Women and Medications

It’s not well known that women experience a greater number of more severe side effects from medications than men do.  Dr. Janine Clayton of the Office of Research on Women’s Health (National Institutes of Health) recently raised the issue after the Food and Drug Administration was evaluating a new sleeping pill, Intermezzo.  Blood tests to learn how much of the drug remains in a user’s system the morning after taking it uncovered that men metabolized the drug much more rapidly than women.

Until 1993, women of childbearing age were not included in new drug trials.  When the ban on use of females was lifted that year, researchers realized that many of the “landmark” studies, including the study on aspirin use to prevent heart disease and stroke, had not included women, leaving them to wonder whether or not aspirin was effective for women in avoiding these conditions.  Because so many drugs were tested exclusively on men, it’s not known what the effects will be for women until a drug reaches the market.

A study done by the Government Accountability Office found that 8 of 10 drugs removed from the market between 1997 and 2000 posed significantly more health risks to women than men.  For example, a common antihistamine (Seldane) and a digestive aid (Propulsid) both caused dangerous heart arrhythmia in women – as do many drugs still on the market, including antibiotics and cholesterol medications.

But, the opposite may also be true – certain blood pressure medications and antibiotics appear to be more effective in women, and women typically wake up faster from anesthesia.  There are also clearly different responses to tobacco and alcohol: women smokers are more susceptible to cancer and heart disease than male smokers, women under 50 have higher blood alcohol content than men of the same age after consuming the same amount of alcohol, and women experience alcohol-related heart damage at lower levels of alcohol consumption than men.

The Society for Women’s Health Research has created a useful online tool, Fact Sheet: Sex Differences in Response to Pharmaceuticals, Tobacco, Alcohol, and Illicit Drugs: http://www.womenshealthresearch.org/site/PageServer?pagename=hs_healthfacts_dat.  And the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research has new guidelines for studies of new drugs, which require that studies include gender response differences in the earliest stages of drug development.

Hopefully, there is increased attention to the physiological differences between females and males that may affect a range of products and dosages, among other things.

We continue to remind decision-makers to consider the results of all laws, research, policies, and services – and the possible disproportionate effect they may have on women – before making a judgment or conclusion.  The results of not doing so, such as those discovered in the scientific field, may be life-changing.

Family Leave Policies

A new study by the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University reports that working women who have paid family leave are much more likely to be working after the birth of a child and, most often, experience an increase in wage from pre- to post-birth.

The study analyzed information from the US Department of Labor between 1997 and 2009.  Among the findings, the study noted that since the mid-1980s, there has been a 13% increase (now nearly 73%) in the percentage of children with both parents (or the only parent) working outside the home.  And despite a tremendous amount of rhetoric about “family values,” “support for working families,” and “keeping our children secure,” the United States lags far behind other industrialized nations when it comes to policies that support workers needing time off for family time and needs.

Except for only a few states, practice in this country is limited to unpaid leave, despite 1993’s passage of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which requires that companies with a least 50 workers provide up to 12 weeks of leave (unpaid and not job-protected) annually “for their own health or the health of a family members.”  This leaves most employees to patch together sick time, vacation time, disability insurance, or unpaid time off to deal with personal or family health problems.  Most low-income workers have not vacation, sick leave, or PTO (Paid Time Off).

The United States in among the 3 countries (out of 178 – the others are Swaziland and Papua New Guinea) that do not mandate maternity paid leave.  And only 11% of private sector employees and 17% of public sector employees have access to paid leave through their employer. 

Specific key findings of the report include:

¬   Women who report taking paid leave are more likely to be working 9 to 12 months after a child’s birth than are those who report taking no leave at all (“non‐leave takers”).

¬   Paid family leave increases wages for women with children.  Women who report leaves of 30 or more days are 54% more likely to report wage increases in the year following the child’s birth than are women who take no leave at all.

¬   Women who return to work after a paid leave have a 39% lower likelihood of receiving public assistance and a 40% lower likelihood of food stamp receipt in the year following the child’s birth, when compared to those who return to work and take no leave at all.

¬   Men who return to work after a paid family leave have a significantly lower likelihood of receiving public assistance and food stamps in the year following the child’s birth when compared to those who return to work and take no family leave at all.

Linda Houser of the Center for Women and Work summarizes the positive economic benefit of paid leave policies:  "While we have known for a long time about the maternal and infant health benefits of leave policies, we can now link paid family leave to greater labor force attachment and increased wages for women, as well as to reduced spending by businesses in the form of employee replacement costs, and by governments in the form of public assistance."

Forbes magazine sums up the economic benefits of paid leave in this way:

1.     Paid family leave addresses a reality that directly impacts every business and should be planned for strategically, uniformly and deliberately,

2.     Paid family leave is NOT a tax, but income replacement insurance program funded by employees at minimal cost, and

3.     We are paying for a cost for caregiving already - indirectly and inefficiently, through employee turnover, retraining, and workplace productivity.

This is the type of information Chrysalis works to provide to policy makers through SOLUTIONS, our annual legislative breakfast.  Our work is to provide factual, objective information that should be taken into account when decisions – state, local, individual – are being made that affect girls, women, and working families.

Thank you for being a leader in this work.

If you’d like to read the full report:  http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer/Pay_Matters_-_Positive_Economic_Impacts_of_Paid_Family_L.pdf?docID=9681

Children with High Needs

Recently, the Child and Family Policy Center issued a report documenting the challenges faced by many of Iowa’s children and their families.  The report, "A Baseline on Iowa's Young Children: Capturing the Demand for Early-Childhood Services" notes that Iowa has one of the nation’s highest rates of children with one or both parents working, and an increasing number of single parent families.  These are just 2 of the many factors that contribute to stress within the family and affecting young children.

Although a majority of Iowa children begin school in good health and with appropriate cognitive, language, and social/emotional development – termed “school readiness” – to be prepared to engage in learning.  There is, however, a significant share of Iowa children who are dramatically behind their peers and require special assistance to “catch up.”

Nationally, 56% of children begin school behind peers in at least one measure (cognitive, social/emotional, or physical), and 21% are behind in 2 or more areas – requiring significant school time and investment in remediation.  These facts led researchers to question whether it is possible to identify these children early and provide support and assistance that will reduce this trend.  A tremendous amount of data points to identifying and responding to high-need children through the family.

Here are what the report terms “Top-line Findings” in defining children with high needs:

•     There is no one measure that captures “need” among children; rather a cluster of characteristics that contribute to good or bad outcomes.  On average, the prevalence of poor early-childhood outcomes is highest among children of less-educated, unmarried or adolescent parents, parents who are depressed, parents with limited incomes who have difficulty meeting basic needs, and among children with special needs themselves.

•     A significant share of Iowa families face economic stress; many are headed by young and less-educated parents.  More than 40 percent of Iowa’s young children live in households below 200 percent of poverty, a realistic measure of what it takes to support a family.  Nearly one in five (19 percent of the total) live in households below 100 percent of poverty ($22,314 for a family of four in 2010).  In 2010, 17 percent of Iowa first-time births, and 8 percent of total births, were to adolescent mothers, almost all of whom were unmarried with less than a high school diploma.

•    Another significant share of Iowa children have special health needs.  In fact, 21 percent of Iowa children four months to five years of age are at moderate or high risk of developmental, behavioral or social delays. Based on national research, we know over 50 percent of young children begin kindergarten behind in at least one area of special need

and over 20 percent have multiple needs that require even greater levels of support.

As we know, the United Way of Central Iowa’s Women’s Leadership Connection has supported early childhood education as a key priority for the past 10 years, assisting with accreditation of early learning centers and preschools, facility improvements, book drives, teacher training, and volunteer readers.  Several Chrysalis Board members have participated in this tremendous project.

The work of Chrysalis takes place in prevention efforts through Chrysalis After-School, which we created and have funded since 1998.  Our goal is to assure that girls gain the knowledge and skills to become resilient and successful women – overcoming and/or avoiding these “top-line findings" that cause the next generation (their families) to face these tremendous challenges.  Since we began, nearly 6,000 adolescent girls have been part of this powerful program.  It’s the best investment in the future we can possibly make.

Media Messages

We all know that “reality TV” is the new norm for network television, but what we don’t know is that its effect on children, particularly girls, is extremely detrimental.  The Girl Scout Research Institute conducted a survey of nearly 1,150 girls, ages 11-17, to find what their thoughts were about their favorite types of programming and how television changes the way they think about themselves and their lives.  The findings were disturbing; here is what they found:

Of girls surveyed, regular reality TV viewers* differ dramatically from their non-viewing peers in their expectations of peer relationships, their overall self-image, and their understanding of how the world works. The findings also suggest that reality TV can function in the lives of girls as a learning tool and as inspiration for getting involved in social causes.

Finding 1: Relationship Drama

All of the girls in the study feel that reality shows promote bad behavior.  The vast majority think these shows “often pit girls against each other to make the shows more exciting” (86%), “make people think that fighting is a normal part of a romantic relationship” (73%), and “make people think it’s okay to treat others badly" (70%).

Regular reality TV viewers accept and expect a higher level of drama, aggression, and bullying in their own lives as well. They are considerably more likely than non-viewers to agree that:

­  “Gossiping is a normal part of a relationship between girls”(78% vs. 54%);

­  “It’s in girls’ nature to be catty and competitive with one another”(68% vs. 50%); and

­  “It’s hard for me to trust other girls”(63% vs. 50%).   

Regarding boys, regular reality TV viewers are more likely than non-viewers to say “girls often have to compete for a guy’s attention”(74% vs. 63%).  As well, they admit they are happier when they are dating someone or have a boyfriend/significant other(49% vs. 28%).

Finding 2: Two Sides to Self-Image

In the study, we found that girls who view reality TV regularly are more focused on the value of physical appearance. 

• Seventy-two percent say they spend a lot of time on their appearance (vs. 42% of non-viewers).
•   More than a third (38%)think that a girl’s value is based on how she looks (compared to 28% of non-viewers).
•   They would rather be recognized for their outer beauty than their inner beauty (28% vs.18% of non-viewers).

At the same time, regular reality TV viewers are more confident than non-viewers.

­  This group of girls is more self-assured than non-viewers when it comes to virtually every personal characteristic we asked girls about, with the                           

­  majority of regular reality TV viewers considering themselves mature, a good influence, smart, funny, and outgoing.

­  They are more likely than non-viewers to both aspire to leadership (46% vs. 27%) and to think they are currently seen as a leader(75% vs. 63%).

­  In addition, they are more likely to see themselves as role models for other girls (75% vs. 61%).

Finding 3: Success = Meanness + Lying

The research indicates that regular reality TV viewers emphasize being mean and/or lying to get ahead.  A higher percentage of these girls as compared to their non-viewing counterparts claim that sometimes:

­  “You have to lie to get what you want”(37% vs. 24%);

­  “Being mean earns you more respect than being nice”(37% vs. 25%); and

­  “You have to be mean to others to get what you want”(28% vs.18%).

Even though these findings are negative, there are some positive effects:

Finding 4: Positive Spin-Offs

In the study, the benefits of reality TV most frequently noted by all girls were opening the lines of communication, serving as a learning and motivational tool, and encouraging girls to be active in social causes.

­  Seventy-five percent of girls say that reality shows have inspired conversation with their parents and/or friends.

­  Many girls receive inspiration and comfort from reality TV, with 68% agreeing that reality shows “make me think I can achieve anything in life” and 48% that they “help me realize there are people out there like me.”

­  Seventy-five percent of girls say that reality TV depicts people with different backgrounds and beliefs. Furthermore, 65% say such shows introduce new ideas and perspectives, 62% say the shows have raised their awareness of social issues and causes, and 59% have been taught new things that they wouldn’t have learned about otherwise.

Whatever the television programs – or other media messages - might be, it’s critical that girls have a strong notion of right and wrong, know that what they see on television is largely artificial, and recognize that their actions now will affect their futures.  This is just one of the strong positive findings of our Chrysalis After-School program, and we can be proud that when compared with other girls their age across the state, Chrysalis participants report higher levels of this type of resilience than non-participants.

December 7th

The meaning of “December 7” may be different for those of us not old enough to remember WW II and the attack on Pearl Harbor.  It happens to be a day that reminds us of the many Americans now at war, particularly an increasing number of women.

We know that the US Defense Department now bans women from participating in ground combat (although there is now a federal lawsuit to overturn this ban).  But with about 14% of our military personnel being women, a disturbing new finding is that women in general are more likely to develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) than men.  Up to twice as likely, some researchers posit.

Post-traumatic stress disorder did not exist as a “formal” diagnosis until 1980, when it was added to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.  Prior to this, the terms shell shock, battle fatigue, or post-Vietnam syndrome were names given to various and severe adjustment problems experienced by recent war veterans.

A recent study at the San Francisco VA Medical Center found that women and men “learn” to fear differently.  This “fear conditioning” is vital to our safety, but in people with PTSD, a simple stimulus might trigger this stress or fear response.  Trash on the side of the road, or the smell of gasoline or fire may get associated with an actual traumatic military experience.  When female and male veterans were tested for reactions ranging from increased heart rate to rapid breathing when shown disturbing or violent images – and several of the images were paired with a slight electric shock,  women had more significant reactions.  The researchers believe this demonstrates that women may learn fear responses from different mechanisms, which may make them more susceptible to PTSD.

Patricia Resick and other researchers in the Women’s Health Sciences Division of the National Center for PTSD at Boston University are also seeking answers.  The group has linked significant diagnoses of PTSD to the types of trauma military women experience.  “In general, sexual trauma is a more significant risk for PTSD than combat or the types of trauma males in the military experience,” she reports.  “Combats, car accidents, or fights are impersonal events; when women are traumatized, it is often caused by the people who are supposed to love or protect them.”  When a fellow officer or commanding officer attacks a woman, the result is much more severe.

Sexual assault and severe sexual harassment - collectively known as military sexual trauma (MST) - is nearly epidemic in the armed service today . Amy Street, an assistant professor of psychiatry who leads a VA support team devoted to the issue, says that VA screenings for MST, mandated since 1992 for every veteran, reveal that 20%  of servicewomen report sexual assaults or severe, threatening harassment, compared to 1% percent of men.  And the numbers, she says, are most likely a gross underestimate. 

Many women veterans report that the sense of betrayal is compounded, and the trauma and shame intensified, when the chain of command fails to act on a reported incident, minimizes it, or even punishes women who report assaults.  Even reservists, the military part-timers who serve two weeks a year and one weekend a month, experience “high and impactful” rates of MST, among both women and men.  “So even people who had other lives outside of the military tended to experience a lot of harassment and assault,” Resick notes, “and even 10 or 20 years later, those experiences were associated with higher rates of depression, poorer functioning, and higher rates of PTSD.”

There’s much more to learn about the compounded effects of PTSD on both women veterans and women in the general population.  Because society doesn’t yet know how to understand the symptoms of PTSD in women, it’s much harder for them to find equilibrium.  And even with support from home, many female veterans also struggle because many do not see them as “real” veterans.

Since PTSD, its symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment may be very different for women than for men, it’s our work to raise awareness about this and other issues facing women and girls today.  Thank you for being a leader in this effort.

Safety

This has been an eye-opening week for us – Brooke and I attended the Governor’s Summit on Bullying on Tuesday, and I’m still reeling from today’s Chrysalis Roundtable presentation, THREATS TO YOUTH ONLINE, presented by Mike Ferjak, Senior Criminal Investigator with the Iowa Department of Justice.  I had heard Mike give a presentation at a mother-daughter event several years ago, and was astounded about how frequently – and how easily – a young person can fall into the throes of a predator online.

Here are just a few statistics:

­  One in five U.S. teenagers who regularly log on to the internet says they have received an unwanted sexual solicitation via the Web.  Solicitations were defined as requests to engage in sexual activities or sexual talk, or to give personal sexual information.  Crimes Against Children Research Center

­  25% of children have been exposed to unwanted pornographic material online.  Crimes Against Children Research Center

­  Only 1/3 of households with internet access are actively protecting their children with filtering or blocking software.  Center for Missing and Exploited Children

­  75% of children are willing to share personal information online about themselves and their family in exchange for goods and services.  eMarketer

­  Only approximately 25% of children who encountered a sexual approach or solicitation told a parent or adult.  Crimes Against Children Research Center

­  One in 33 youth received an aggressive sexual solicitation in the past year. This means a predator asked a young person to meet somewhere, called a young person on the phone, and/or sent the young person correspondence, money, or gifts through the U.S. Postal Service.  Youth internet Safety Survey

­  77% of the targets for online predators were age 14 or older. Another 22% were users ages 10 to 13.  Crimes Against Children Research Center

 

In his position, Ferjak works for the Iowa Attorney General and has a permanent assignment to the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation’s (DCI) Cyber-Crime Unit where he serves on the Federal Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force.  Mike is also assigned to the Attorney General’s Human Trafficking enforcement and prosecution initiative.  He has served as the lead investigator for the Sexually Violent Predator Unit in the Attorney General’s Office, and with his knowledge and experience, is called upon by law enforcement, judicial, professional, community, and school groups across the country to provide up-to-the-minute facts on why this is such a significant problem.

Some predators use the anonymity of the internet to prey on vulnerable children and teens, whose internet access is often unsupervised.  Activities include exchanging child pornography or seeking victims online.  The internet allows them to share images and information about children and to make and stay in contact with them.  Predators are  present on children's chat rooms, frequently pretending to be children themselves.  Some actively arrange meetings with children, going to extraordinary efforts and incurring large travel and other expenses…the stories are endless and shocking.

How are the youth victimized?  By innocently becoming entangled in an online relationship with someone who represents him or herself as a young, attractive, interesting and thoughtful person.  Adults establish "friendships" with children online, then attempt to arrange a face-to-face meeting, potentially to sexually abuse or exploit the child.  They may then make online arrangements for the exchange, sale or purchase of child pornography (the actual exchange or delivery occurs through the mail, hand-to-hand exchanges, e-mail, and other electronic means) , or arrangements between adults seeking sexual access to children and adults willing to provide and/or trade children for sexual purposes.

Ferjack reports there are an estimated 130,000 sex offenders using MYSPACE (precursor to Facebook), and that the average age group sought for sex trafficking purposes is 11-14 year olds.  And 14% of child pornography online involves infants – birth to 12 months old.

If you are a parent, friend, teacher, or interested adult, here are some internet safety tips to deliver to the children in your life:

­  Avoid unfamiliar "Chat Rooms".  Chat rooms are places where many people can gather and discuss various topics of mutual interest all at one time.

­  Don't talk to people online that you don't know.   Offenders can easily fool others.

­  Never use your real name, age, or indication of your gender in your screen name or email address.   The most prevalent internet crime today is cyber stalking.

­  Never post personal information in a user profile.  Public resources available online can lead an offender to learn much more about you through internet searching.

­  Use an up-to-date firewall.   A firewall will block hackers’ “pre-attack probes,” called port scans.  A firewall should also block traffic or communications from a virus that made it onto your computer through your personal information.

­  Use an up-to-date virus scanner.  Most virus scanners will automatically add virus definitions. Update definitions once a week to have the most current definitions to detect the latest viruses.

­  Use Windows Update. Windows Update provides patches for known vulnerabilities in Windows and other Microsoft products.  Windows Update can be automated to check and install patches automatically.

­  Avoid opening email from someone you don't know, even email from known persons with unexpected or unusual attachments.

­  Report any incidents to the internet Crime Complaint Center (www.ic3.gov).

If you are aware of a child you suspect or believe is in immediate risk of being harmed or exploited, contact your local law enforcement agency and report the situation to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children at www.cybertipline.com.

If you have information concerning a missing child, report it to your local law enforcement agency and contact the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children at 1-800-THE-LOST (1-800-843-5678).

We so appreciate Chrysalis Board member, Lieutenant Joe Gonzalez, for his leadership in connecting this vital information to us and to our friends.  And because there is so much more to online abuse and bullying, we will schedule another presentation by Mike Ferjak to share more information on bullying and social networking.  After the first of the year, we’ll notify you of the time and place.

Please take time to forward this information to friends – there is no reason not to.

Understanding Gender Equity

More often than not, when we work toward gender equity, we often focus strongly on teaching girls and women how to grow resilient and confident - able to work toward their own parity.  I'm proud that at Chrysalis, we realized that our work is critical to boys and men, and that we now have 2 terrific men (thanks, Joe and Drew!) moving our agenda forward.
For boys and young men, there are sound messages to share about why gender equality is so important:
1.  When men and boys believe in fairness, they can see that their sisters, mothers, girlfriends, and other female friends and relatives are often not treated the same way they are, and perhaps do not have the same opportunities and choices in their lives.
2.  An understanding of equity will help boys be comfortable in their own identity, comfortable expressing emotions, and able to build positive relationships based on mutual trust and respect.
3.  Equality of genders is about a more productive way of viewing power in relationships that benefit both sexes.
Gender equality truly begins in the family, and the father's role is tremendously important, not only to his daughter, but to a son.  Fathers who take part in domestic work, values and supports his children equally, hugs sons and daughters, and treats his wife as an equal will have a significant effect on how his son treats his own family.  Research has shown that:
- Men who are positively involved in the lives of their children or stepchildren are less likely to be depressed or violent.
- Boys whose fathers are more involved are less likely to engage in risky behaviors and are more likely to delay sexual experimentation until they are older.
- Boys with positive role models are less likely to hold harmful stereotypes and more likely to notice and question unfairness and inequity.
- An international study found that 14-year-old adolescents boys who are well connected to their parents, feel understood and cared for, and get along with their parents have more social connectedness and are less likely to be depressed.
So how to be certain that boys grow up with a sense of gender equity?  UNICEF recommends a 6-point plan:
1.  Start young - preschool education should promote equality between girls and boys and involve parents.
2.  School curricula should challenge stereotypes and acknowledge differences.
3.  Boys and girls should both participate in age-appropriate sex education.
4.  Schools must be made safe for both girls and boys.
5.  Campaigns against discrimination should involve men and boys as well as girls and women.
6.  Policies and laws should allow for and promote active participation of both parents in the lives of their children.
Although Chrysalis funding is committed to the needs of girls and women, our efforts are strong to educate and involve men in the critical work of eliminating stereotypes and promoting fairness and equity between all.  

Early Onset Puberty Raises Concerns

Just when we thought that adolescent girls had enough challenges (social norms, media images, emotional and physical changes), new research points to a larger and broader issue: early onset of puberty.

Armpit and pubic hair, pimples, starting menstruation, and breast budding are known physical signs of puberty in girls.  In 1800, these changes began in girls at around age 17.  In 1960, the changes were beginning around age 14.  Now, most commonly, puberty in girls begins at age 11.

Kathy Nesteby, Coordinator for the Iowa Task Force for Young Women with the Iowa Department of Human Rights, recently authored a newsletter on this very issue.  She notes the additional challenges this factor presents:

Girls who develop breasts and other physical characteristics of maturation at an early age are more likely to date at a younger age as well. Cognitive and emotional development trails behind physical development in all adolescents, but is more pronounced for those with early on-set puberty. As a result, this young woman has less capacity to resist pressure from an older boyfriend to become involved in delinquent or other risky behaviors than she would if she were older. Likewise, she may lack the sophistication to resist the influence of peers who perceive her to be older.

Her relationship with her parents and community are also significant. Puberty often signals an increase in conflict with parents, as girls begin to assert their independence. A girl displaying the physical signs of maturation, may experience an increase in expectations about her maturity in general, for which she does not yet have the capacity. Additionally, if her parents use harsh and inconsistent discipline, she is even more at-risk for developing behavioral problems.

Nesteby notes that a recent article in The New York Times (March 30, 2012) cites research done by medical professionals in seeking answers for this anomaly:

In the late 1980s, Marcia Herman-Giddens, then a physician’s associate in the pediatric department of the Duke University Medical Center, started noticing that an awful lot of 8- and 9-year-olds in her clinic had sprouted pubic hair and breasts. She started collecting data, eventually leading a study with the American Academy of Pediatrics that sampled 17,000 girls, finding that among white girls, the average age of breast budding was 9.96. Among black girls, it was 8.87.

When Herman-Giddens published these numbers, in 1997 in Pediatrics, she set off a social and endocrinological firestorm. “I had no idea it would be so huge,” Herman-Giddens told me recently. “The Lolita syndrome” — the prurient fascination with the sexuality of young girls — “created a lot of emotional interest. As a feminist, I wish it didn’t.” Along with medical professionals, mothers, worried about their daughters, flocked to Herman-Giddens’s slide shows, gasping as she flashed images of possible culprits: obesity, processed foods, plastics.

…Was the age of puberty really dropping?  Parents said yes.  Leading pediatric endocrinologists said no. The stalemate lasted …years.  Then in August 2010, well-respected researchers at three big institutions — Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, Kaiser Permanente of Northern California and Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York — published another study in Pediatrics, finding that by age 7, 10% of white girls, 23% of black girls, 15% of Hispanic girls and 2% of Asian girls had started developing breasts.

Why is this happening?  Physicians don’t yet understand the reasons, but do suspect several contributing factors.  Being overweight (heavier girls have higher levels of hormones including estrogen, which causes the body to mature quicker).  In addition, animal studies show that exposure to environmental chemicals that mimic estrogen – including those used in agriculture and livestock production – can alter puberty timing.  And the chemical BPA (now found in hard plastics and common products such as dental sealants and cash-register receipts) that mimics estrogen is now found in the bodies of 93% of Americans.  Other causes can include family stress, maternal depression, and divorce.

What can we do about this issue?  Nesteby advises:

Assuring that girls are getting plenty of exercise, eating a healthy diet and not being overexposed to hormone disrupting chemicals are a good place to start…Offering adequate and timely support is crucial as well.  For adult women, who may not have begun to mature until much later, it may be a matter of not assuming the 9 year old you are interacting with has years to go before puberty hits.  She may need your guidance now!  Adults must also refrain from any inadvertent tendency to treat girls as more mature than they might actually be based solely on their appearance.

All the more important are our efforts to reach girls early through Chrysalis After-School programs.  Helping girls understand their own bodies and minds, and supporting their physical and mental health is key – our new GIRLSTRONG! programming around healthy lifestyles is a major effort throughout all 29 Chrysalis After-School locations.  And having this information helps us address emerging concerns for all girls and women.

Thank you for your leadership in this work.

To review The New York Times article:  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/magazine/puberty-before-age-10-a-new-normal.html?_r=1