A team of South African experts has sought to quell public paranoia after a recent wave of knee-jerk reaction to study findings of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in some menstrual products. They said these data required context and correct interpretation, and urged people not to panic.
They also pointed out that endocrine disruptors are very common – and present in low concentrations in various foods, household products, personal care and beauty products like toothpaste, shampoo and conditioners, body lotions, lipsticks, clothing and electronics.
Thus, they said, the finding that they are also in menstrual products is hardly surprising.
In a policy statement this week, the South African Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologist (SASOG), with the South African Society of Reproductive Medicine and Gynaecological Endoscopy (SASREG), its daughter society and the College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists (CMSA), said that importantly, the recent study by Blignaut et al from the University of Free State did not establish any causality between the use of menstrual products (pads and liners) and infertility, cancer or adverse health outcomes.
The study – published in Science of The Total Environment last month – was conducted on 16 sanitary pads and seven pantyliners, and found that small quantities of endocrine-disrupting chemicals were detected in the tested samples.
The researchers had concluded that menstrual products are a significant but overlooked source of exposure.
However, permissible concentration levels are determined by the Cosmetic Ingredients Expert panel, and their decisions are used by the relevant regulatory bodies such as the Food and Drug Administration in the US (FDA) to set practice guidelines.
In their statement, the South African experts representing the organisations – Dr Jack Biko, president (SASREG), Professor Zozo Nene, president CMSA, and head clinical unit: reproductive endocrinology and infertility University of Pretoria, and Professor Ismail Bhorat; president SASOG – said that previous published studies have indeed confirmed that small amounts of these endocrine disruptors are found in menstrual health products, but cited a study in China reporting that 40% of EDCs emanated from foodstuffs, 40% from other personal care products (PCPs) and 18% from indoor dust.
Of the PCPs analysed, sanitary pads contributed only 6.8% of the total exposure through feminine PCPs.
Extrapolating these data to the study under discussion, they wrote, it is clear “that perspective is required in interpreting the data, which should not be isolated to sanitary products … a small contributor to the overall total EDC exposure”.
They said that although it was “important to note the existence of the endocrine disruptors in products used in our daily lives… the implication to the general public of harm has not been proven in this study”.
“The daily doses have been found to be low, and the cumulative health risk has not been studied. The evidence at present does not support a change of usual practice.”
They recommended that the South African regulatory authorities conduct further testing and studies to determine the safety of these products.
‘Currently, we do not have evidence to recommend that patients stop using any menstrual health products and we do not recommend any change of usual practice,” they added.
See more from MedicalBrief archives:
SA sanitary pad suppliers probed after study finds harmful chemicals
Harmful chemicals found in SA sanitary products – UFS study