Every year, an estimated 45 billion menstrual products are used worldwide.
Although between 52-86% of people who menstruate use tampons, concerningly, fourteen major tampon brands sold in the U.S. and U.K. were found to contain various toxic metals, according to a new UC Berkeley study.
Currently, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations recommend that tampons not contain high levels of dioxin (toxic carcinogen) or pesticide residues; however, testing tampons for chemical contaminants is not required. In the past, consistent calls for change in regulation have received little response:
The Tampon Safety and Research Act (1997 – never passed)The Robin Danielson Act (1999-2019 – never passed)Proposed Rule for Absorbency Labeling (1988)
Related: Walmart is under fire over clearance pricing practice
The FDA’s regulatory failures may have created a gap for threats to slip through, the study said. Metals can contaminate tampons through raw materials, manufacturing water, and intentional addition. In fact, the study found arsenic and lead, among 16 other metals, in 30 tampons from 14 brands across 18 product lines.
Which Brands Are Affected?
Jenni Shearston, the study’s lead author at the University of California, Berkeley School of Public Health, told TheStreet that anonymity was essential for protecting the integrity of the study.
Shearston stated, “One of the reasons we haven’t disclosed the brands we tested is because we want to emphasize the consistency of our results: we found metals present in all the tampons we tested, regardless of brand. “
While the study did not list the brands, it did note that “regulations in the U.S., E.U., and U.K. protecting consumers from potential contaminants in tampons are nearly nonexistent.”
Some of those well-known tampon brands include:
Procter & Gamble’s ( (PG) .) TampaxKimberly-Clark’s ( (KMB) ) KotexEdgewell Personal Care’s ( (EPC) ) Playtex
None of those companies responded to requests for comments.
This isn’t the first time these companies have made headlines for disregarding public safety in their products. Procter & Gamble’s Rely Tampon created shock waves of panic and crisis in the 70s.
Related: Amazon backtracks on health clinic errors that put patients at risk
The Rely Tampon
In the 70s, Procter & Gamble, needing an entry into a market already dominated by Playtex, Tampax (later purchased by P.G.), and Kotex, introduced the Rely Tampon.
Procter & Gamble mailed over 43.3 million Rely samples to 65% of America’s households. However, the public was unaware that the Rely Tampon was a perfect instigator of Toxic Shock Syndrome. P&G had placed a potentially deadly product on the bathroom counter of the average American woman.
Manufacturers did not conduct research on the product until 1980, even though they had evidence showing links between Toxic Shock Syndrome and the Rely Tampon as early as 1975. That five-year gap left them liable for 900 lawsuits, 200 complaints, 73 deaths, and $58.2 million in settlements.
The Biggest Risk
The study’s most urgent finding was lead’s presence in the tampons and the potential health risks associated with it. The study found lead in all the tampons tested, and most alarmingly, “there is no safe exposure level to lead.”
Users have taken to social media to air their frustration. One user commented, “What the hell has the FDA been up to if they aren’t studying our health products?!”
An FDA Spokesperson informed TheStreet that the agency is reviewing the study and that the FDA requires tampon manufacturers to comply with its manufacturing requirements.
More Retail:
Sam’s Club customers threaten to end membership over new policyTractor Supply has another boycott on its hands after radical changeDior pays a startling low price to produce a $2,780 handbag
What does this study mean?
The FDA and many professionals have called for a correct interpretation of this study, given that the testing measures are unreplicable by the human body.
Shearston acknowledges that there are many differences between the testing conditions and conditions of the human body, but this doesn’t discredit the study. This study aimed to determine the metal concentration in tampons, not assess health effects. There is insufficient evidence to make that jump now, but more might be coming soon.
She outlined the current four-step plan to find the answer to the question the American public is most interested in: can metals in tampons contribute to negative health effects?
Determine if there is a presence of metals in tampons.Replicate the conditions of the vagina to see if the metals present in tampons can come out of the tampon during normal wear.Determine if any leached metals can be absorbed through the vagina and into the body.Determine if the concentrations of metals entering the body were high enough to have any health impact.
Currently, Dr. Schilling is in the METALab at Columbia, leading research for the second step.
Related: Veteran fund manager picks favorite stocks for 2024
