• PDF

Sex Ratio at Birth


You are viewing a selection of facts for Sex Ratio at Birth. See More Data.

Sex Ratio At Birth (Males:Females): 2010

Region Number
California 1.05:1
Region Number
Alameda County 1.05:1
Alpine County LNE
Amador County 1.18:1
Butte County 1.1:1
Calaveras County 1.14:1
Colusa County 1.02:1
Contra Costa County 1.04:1
Del Norte County 1.07:1
El Dorado County 0.93:1
Fresno County 1:1
Glenn County 1.13:1
Humboldt County 1.12:1
Imperial County 1.1:1
Inyo County 1.09:1
Kern County 1.02:1
Kings County 1.05:1
Lake County 1.17:1
Lassen County 1.19:1
Los Angeles County 1.05:1
Marin County 1.06:1
Mariposa County 1.07:1
Mendocino County 1.08:1
Merced County 1.1:1
Modoc County 1.2:1
Mono County 1.1:1
Monterey County 1.07:1

Sex Ratio At Birth (Males:Females): 2010

Region Number
Napa County 1.13:1
Nevada County 1.08:1
Orange County 1.05:1
Placer County 1.02:1
Plumas County 1.07:1
Riverside County 1.06:1
Sacramento County 1.07:1
San Benito County 1.11:1
San Bernardino County 1.05:1
San Diego County 1.05:1
San Francisco County 1.06:1
San Joaquin County 1.01:1
San Luis Obispo County 1.06:1
San Mateo County 1.02:1
Santa Barbara County 1.01:1
Santa Clara County 1.05:1
Santa Cruz County 1:1
Shasta County 0.96:1
Sierra County 1.88:1
Siskiyou County 1.08:1
Solano County 1.05:1
Sonoma County 1.04:1
Stanislaus County 1.08:1
Sutter County 1.07:1
Tehama County 1.02:1
Trinity County 0.84:1
Tulare County 1.07:1
Tuolumne County 0.84:1
Ventura County 1.04:1
Yolo County 1.06:1
Yuba County 1.01:1

Learn More About this Topic

Measures of Sex Ratio at Birth on Kidsdata.org

Kidsdata.org offers data on the ratio of live male births to live female births.

Note: The information presented for this topic is not exhaustive of all relevant data, and has limitations. Kidsdata offers these and other data to draw attention to the environmental influences on children's health and to encourage exploration of the issues. These indicators will be revised as new data emerge from initiatives such as the National Children's Study and are updated in the California Environmental Health Tracking Program site.

Why This Topic Is Important

Recent studies have shown that environmental pollutants can affect child health and development (1, 2, 3, 4). For example, exposure to endocrine disruptors (synthetic chemicals found in pesticides and common household items that mimic or block hormones) and second-hand smoke may influence the sex ratio at birth by affecting human sex hormones and their regulation (1, 2, 4, 5). Children are especially vulnerable to toxic substances as their systems are more fragile and their skin is more permeable (4). The expected ratio of males to females born is 1.05 males to every 1 female (1.05:1) (6). Concern mounts when there are fewer males than females born, i.e., less than 1 male to every 1 female (1).

For more information on sex ratio at birth see kidsdata.org’s Research & Links section.

Sources for this narrative:

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). Sex ratio and the environment. Retrieved from: http://ephtracking.cdc.gov/showRbSrEnv.action
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). Fourth national report on human exposure to environmental chemicals. Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/
  3. California Department of Public Health. (2009). Prematurity & growth retardation. Retrieved from: http://www.ehib.org/page.jsp?page_key=69 
  4. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2007). A decade of children's environmental health research: Highlights from EPA's Science to Achieve Results program. Retrieved from: http://www.epa.gov/ncer/publications/research_results_synthesis/
  5. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. (2012). Endocrine disruptors. Retrieved from: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/endocrine/index.cfm
  6. California Department of Public Health. (2010). Sex ratio at birth: Measurement and limitations. Retrieved from: http://www.ehib.org/page.jsp?page_key=117

Policy Implications

Pound for pound, children are more vulnerable to toxic chemicals in the environment than are adults (1). Toxins that may be present in the air they breathe, in water and beverages they drink, in the food they eat and in the ground on which they play can harm their health. 

According to research and experts, policies to improve children’s environmental health, overall, could include:

  • Establishing and implementing improved standards and guidelines for school environmental health, addressing areas such as building ventilation, mold prevention, routine cleaning and maintenance, managing chemical exposure, and controlling pests (2) 
  • Creating healthier school environments by setting appropriate construction standards and fixing structural problems in existing schools (2) 
  • Focusing broadly on multiple deficiencies and hazards in housing environments and early childhood settings—for example, advancing strategic partnerships among organizations focused on health, education, environmental protection, and housing—instead of focusing on single factors, such as lead or asbestos exposure (3, 4)
  • Promoting a research agenda that examines the connections between the built environment and physical and behavioral health, to inform land use policy and regulation of environmental toxins (5)
  • Enforcing existing laws and regulations that limit vehicle emissions, agricultural practices that generate dust and pesticide exposure, and industrial practices that generate air pollution (6)

For more policy ideas on environmental health, see the California Adolescent Health Collaborative, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Healthy Homes Initiative, the California Department of Public Health’s Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch, and the Center for Children’s Environmental Health. Also see policy implications under the Asthma topic on kidsdata.org.

Sources for this narrative:

  1. Landrigan, P. J. & Carlson, J. E. (1995). Environmental policy and children’s health. Future of Children, (5)2, 34-52. Retrieved from: http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/docs/05_02_04.pdf
  2. California Air Resources Board and California Department of Health Care Services. (2004). Report to the California legislature: Environmental health conditions in California’s portable classrooms. Retrieved from: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/reports/l3006.pdf
  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Healthy Homes Initiative. Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/healthyhomes.htm
  4. Bachrach, A., et al. (2010). Environmental health in early childhood systems building: opportunities for states. National Center for Children in Poverty. Retrieved from: http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_981.pdf
  5. Lane, S. D., et al. (2008). Environmental injustice: childhood lead poisoning, teen pregnancy, and tobacco. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42(1), 43-49. Retrieved from: http://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X%2807%2900294-7/abstract
  6. Salam, M. T., et al. (2008). Recent evidence for adverse effects of residential proximity to traffic sources on asthma. Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine, 14(1), 3-8. Retrieved from: http://sunscreamer.com/publiccomment/Documents/salam%20mt%20traffic%20asthma%20pulm%20opin%202008.pdf

How Children Are Faring

In 2010, there were 1.05 male births for every one female birth in California (1.05:1), which is consistent with national figures in previous years. Sex ratios vary across California counties and over time. Use caution when interpreting year-to-year fluctuations; variation could be the result of environmental effects and/or other factors.

Note: Children’s environmental health is an emerging area of research, and the data currently available give a limited picture of how children in California are faring. In many cases, county-level data are not specific enough to inform conclusions about children’s health risks, but they can spark further inquiry.

Research and Links

Websites with Related Information

Key Reports