FX Medicine

Home of integrative and complementary medicine

The Toxicity Of Contraceptives

georgia.marrion's picture
  • The Toxicity Of Contraceptives

toxicity [tok-sis´ĭ-te]
The degree to which a substance can cause harm or damage.[1,2]

Research increasingly implicates a link between the significant array of exogenous chemicals humans are continually exposed to, and many suboptimal health and chronic disease states experienced by the population.[3] One such source of chemical exposure are pharmaceutical contraceptives, which have provided birth control benefits to millions of women.[4] However, they have also been associated with various toxic effects on both the body and the environment.  

Pharmaceutical contraceptives: types and pharmacokinetics

The most commonly used pharmaceutical contraceptives are combined oral contraceptive pills (COCs), progestin-only contraceptive pills (POPs) and intrauterine devices (IUDs).

COCs contain various combinations and doses of synthetic oestrogen and progesterone, while POPs are synthetic progesterone only medications. Each are available in pill, patch or vaginal ring dosage forms.

Ethinyl estradiol (EE) is the most common type of synthetic oestrogen used, with others including chlorotrianisene, dienestrol, diethylstilbestrol, fosfestrol, mestranol and quinestro. Progestins (synthetic progesterone) can be old (norethisterone, levonorgestrel, gestodene) or new forms (drospirenone, dienogest, trimegestone). The two types of IUDs available are the copper-bearing (Cu-IUD) and hormonal-releasing (levonorgestrel-releasing LNG-IUD) forms.[1,5-7] There are variations in the pharmacokinetics of the different types and dosage forms of these synthetic hormones, with oral medications having more significant biological effects compared with topical, vaginal or intrauterine forms.[4]

Following ingestion, EE is absorbed quickly, though the rate of absorption can range from 20-65% between individuals and can vary day-to-day and with long-term use. Once it is absorbed, it undergoes hepatic metabolism via the glucuronidation and sulfation pathways, and is excreted or reabsorbed via enterohepatic recirculation following bacterial hydrolysis in the colon.[4,8] Conversely, progestins only undergo hepatic metabolism and are not reabsorbed via enterohepatic recirculation, though the rate of hepatic metabolism varies according to progestin type.[8]

The pharmacokinetics of these pharmaceutical contraceptives can vary between individuals due to the type, concentration, duration and timing of medication used.[4] The specific physiological response of an individual to these substances, and consequently the potential toxic impact, will also vary due to epigenetic, structural and functional differences.

Endogenous toxic effects

Pharmaceutical contraceptives can contribute to endogenous toxicity through their impact on gut and vaginal microbiomes, hepatic function, nutrient status, copper toxicity, oxidative stress and chemical accumulation.[9-16]

Gut and vaginal microbiome

The link between contraceptive medications and the gut microbiome is multifaceted. Certain intestinal bacterial species, with beta-glucuronidase and beta-glucosidase enzyme activity in the colon (known as the estrobolome), deconjugate oestrogen in bile, therefore influencing the amount of exogenous oestrogen that is reabsorbed.[17,18] Oestrogen can also influence gut microbiome diversity and composition.[9-16]

Both oral COC and IUDs can alter gut microbiota and vaginal microbiome composition.[9-16] Oral oestrogens have been associated with dysregulation of intestinal microbiota,[9,10,14] and both COCs and LNG-IUDs resulted in an increased comparable risk of bacterial vaginosis, Trichomonas vaginalis and Candida albicans infection in sexually active women.[11,19]

Oestrogen levels can also be correlated with microbiome alpha diversity.[15] Gut microbiome variations can occur following increased intestinal permeability, and OCPs were observed to modify tight junction expression and permeability by influencing zonulin mRNA protein expression and promoter activity.[13] Significant modifications in vaginal microbiota was seen with use of the COC after 6 months, with increased inflammatory and yeast colonisation markers observed.[16]

By contributing to large bowel dysbiosis and increasing intestinal permeability, contraceptives may indirectly contribute to body toxicity by adversely affecting the capacity of the gut to metabolise and excrete other xenobiotics (e.g. polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, nitrotoluenes, pesticides, polychlorobiphenyls, heavy metals, benzene derivatives, azo dyes, artificial sweeteners) and endogenous metabolic by-products.[20]

Liver function

Both the GIT microbiome and contraceptives can influence hepatic metabolism, thereby influencing endogenous detoxification processes. The GIT microbiome can affect the expression of phase 2 hepatic enzymes[21] and both oral and vaginal contraceptives influence hepatic metabolism.

Oral OCPs are metabolised via the glucuronidation and sulfation enzyme pathways. When toxin exposure (including from exogenous oestrogens) exceeds liver biotransformation capacities, this can disrupt the balance between liver detoxification phases, resulting in higher levels of circulating (unconverted) toxic metabolites, further contributing to overload of hepatic detoxification pathways.[4,8,22]

Animal and human studies have demonstrated that OCPs, Cu-IUDs and vaginal rings interfere with hepatic metabolism by increasing bilirubin, alanine aspartate (AST), alkaline phosphatase (ALT), sex-hormone binding globulin (SHBG) and oestrogen-sensitive hepatic proteins levels, inhibiting hepatic microsomal function (cytochrome P450 activity) and increasing hepatic lipid concentrations (HDL-C, LDL-C and TG).[23-30]

Consequently, contraceptives can contribute to endogenous toxicity by adversely influencing hepatic metabolism and its capacity to detoxify toxic exogenous and endogenous substances.

Nutrient and trace mineral status

Contraceptive medications may contribute to endogenous toxicity by modifying endogenous nutrient, heavy metal and trace mineral levels, subsequently influencing (nutrient-dependent) hepatic detoxification and cellular antioxidant enzyme activity.

In a study of women using OCPs, IUDs or injectable contraceptives, mean serum zinc, selenium, phosphorus and magnesium levels were significantly lower than non-contraceptive users, with reductions proportionate to the duration of contraceptive use, while copper and cadmium levels were significantly higher. [31] A separate study of OCP users found that serum vitamin B12 levels were significantly lower compared with control subjects.[32]

Elevated copper levels have long been associated with OCPs. This was observed in a meta-analysis of 26 studies that demonstrated that use of the COC increased mean serum/plasma copper levels by between 1.5-2mg/L, noted by the authors to exceed reference values.[33] Similar results were observed in a separate study of Cu-IUD users who were found to have increased amounts of copper released from the IUD.[34]

In a separate study involving PCOS subjects, an association was observed between OCP use and decreased circulating hepcidin and increased ferritin levels, resulting in enhanced iron absorption, potentially contributing to iron overload.[35]

Lower levels of selenium, zinc and magnesium can influence body toxicity as they are required for the synthesis and activity of antioxidant enzymes in the body, including glutathione (magnesium), superoxide dismutase (zinc), glutathione peroxidase and selenoprotein enzymes (selenium).[36]

The toxic effects of cadmium in the body deplete glutathione levels, inhibiting antioxidant enzyme activity and increasing the synthesis of superoxide ion, hydrogen peroxide and hydroxyl radicals.[37] Copper can contribute to pathological oxidative processes in much of the body, including inactivation of glutathione peroxidase and oxidation of hepatic mitochondrial cells. While excess iron results in the formation of superoxide or hydroxyl free radicals.[33,38,39]

Oxidative stress

Alterations in oxidative stress levels as a consequence of contraceptive use has been observed in a number of studies. In two separate clinical trials, OCP use resulted in increased oxidative stress levels, with significant elevations of malondialdehyde and catalase activity, and reduced levels of whole blood reduced and oxidised glutathione and plasma glutathione enzymes (glutathione peroxidase and reductase).[40,41] This was also observed in female athletes using the OCP, with high levels of oxidative stress as measured by blood hydroxyperoxides and free radical levels compared with non-OCP users observed.[42]

Other contraceptive dosage forms have also been implicated in elevated oxidative stress, with significantly lower levels of coenzyme Q10, alpha-tocopherol and total antioxidant capacity values also found in women using the OCP, vaginal ring and transdermal patch contraceptives compared with control subjects not using any contraception.[43]

Overall these studies demonstrate that an endogenous environment of elevated oxidative stress in body cells and tissues can occur with use of contraceptives, which can have a detrimental impact on detoxification processes and overall body toxicity and functional capacities.   

Environmental chemicals

Another mechanism whereby contraceptives may contribute to endogenous toxicity is by their association with environmental chemical accumulation in the body.

In an analysis from the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort study of 1090 women over a 5-year period, characteristics of OCP use (type, duration, timing) and plasma concentrations of seven perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAFs), including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA), perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnDA), perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS), perfluoroheptane sulfonate (PFHpS) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), were assessed.[44]

Higher levels of five of the PFAF types (PFOA, PFNA, PFHxS, PFHpS, PFOS) were observed in women who had used OCPs in the previous 12 months (12.9-35.7% higher), in the past (7.2-32.1% higher) and for more than 10 years (18.9-46.2%) compared with never-OCP users. Separate studies have also observed higher PFAF concentrations in women with endometriosis, with 13-16% estimated to be attributed to OCP use.[44] Elevated PFAF levels have been associated with infertility, cancer and adverse effects on the liver and thyroid organs and endocrine activity.[45,46]  

Exogenous/environmental toxic effects

A further aspect of toxicity in relation to pharmaceutical contraceptives is their impact on the environment.

Internationally, approximately 700kg/year of synthetic oestrogens derived from contraceptives (OCPs, patches and vaginal rings) are released in the environment, with EE in particular estimated to be directly responsible for at least 16% of the oestrogenic load present in waterways.[47,48]

Such oestrogenic load has been found in various water bodies, soil water, ground water and soils, with the half-life varying depending on conditions found in the immediate environment that influence degradation – being anywhere from 23 hours to 108 days. In some conditions such oestrogens persist, as they are not degraded at all or are interconverted by some bacteria to other types of oestrogen (e.g. E1).[48]

As well as polluting water-ways, synthetic oestrogens are considered to pose a significant risk to the environment by detrimentally impacting the physiology of fish and other aquatic animals (i.e. feminisation, inhibited reproductive capacity and reduced fish biomass) and plant growth.[47,48]

They are also a concern to human health, with their presence in drinking water potentially contributing to an increased risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease, and reproductive issues including premature female development, menopause and reduced male fertility.[48]

Progestins, particularly levonorgestrel, norethisterone and oestodene in waterways has also been associated with abnormal fish egg production.[49]

The use of pharmaceutical contraceptives have a place in the population for birth control and family planning purposes. However, their potential detrimental impact on the body is an important consideration from a naturopathic and nutritional clinical treatment perspective, as well as in the context of their use for non-contraceptive purposes.

Table 1: Adverse effects associated with contraceptives (OCP, IUD)



Irregular menstruation, amenorrhoea




Nausea, loss of appetite


Weight gain


Increased cardiovascular disease risk (in heavy smokers or those with family history)


Increased risk of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis


Increased risk of cancer (breast, cervical, endometrial, ovarian)


Increased risk of deep vein thrombosis/venous thromboembolism


Depression, mood swings


Vaginal atrophy and inflammation (IUD)


Increased risk of HPV infection


Perforation, bleeding, infection (IUD)


Toxic shock syndrome (IUD)



  1. Lackie J. A dictionary of biomedicine. Oxford University Press, 2010. DOI: 10.1093/acref/9780199549351.001.0001. [Source]
  2. Sharma B. Hormonal contraceptive chronic toxicity in females: a review. J Forensic Sci Toxicol 2018;1(1):1003. [Full text]
  3. Bijlsma N, Cohen MM. Environmental chemical assessment in clinical practice: unveiling the elephant in the room. Int J Environ Res Pub Health 2016;13(2):181. [Full text]
  4. Mattinson DR, Karyakina N, Goodman M, et al. Pharmaco- and toxicokinetics of selected exogenous and endogenous estrogens: a review of the data and identification of knowledge gaps. Crit Rev Toxicol 2014;44(8):696-724. [Abstract]
  5. IARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, volume 72. Oral Contraceptives - combined 1999. [PDF
  6. Farman M, Tripathi SK, Babu DK, et al. Influence of estrogen, progesterone and their synthetic derivatives on ovarian functions. J Infertil Reprod Biol 2015;3(4):250-254. [Full text]
  7. Amy JJ, Tripathi V. Contraception for women: an evidence-based overview. BMJ 2009;339:b2895. [Abstract]
  8. Lee CR. Drug interactions and hormonal contraception. Trends Urol Gynecol Sex Health 2009;24:23-26. [Full text]
  9. Khalili H, Granath F, Smedby KE, et al. Association between long-term oral contraceptive use and risk of Crohn’s disease complications in nationwide study. Gastroenterol 2016;150:1561-1567. [Full text]
  10. Khalilli H. Risk of inflammatory bowel disease with oral contraceptives and menopausal hormone therapy: current evidence and future directions. Drug Saf 2016;39(3):193-197. [Full text]
  11. Rezek M, Sayyed T, Maood A, Dawood R. Risk of bacterial vaginosis, Trichomonas vaginalis and Candida albicans infection among new users of combined hormonal contraception vs LNG-IUS. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2017;22(5):344-348. [Abstract]
  12. Aminzadeh A, Sanat AS, Akhtar SN. Frequency of candidiasis and colonisation of Candida albicans in relation to oral contraceptive pills. Iran Red Crescent Med J 2016;18(10):e38909. [Full text]
  13. Zhou Z, Zhang L, Ding M, et al. Estrogen decreases tight junction protein ZO-1 expression in human primary gut tissues. Clin Immunol 2017;183:174-180. [Full text]
  14. Chen L, Zhang W, Hua J, et al. Dysregulation of intestinal health by environmental pollutants: involvement of the estrogen receptor and aryl hydrocarbon receptor. Environ Sci Technol 2018;52(4):2323-2330. [Abstract]
  15. Morkl S, Lackner S, Meinitzer A, et al. Gut microbiota, dietary intakes and intestinal permeability reflected by zonulin in women. Eur J Nutr 2018;57:2985-2997. [Full text]
  16. Fosch SE, Ficoseco CA, Marchesi A, et al. Contraception: influence on vaginal microbiota and identification of vaginal lactobacilli using MALDI-TOF MS and 16S rDNA sequencing. Open Microbiol J 2018;12:218-229. [Full text]
  17. Kwa M, Plottel CS, Blaser MJ, Adams S. The intestinal microbiome and estrogen receptor positive female breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2016;108(8). [Full text]
  18. Fuhrman BJ, Feigelson HS, Flores R, et al. Associations of the fecal microbiome with urinary estrogens and estrogen metabolites in postmenopausal women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2014;99(12):4632-4640. [Full text]
  19. Donders G, Bellen G, Janssens D, et al. Influence of contraceptive choice on vaginal bacterial and fungal microflora. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2017;36(1):43-48. [Abstract]
  20. Claus SP, Guillou H, Ellero-Simatos S. The gut microbiota: a major player in the toxicity of environmental pollutants? Biofilms and Microbiomes 2016;2:16003. [Full text]
  21. Greenhalgh K, Meyer KM, Aagaard KM, et al. The human gut microbiome in health: establishment and resilience of microbiota over a lifetime. Environmental Microbiology 2016;18(7):2103-2116. [Abstract]
  22. Jacobs CL. An analytical method to investigate the estrogen metabolism in women taking combined oral contraceptives. NWU 2018. [Abstract]
  23. Ekhato CN, Osifo UC, Akpamu U. Effect of oral contraceptive pills (containing low doses of synthetic hormones) on liver function in adult female rabbits. Asian J Biotech 2014;6(1):15-20. [Full text]
  24. Onyesom I, Osioma E, Etagar EE, et al. Activities of some liver enzymes in serum of humans receiving DMPA and Cu-IUD contraceptives. Schol J Appl Med Sci 2013;1(2):62-64. [Full text]
  25. Jonderko K, Skalba P, Kasicka-Jonderko A, et al. Impact of oral contraceptives containing ethinylestradiol on the liver microsomal metabolism. Eur J Contracept Reproduc Health Care 2013;18(4):284-292. [Abstract]
  26. Mawet M, Maillard C, Klipping C, et al. Unique effects on hepatic function, lipid metabolism, bone and growth endocrine parameters of estetrol in combined oral contraceptives. Eur J Contra Repr Health Care 2015;20(6):463-475. [Full text]
  27. Sitruk-Ware RL, Menard J, Rad M, et al. Comparison of the impact of vaginal and oral administration of combined hormonal contraceptives on hepatic proteins sensitive to estrogen. Contraception 2007;75(6):430-437. [Abstract]
  28. Sitruk-Ware R, Nath A. Metabolic effects of contraceptive steroids. Rev Endocr Metab Disord 2011;12(2):63-75. [Abstract]
  29. Dilbaz B, Ozdegirmenci O, Caliskan E, et al. Effect of etonogestrel implant on serum lipids, liver function test and hemaglobin levels. Contraception 2010;81(6):510-514. [Abstract]
  30. Archer DF, Thomas MA, Conard J, et al. Impact on hepatic estrogen-sensitive proteins by a 1-year contraceptive vaginal ring delivering Nestorone and ethinyl estradiol. Contraception 2016;93(1):58-64. [Abstract]
  31. Akinloye O, Adebayo TO, Oguntibeju OO, et al. Effects of contraceptives on serum trace elements, calcium and phosphorus levels. West Indian Med J 2011;60(3):308-315. [Abstract]
  32. McArthur JO, Tang H, Petocz P, et al. Biological variability and impact of oral contraceptives on B6, B12 and folate status in women of reproductive age. Nutrients 2013;5(9):3634-3645. [Full text]
  33. Babic Z, Tariba B, Kovacic J, et al. Relevance of serum copper elevation induced by oral contraceptives: a meta-analysis. Contraception 2013;87(6):790-800. [Abstract]
  34. Imperato F, Perniola G, Mossa B, et al. The role of copper-releasing intrauterine device or levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system on uterine bleeding and iron status (prospective study of 8 years). Minerva Ginecol 2002;54(3):271-278. [Abstract]
  35. Luque-Ramirez M, Alvarez-Blasco F, Alpanes M, ert al. Role of decreased circulating hepcidin concentrations in the iron excess of women with polycystic ovary syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011;96(3):846-852. [Abstract]
  36. Linus Pauling Institute Micronutrient Information Centre. Selenium, Zinc, Magnesium. [Source
  37. Rahimzadeh MR, Rahimzadeh MR, Kazemi S, et al. Cadmium toxicity and treatment: an update. Caspian J Intern Med 2017;8(3):135-145. [Full text]
  38. Ashish B, Neeti K, Himanshu K. Copper toxicity: a comprehensive study. Res J Rec Sci 2013;2:58-67. [Full text]
  39. Kohgo Y, Ikuta K, Ohtake T, et al. Body iron metabolism and pathophysiology of iron overload. Int J Hematol 2008;88(1):7-15. [Full text]
  40. Kowalska K, Milnerowicz H. Pro/antioxidant status in young healthy women using oral contraceptives. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 2016;43:1-6. [Abstract]
  41. Zal F, Mostafavi-Pour Z, Amini F, et al. Effect of vitamin C and E supplements on lipid peroxidation and GSH-dependent antioxidant enzyme status in the blood of women consuming oral contraceptives. Contraception. 2012;86(1):62-66. [Abstract]
  42. Cauci S, Buligan C, Marangone M, et al. Oxidative stress in female athletes using combined oral contraceptives. Sports Med Open 2016;2(1):40. [Full text]
  43. Palan PR, Strube F, Letko J, et al. Effects of oral, vaginal and transdermal hormonal contraception on serum levels of coenzyme Q10, vitamin E and total antioxidant activity. Obstet Gynecol Int 2010;2010:925635. [Fuill text]
  44. Rush EL, Singer AB, Longnecker MP, et al. Oral contraceptive use as a determinant of plasma concentrations of perfluoroalkyl substances among women in the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort (MoBa) study. Environ Intern 2018;112:156-164. [Full text]
  45. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances and your health. [Source]  
  46. National Institute of Health US Department of Health and Human Services. Perfluorinated chemicals July 2016. [Source
  47. Khan U, Nicell JA. Contraceptive options and their associated estrogenic environmental loads: relationships and trade-offs. PLoS One 2014;9(3):e92630. [Full text]
  48. Adeel M, Song X, Wang Y, et al. Environmental impact of estrogens on human, animal and plant life: a critical review. Environ Int 2017;99:107-119. [Full text]
  49. Kumar V, Johnson AC, Trubiroha A, et al. The challenge presented by progestins in ecotoxicological research: a critical review. Environ Sci Technol 2015;49(5):2625-2638. [Abstract]
  50. Roberts H. Combined oral contraceptive: issues for current users. BJP 2008;12:21-29. [Source]
  51. Peachman RR. Weighing the risks and benefits of hormonal contraception. JAMA 2018;319(11):1083-1084. [Abstract]
  52. Jordan SJ, Wilson LF, Nagle CM, et al. Cancers in Australia in 2010 attributable to and prevented by the use of combined oral contraceptives. Aust New Zeal J Pub Health 2010;39(5). [Full text]
  53. Morch LS, Skovlund CW, Hannaford PC, et al. Contemporary hormonal contraception and the risk of breast cancer. NEJM 2017;377:2228-2239. [Full text]
  54. Hilakivi-Clarke L, de Assis S, Warri A. Exposures to synthetic estrogens at different times during the life, and their effect on breast cancer risk. J Mamm Gland Biol Neoplas 2013;18(1):25-42. [Full text]
  55. Oedingen C, Scholz S, Razum O. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the association of combined oral contraceptives on the risk of venous thromboembolism: the role of the progestogen type and estrogen dose. Thromb Res 2018;165:68-78. [Abstract]
  56. Dragoman MV, Tepper NK, Fu R, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of venous thrombosis risk among users of combined oral contraception. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2018;141(3). [Full text]
  57. Glisic M, Shahzad S, Tsoli S, et al. Association between progestin-only contraceptive use and cardiometabolic outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2018. [Full text]
  58. Skovlund CW, Morch LS, Kessing LV. Association of hormonal contraception with depression. JAMA Psychiatry 2016;73(11):1154-1162. [Abstract]
  59. Faryal U, Rashid S, Majra B, et al. Effect of hormonal contraceptives on serum serotonin in females of reproductive age group. J Ayub Med Coll Abbot Pak 2016;28(1). [Abstract]
  60. Meier TB, Drevets WC, Teague TK, et al. Kynurenic acid is reduced in females and oral contraceptive users: implications for depression. Brain Behav Immun 2018;67:59-64. [Full text]
  61. Erol O, Simavli S, Derbent AU, et al. The impact of copper-containing and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine contraceptives on cervicovaginal cytology and microbiological flora: a prospective study. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2014;19(3):187-193. [Abstract]
  62. Chagas BS, Gurgel APAD, Paiva Junior SSL, et al. Synergic effect of oral contraceptives, GSTP1 polymorphisms, and high-risk HPV infection in development of cervical lesions. Genet Mol Res 2017;16(3). [Abstract]
  63. Jatlaoui TC, Riley HE, Curtix KM. The safety of intrauterine devices among young women: a systematic review. Contraception 2017;95(1):17-39. [Abstract]
  64. Batur P, Bowersox N, McNamara M. Contraception: efficacy, risks, continuation rates and use in high risk women. J Women’s Health 2016;25(8):853-856. [Abstract]
  65. Klug CD, Keay CR, Ginde AA. Fatal toxic shock syndrome from an intrauterine device. Ann Emerg Med 2009;54:701-703. [Abstract]
  66. Herzer CM. Toxic shock syndrome: broadening the differential diagnosis. J Am Board Fam Pract 2001;14:131-136. [Full text]
  67. Cho EE, Fernando D. Fatal streptococcal toxic shock syndrome from an intrauterine device. J Emerg Med 2013;44:777-780. [Abstract]


The information provided on FX Medicine is for educational and informational purposes only. The information provided on this site is not, nor is it intended to be, a substitute for professional advice or care. Please seek the advice of a qualified health care professional in the event something you have read here raises questions or concerns regarding your health.

Share / Print: 
georgia.marrion's picture
Georgia Marrion

Georgia is a naturopath and nutritionist with 15 years’ experience who specialises in women’s health, particularly hormone imbalance and fertility and conception issues as well as and pregnancy and post-partum support. Georgia runs her own naturopathic and nutritional fertility and women’s health clinical practice and is an experienced health and nutrition writer.