
Hormones used by parents can cause genital changes in children
In one case, a ten-month-old girl in Sweden developed an enlarged clitoris that resembled a small penis after lying on the chest of her father, who was using a testosterone gel.
In another case, a 10-year-old boy began growing breasts after exposure to his mother's hormone treatment.
These cases have been reported by clinicians at Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Gothenburg, Sweden, who are warning parents who use topical hormone medications to avoid direct contact after applying their treatments.
Hormone medications contain sex hormones that our bodies start to produce at puberty.
Topical treatments, such as gels, creams, and sprays, are prescribed to adults with hormone-related disorders, patients who have finished chemotherapy, and others.
But there's a risk, the Swedish doctors said, that children can absorb the hormones through skin-to-skin contact with adults using these treatments, leading to medical complications like those reported in Gothenburg.
'Babies younger than 12 months of age have very absorbent skin,' Dr Jovanna Dahlgren, a chief physician in the department of Paediatrics at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, told Euronews Health.
She added that 'we should spare the kids' from accidental exposure to highly potent sex hormones.
There are other options for parents who take hormone medications. Dahlgren recommends quarterly injections for patients taking testosterone, whilst patches and vaginal tablets could be an alternative to oestrogen sprays.
She also said parents can apply topical treatments to areas unlikely to come into contact with children, such as the inner thighs or upper back, and recommended people keep them in a safe area away from their child's reach.
Lack of awareness despite the increasing number of cases
Doctors at the Sahlgrenska University Hospital started seeing cases of hormone exposure in children around eight or nine years ago, according to Dahlgren.
Endocrinologists there raised the issue with regional authorities, leading to new medical guidelines, and with a pharmaceutical company that made hormone treatments, which updated its warning labels.
The growing popularity of online prescriptions may be contributing to the rise in cases, Dahlgren said.
In some European countries, including Sweden, Germany, and France, telehealth platforms can legally prescribe hormones.
According to Sweden's Medical Products Agency, Läkemedelsverket, there have been 12 reports of 'unintended hormone exposure affecting children' since 2019. Another two cases were reported to the European medicines regulator.
But Dahlgren believes this represents only a fraction of actual toll, as those do not include any of the cases recorded at her hospital.
'Our own cases aren't represented in those numbers,' she said, 'so the real figure is certainly higher'.
The hospital is now collaborating with other regional centres to map the extent of these cases nationally.
The problem isn't isolated to Sweden
In 2024, paediatric endocrinologists in Wales published a case series documenting children who developed early pubertal signs after exposure to hormone gels or sprays used by parents.
The study included similar cases as those seen in Sweden, as well as a case of a girl with breast development and mood swings linked to her mother's use of oestrogen gel.
The researchers also emphasised the mental health impact that unexpected hormone exposure can have on both children and their parents, who often feel guilty.
Earlier this year, a Swedish trade magazine for medical professionals reported that globally there were 41 reports of suspected secondary exposure in children and adults involving oestrogen-containing medications between 2018 and 2025, and 66 reports linked to testosterone-containing products between 2004 and 2025.
Follow-up care varies depending on the severity and duration of exposure.
For example, the infant girl with clitoris enlargement in Sweden recovered fully after the exposure ended.
However, some young patients with repeated exposure for a long period of time need to be followed until they are adults, Dahlgren said.
For instance, the 10-year-old boy with unusual breast growth is now awaiting breast reduction surgery, and his bone growth could also be disrupted due to accelerated bone age.
'We have to think about the long-term effects,' Dahlgren said.
These hormones 'are steroids and act directly on the DNA, changing protein expression across the body'.
She cautions that long-term exposure to testosterone can increase risks of blood clots, heart attack, stroke, and even cancer in adults. In children, the damage can be lifelong.
'That's why I would urge that people are aware that these hormone medications are potent,' Dahlgren said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Euronews
a day ago
- Euronews
How do mineral and chemical sunscreens affect our health?
Mineral sunscreens have gained in popularity in recent years, fueled by claims that they're gentler or safer than their chemical counterparts. But the real differences between the two types of sun protection are more technical than many consumers realise, making it easy to misunderstand what scientists know about their health effects. The differences between these sunscreens mainly come down to their active ingredients and how they block ultraviolet (UV) rays. Chemical sunscreens absorb UV radiation, converting it into heat and releasing it from the skin. Mineral sunscreens, sometimes called physical sunscreens, create a thin barrier that primarily reflects or scatters UV rays away from the skin. Even the terms 'mineral' and 'chemical' can be misleading, though, given all sunscreens use chemicals. Many mineral-based formulas also use other substances, called 'boosters,' to help the active ingredients work better. More accurate descriptors could be 'soluble' sunscreen filters – those that could permeate the skin – and 'insoluble' filters that could not do so, said Christian Surber, a dermatopharmacologist (someone who studies how drugs affect the skin) at the University of Zurich and the University of Basel. 'It's just the mechanism of action [of the filters] that is different,' he told Euronews Health. 'It can be absorption, and it can be scattering'. Euronews Health has chosen to use the terms that consumers are most likely to see when they shop for sunscreens. Sunscreen and health Concerns around how sunscreens affect our health are nothing new, prompting the European Commission Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) to assess the safety of three non-mineral UV filters – oxybenzone, homosalate, and octocrylene – in 2021 over concerns that they may have endocrine-disrupting properties. The SCCS determined that homosalate and oxybenzone were not safe at the concentrations commonly used at the time, and that octocrylene was safe at a concentration up to 10 per cent – though it cautioned that the data was inconclusive. One analysis, for example, estimated that a person would have to apply sunscreen daily for 277 years to experience the same hormone-disrupting effects observed in rats that were fed oxybenzone in a lab. Even so, the European Commission issued new restrictions in 2022 to lower the amount of these filters allowed in sunscreens. 'We pretty much don't see them anymore on the market, because producers know that [they may] cause problems or will not be allowed anymore on the European market in a few years,' Laura Clays from Euroconsumers and the Belgian consumer protection group Test-Achats told Euronews Health. Beyond these potential risks, some people with sensitive skin prefer mineral sunscreens, which use ingredients like zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, because they are less likely to cause skin irritation, Clays said. However, when her group ran consumer tests, several mineral-only formulas offered weaker SPF protection than their labels claimed, meaning 'the ones that contain only mineral filters do not protect you enough,' she said. Because the sunscreen does not absorb into the skin, people should make sure they are fully covered. That could be another challenge, according to Clays' tests: people tended to reapply mineral sunscreens less often, partly because they disliked the thin layer of white residue it left on their skin. But when used correctly, both chemical and mineral sunscreens are widely considered safe and effective by dermatologists and health authorities. 'In principle, all sunscreen filters have a safety profile that has been regulatory-wise assessed and deemed safe,' Surber said. Ultimately, skin experts agree: the best sunscreen is the one you will actually use on a regular basis. 'There's really no big difference, health-wise, between the two,' Clays said.
LeMonde
3 days ago
- LeMonde
France says it cannot save contraceptives US plans to destroy
France said Friday, August 1, it could not seize women's contraception products estimated to be worth $9.7 million that the United States plans to destroy, after media reported the stockpile would be incinerated in the country. The contraceptives – intended for some of the world's poorest countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa – were purchased by the US foreign aid agency USAID under former president Joe Biden. But France's health ministry told Agence France-Presse Friday there was no legal way for it to intervene. The administration of Biden's successor Donald Trump, which has slashed USAID and pursued anti-abortion policies, confirmed last month it planned to destroy the contraceptives, which have been stored in a warehouse in the Belgian city of Geel. According to several media reports, the unexpired products were to be incinerated in France at the end of July by a company that specialises in destroying medical waste. France's government has come under pressure to save the contraceptives, with women's rights groups calling the US decision "insane." The health ministry told AFP that the government had "examined the courses of action available to us, but unfortunately there is no legal basis for intervention by a European health authority, let alone the French national drug safety authority, to recover these medical products. Since contraceptives are not drugs of major therapeutic interest, and in this case we are not facing a supply shortage, we have no means to requisition the stocks." The ministry also said it had no information on where the contraceptives would be destroyed. Leaving Belgian warehouse Sarah Durocher, head of the French women's rights group Family Planning, told AFP that some contraceptives had already left the Belgian warehouse. "We were informed 36 hours ago that the removal of these boxes of contraceptives had begun," Durocher said Thursday. "We do not know where these trucks are now – or whether they have arrived in France," she added. "We call on all incineration companies not to destroy the contraceptives and to oppose this insane decision." French company Veolia confirmed to AFP that it had a contract with the US firm Chemonics, USAID's logistics provider. But Veolia emphasized that the contract concerned "only the management of expired products, which is not the case for the stockpile" in Belgium. The products, mostly long-acting contraceptives such as IUDs and birth control implants, are reportedly up to five years away from expiring. Outrage over decision The US decision has provoked an outcry in France, where rights groups and left-wing politicians have called on their government to stop the plan. "France cannot allow itself to become the stage for such actions. A moratorium is necessary," wrote five NGOs in an op-ed in Le Monde, condemning the "absurdity" of the US decision. Among them was MSI Reproductive Choices, one of several organisations that have offered to purchase and repackage the contraceptives at no cost to the US government. All offers have been rejected. Last week, New Hampshire's Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen pointed to the Trump administration's stated goal of reducing government waste, saying the contraceptives plan "is the epitome of waste, fraud and abuse." A US State Department spokesperson told AFP earlier this week that the destruction of the products would cost $167,000 and "no HIV medications or condoms are being destroyed." The spokesperson pointed to a policy that prohibits providing aid to non-governmental organisations that perform or promote abortions. The Mexico City Policy, which critics call the "global gag rule," was first introduced by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. It has been reinstated under every Republican president since. Last month, the US also incinerated nearly 500 metric tons of high-nutrition biscuits that had been meant to keep malnourished children in Afghanistan and Pakistan alive.


Euronews
3 days ago
- Euronews
Trump officials weigh fate of European contraceptive stockpile
The Trump administration says it is weighing what to do with family planning supplies stockpiled in Europe that campaigners and two United States senators are fighting to save from destruction. Concerns that the Trump administration plans to incinerate the stockpile have angered family planning advocates on both sides of the Atlantic. Campaigners say the supplies stored in a US-funded warehouse in Geel, Belgium, include contraceptive pills, contraceptive implants, and IUDs that could spare women in war zones and elsewhere the hardship of unwanted pregnancies. US State Department deputy spokesman Tommy Pigott said Thursday in response to a question about the contraceptives that 'we're still in the process here in terms of determining the way forward'. "When we have an update, we'll provide it," he said. Belgium says it has been talking with US diplomats about trying to spare the supplies from destruction, including possibly moving them out of the warehouse. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Florinda Baleci told The Associated Press that she couldn't comment further 'to avoid influencing the outcome of the discussions'. The Trump administration's dismantling of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which managed foreign aid programmes, left the supplies' fate uncertain. Pigott didn't detail the types of contraceptives that make up the stockpile. He said some of the supplies, bought by the previous administration, could 'potentially be' drugs designed to induce abortions. Pigott didn't detail how that might impact the Trump administration thinking about how to deal with the drugs or the entire stockpile. Costing more than $9 million (€7.9 million) and funded by US taxpayers, the family planning supplies were intended for women in war zones, refugee camps, and elsewhere, according to a bipartisan letter of protest to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio from US senators Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat, and Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski. They said destroying the stockpile 'would be a waste of US taxpayer dollars as well as an abdication of US global leadership in preventing unintended pregnancies, unsafe abortions and maternal deaths – key goals of US foreign assistance'. They urged Rubio to allow another country or partner to distribute the contraceptives. European lawmakers, aid groups voice concerns Concerns voiced by European campaigners and lawmakers that the supplies could be transported to France for incineration have led to mounting pressure on government officials to intervene and save them. The European Commission, through spokesman Guillaume Mercier, said Friday that 'we continue to monitor the situation closely to explore the most effective solutions'. The US branch of family planning aid group MSI Reproductive Choices said it offered to purchase, repackage, and distribute the stock at its own expense but 'these efforts were repeatedly rejected'. The group said the supplies included long-acting IUDs, contraceptive implants, and pills, and that they have long shelf-lives, extending as far as 2031. Aid group Doctors Without Borders said incineration would be 'an intentionally reckless and harmful act against women and girls everywhere'. Charles Dallara, the grandson of a French former lawmaker who was a contraception pioneer in France, urged President Emmanuel Macron to not let France 'become an accomplice to this scandal'. 'Do not allow France to take part in the destruction of essential health tools for millions of women,' Dallara wrote in an appeal to the French leader. 'We have a moral and historical responsibility'.