By Jenine Alathari, Second Year, Chemistry
In conversation with:
Sonia Jordan, Third Year, IFemSoc VP
Tess Rayner, Second Year, Biochemistry
Corin Hadley, SciTech Editor
Menstrual products are a necessity for millions, yet very few are aware of their hidden risk: exposure to harmful heavy metals. Marketed as essential for hygiene and comfort, these products are widely assumed to be safe, but research suggests they may pose an overlooked health concern.
Wanting to understand this issue further, I sat with Corin, Tess, and Sonia to discuss what we knew – and more importantly, what we didn’t.
It soon became clear that this wasn’t just a gap in personal knowledge - we uncovered an alarming lack of transparency preventing us from making informed decisions regarding our health.
Whilst heavy metals might seem out of place in menstrual products, we found many studies confirmed trace levels of substances such as lead, mercury, and cadmium in various product lines. Our first question was then: where are they coming from?
Typically, these heavy metals are not intentionally added, but may be present due to raw material sourcing, or contamination during the manufacturing process. Cotton plants are one of the most pesticide intensive-crops, and chemical residue can linger in the final product. Beyond these less avoidable introductions, the presence of heavy metals can also be linked to the use of dyes and fragrances.
These additives are not essential to the core function of sanitary products, but they continue to be widely used, raising concerns about unnecessary exposure. Ultimately, it appears that convenience and cost-efficiency are prioritised over more cautious methods of product design and manufacturing.
Despite the confirmed presence of heavy metals, we found that there has been little investigation into their long-term health effects. This is particularly concerning given the intimate nature of these products, and the high absorbency of vaginal tissue. Whilst the concentrations may be small, the repeated and prolonged use of these products highlights the risk of cumulative exposure. Over time, this could contribute to hormonal imbalances and fertility complications. A key concern was raised during our discussion: if the risks aren’t fully understood, shouldn’t the burden be on companies to prove their products are safe, rather than on consumers to figure out if they are harmful?
Our conversation then shifted to how language shapes attitudes toward menstruation. Sonia pointed out how the term “sanitary products” implies that menstruation is unclean — a stigma that has been deeply ingrained and commercially exploited. Companies capitalise on this through branding that emphasises their products are ‘fresh’, ‘clean’, and ‘discreet’- encouraging a reliance on these disposable products. With little education on safer, reusable alternatives, such as menstrual cups, we are geared toward the overconsumption of these disposable sanitary products which create recurring profits.
This highlighted to us a troubling reality that safety and transparency are often second to profit. Menstrual cups also come with a higher upfront cost which forces many to choose between long-term health and affordability - a decision that shouldn't have to be made for a basic necessity.
This led us to a broader discussion about how menstrual health is not just overlooked- it is actively commodified and exploited. Adding insult to injury, sanitary products have historically been subject to the ‘pink tax,’ – a phenomenon where products marketed to women are priced higher than comparable ones for men. Sonia highlighted a notorious example: ‘Nurofen Express for Period Pain’, which was once priced higher than standard Nurofen, despite containing the same active ingredients.
Whilst many countries have now abolished the “pink tax”, prices of sanitary products remain particularly expensive, disproportionately impacting those in lower-income brackets. The financial strain of menstruation continues to be a barrier to proper healthcare, forcing menstruators to ration products, resort to less safe alternatives, or go without.
The lack of regulation and transparency in the sanitary product industry reflects a larger issue: the systemic neglect of women’s health. Historically, women’s health concerns have been under-researched and underfunded, often dismissed as less urgent than those affecting men. For example, conditions like endometriosis and PCOS, which affect millions of people worldwide, often require frequent and prolonged use of sanitary products. This increases exposure to potentially harmful chemicals which may worsen inflammation and disrupt the endocrine system, further amplifying the symptoms of these conditions. This harmful cycle persists due to the lack of research in alternative treatments- leaving these conditions poorly understood and inadequately addressed.
At this point of the conversation, our curiosity about the topic had settled into something heavier - a total feeling of violation. The realisation that we’d been using these products so intimately, without any knowledge of their potential risks, was deeply unsettling. The lack of transparency had left us feeling uninformed, powerless and left us asking: how had this been allowed to happen?
Sonia then introduced us to a concept at the heart of the issue: epistemologies of ignorance - the deliberate suppression of knowledge to maintain existing power structures. In the context of women's health, this manifests through underfunded research, weak regulation, and the dismissal of health concerns that predominantly affect women. This form of institutionalised ignorance keeps menstruators from making informed decisions about their health, while serving economic interests by ensuring reliance on profit-driven menstrual product industries.
The Women’s Health Movement of the 1960’s is a powerful example of feminist epistemology in action. Activists encouraged women to educate themselves about their bodies, question medical establishments, and demand transparency. Yet, decades later, this fight is far from over. Even today, menstrual health information remains limited, and alarmingly, manufacturers are not legally required to disclose the full list of ingredients in menstrual products. This deliberate lack of transparency prevents individuals form making informed decisions about their own health, keeping menstrual safety a hidden crisis rather than public priority.
Reflecting on our conversation, I was struck by how blindly I had trusted the safety of products so intimately connected to my health. I had naively assumed that our health was prioritised over profit. How many other aspects of healthcare had I accepted without question? This frustration brought a sense of urgency - if awareness is the first step toward change, then transparent conversations like this are essential.
Menstruation is not a luxury, nor should it be considered a financial or health burden. Consumers deserve full transparency regarding the products they rely on for their health and wellbeing. By advocating for ingredient disclosure, safer formulations and increased access to reusable alternatives, we can drive meaningful change and challenge the outdated systems that continue to overlook menstrual health.
The persistent gaps in research and policy reflect a deeper pattern of the systemic neglect of women’s health. By addressing these gaps, we can dismantle the barriers that perpetuate inequality, and we can empower individuals to make informed, autonomous decisions about their health.
Featured image: Julia Mullins
