure can cause death. It destroys the bone marrow, as well. It causes the same effects in most animals as it does in humans.
    I know this is a feminist space for the airing of relevant issues, but I think the article above makes it seem that the ONLY health risks are related to reproductive health…
    Just my 2 cents.

  3. sillyrabbittrix
    Posted June 15, 2010 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

    Hmmm, I wonder if we’ll be seeing the pro-life organizations and groups publicly standing up against BP, the dispersants, or their effects. Methinks not – methinks they are limited to caring only about the effects of one very specific kind of problem in the water: birth control.
    Funny how that worked out – But no! They are not trying to control women and their reproductive choices. They are only trying to PROTECT us po’ li’l women. And they care SO MUCH about the babies!! Except when it’s not poor women they would have to go after, but big corporations and people with money. pfft.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

166 queries. 0.289 seconds