4

According to Eating chicken may lead to a smaller penis:

to protect their sons’ normal development, pregnant women may be wise to avoid poultry

Is any of this true?

  • 5
    On the one hand we don't really accept claims as notable unless you can link to the statement. On the other, I'm loath to give PETA the signal boost on hogwash like this. – Shadur Jan 18 '18 at 15:52
  • 2
    Does PETA count as a hate organisation for the purposes of skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3843/… ? :p – Andrew Grimm Jan 18 '18 at 21:06
  • 6
    It's worse than that; half of the babies will have no penis at all. – RedSonja Jan 22 '18 at 8:18
4

Women's Health magazine (might not be the best source, but not much else covered this) has an article explaining that PETA drew their own conclusion from the actual research on phthalates and penis size:

Reality Check: Chicken Consumption Isn't Linked to Penis Size The research PETA mentioned from the Study for Future Families didn't look at chicken consumption at all—it looked at how prenatal phthalate exposure affects boys reproductively in a variety of ways, one of which was penis size. It is true that, according to the Study for Future Families' research, boys born to moms with the highest levels of phthalate exposure (defined as those in the top 25th percentile) were more likely to have shorter penises than those born to moms with the lowest levels of phthalate exposure (those in the bottom 25th percentile).

Why? Phthalates may decrease the amount of testosterone a boy is exposed to in his mother's womb, hindering his reproductive development. This has been linked to a host of issues, such as a higher likelihood of undescended testicles and a smaller anogenital distance (the distance between the anus and the genitals; this measure has been associated with feminization). In rodent studies, prenatal phthalate exposure in males has also been correlated with lower sperm counts later in life and even infertility.

It's scary, yes, but here's the thing: You gain exposure to phthalates in lots of ways, such as when you use certain personal care products, when you eat out of plastic containers, and when you consume anything on the list of many, many foods that contain phthalates, says Shanna H. Swan, Ph.D., a professor in the department of preventive medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, who conducted the research PETA cites. What's more, chicken doesn't even rank particularly high on the list of foods containing phthalates (spices are actually at the top of the list, according to one German study). "I think any link between eating buffalo wings—even by pregnant women—and the size of their son's genitals is very tenuous," says Swan.

(bold in original) Since one author of the study (Swan) qualified PETA's conclusion as tenuous... we can probably bother no further.

  • 1
    "It is true that, according to the Study for Future Families' research, boys born to moms with the highest levels of phthalate exposure were more likely to have shorter penises" — do they prove that this is a causal relationship? From my reading of the article it looks like there's just a link, I'm not sure how definitive the next paragraph's "Phthalates may decrease the amount of testosterone a boy is exposed to in his mother's womb, hindering his reproductive development" is. – theonlygusti Jan 19 '18 at 22:25
  • 1
    @theonlygusti: Assuming First trimester phthalate exposure and anogenital distance in newborns is the actual study, it looks like it's talking about associations. I didn't read the whole of it, but I keyword searched it for chicken and poultry -> no hits. – Fizz Jan 19 '18 at 22:49

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .