
Scientists warn of toxic ‘forever chemicals' in reusable period products
Among the biggest repeat offenders are washable pads and underwear, according to the study, published on Tuesday in Environmental Science & Technology Letters. And as more consumers opt for multi-use products over their disposable counterparts, the study authors expressed cause for concern.
'Since reusable products are on the rise due to their increased sustainability compared to single-use products, it's important to ensure that these products are safe,' co-author Marta Venier, an associated professor at the University of Notre Dame, said in a statement.
'This is crucial, especially for adolescents and young women, who are more vulnerable to potential negative health effects,' Venier added.
The compounds in question are known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and are prevalent in numerous household items, such as waterproof apparel, nonstick pans and various personal care products.
There are an estimated 15,000 types of PFAS, all of which are manmade, and some of which have been linked to cancers and other severe illnesses. These so-called 'forever chemicals' linger nearly interminably in the environment and up to several years in the human body.
Previous research in China sounded the alarm on the prevalence of PFAS in that country's personal hygiene products, including in sanitary pads, panty liners, tampons, paper diapers, menstrual cups and bactericidal liquids.
In addition, a 2020 Sierra Magazine article — which included the participation of Graham Peaslee, senior author of the current study — identified 'intentional fluorine use' in one type of period underwear, which led to a lawsuit and $5 million settlement with the brand.
To identify PFAS presence in products, scientists typically begin by deploying a broad-stroke screening tool: the assessment of total fluorine in a sample. They generally deem fluorine usage as 'intentional' — or deliberate in a product's formulation, as opposed to accidental contamination — when levels surpass a specific safety threshold.
In the current study, the researchers narrowed their focus on 59 reusable hygiene products — such as period underwear, reusable pads, menstrual cups and reusable incontinence underwear and pads — from North America, South America, Europe, Asia and the Pacific.
The products, they explained, first underwent total fluorine screenings using a technology called particle-induced gamma-ray emission spectroscopy.
These preliminary screenings showed that period underwear and reusable pads likely had the highest rates of intentional PFAS use: 33 percent and 25 percent of items in each of these product categories, respectively.
The findings applied to markets across the globe, with intentional fluorination spotted in seven pairs of South American underwear, four North American pairs and two European pairs, according to the study.
Following the initial fluorine scans, the scientists then chose 19 products for targeted analyses of 31 'ionic' and 11 'neutral' types of PFAS.
Ionic PFAS are those molecules that can 'dissociate' in the environment, becoming highly mobile and capable of widespread contamination. Among the most notorious types of ionic PFAS are legacy compounds like PFOA and PFOS, which have largely been phased out of production but remain in the environment due to their persistence.
Neutral PFAS, on the other hand, do not dissociate and were previously thought to be less toxic. But scientists have been challenging that assumption, as these compounds are highly volatile and can serve as precursors for ionic PFAS.
In the more precise PFAS tests for the 19 period products, the researchers detected the compounds in 100 percent of the products, with two types of neutral PFAS — 6:2 and 8:2 fluorotelomer alcohols (FTOH) — boasting the most abundant presence.
Co-author Sydney Brady, a PhD candidate in Venier's group, stressed in a statement that 8:2 FTOH was one of the most common types of PFAS in the North American items, despite its elimination from food packing by manufacturers.
That phase-out, Brady explained, occurred due to Food and Drug Administration concerns about the chemical's 'persistence in the body after dietary exposure.'
'Notably, 8:2 FTOH can be transformed into more toxic PFOA once inside the body,' Brady warned.
While recognizing that far less research exists on PFAS exposure via skin versus food or water, the authors cited initial studies on dermal absorption as a potentially 'significant exposure pathway for PFAS when present in feminine hygiene products.'
'Feminine hygiene products stay in contact with the skin for extended periods of time,' Venier said. 'The risks from the dermal absorption of PFAS, especially neutral PFAS, are not well understood.'
As such, the researchers called for further studies to define the risk of PFAS exposure via human skin. In addition, after identifying at least one sample per product category that contained zero intentionally added PFAS, they stressed that safer and healthier alternatives can likely be manufactured without them.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
21 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Sarepta-Roche Gene Therapy Fails to Get EU Regulator Approval
Roche Holding AG's gene therapy Elevidys failed to get the backing of European regulators. The European Medicines Agency's drug advisory committee recommended against Elevidys for children with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, the agency said Friday. The medicine had been intended for children aged 3 to 7 years who are able to walk.


Medscape
13 hours ago
- Medscape
Fast Five Quiz: Assessing Early Breast Cancer
Breast cancer screening, prevention, and management decisions are made on the basis of several factors related to family history, patient history, and, if a diagnosis of breast cancer is made, tumor type. Upon diagnosis, the determination of risk for recurrence and prognosis, as well as patient disease stage, health, and preferences, informs management strategies regarding neoadjuvant treatment, breast-conserving surgery, the type of radiation therapy used, if any, and whether adjuvant treatment should be initiated. Do you know the key aspects of risk assessment and their implications in early breast cancer? Test your knowledge with this quick quiz. Although all breast cancer types might recur despite early diagnosis and treatment, those defined as triple-negative breast cancer are considered high-risk for recurrence. Patients with this subtype usually have a significant risk for disease recurrence. Hormone receptor (HR)-positive tumors, which express estrogen receptors (ERs) and/or progesterone receptors (PRs), are generally defined as luminal-like, typically less aggressive, and having a more favorable prognosis. HER2-positive breast tumors are biologically aggressive tumors, but recurrence outcomes have dramatically improved with anti-HER2-targeted therapies. Learn more about breast cancer risk factors. On average, individuals harboring a germline BRCA1 mutation have up to a 72% risk of developing breast cancer by age 80 years; for those with a germline BRCA2 mutation, the risk is up to 69%. Because of the high lifetime risk for breast cancer in individuals with germline BRCA mutations, both US and European guidelines recommend considering prophylactic surgery, such as double mastectomy. Learn more about BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. According to the European Society for Medical Oncology, decisions about adding chemotherapy to adjuvant endocrine therapy are individualized on the basis of patient and disease factors, including results of genomic assays. Data have shown that most cases of small ER-positive, PR-positive, HER2-negative, or node-negative breast cancer generally have a good prognosis with endocrine therapy alone and usually do not require adjuvant chemotherapy. Although assessment of response to neoadjuvant endocrine therapy or chemotherapy is generally used in the setting of locally advanced breast cancer (particularly when the size and/or location of the tumor preclude breast-conserving surgery), patients with very small, early, HER2-negative, HR-positive cancer types are usually treated with surgery first, followed by radiation therapy and consideration of adjuvant therapy with an endocrine regimen, chemotherapy, or both. Ki-67 is an indirect measure of cell proliferation. Although a high Ki-67 score is often considered a marker for a poorer prognosis in early breast cancer, it cannot predict the benefit of chemotherapy as a single measure owing to many limitations. Learn more about breast cancer treatments. The risk for recurrence of a HER2-positive tumor is generally dependent on tumor size, the presence of positive axillary lymph nodes, tumor grade, and other histologic and patient factors. Before the development of effective anti-HER2 therapies, such as trastuzumab, novel anti-HER2 TKIs, or antibody-drug conjugates, HER2 positivity was associated with poor prognosis. The degree of HER2 positivity (ie, immunohistochemistry [IHC] 2+/fluorescence in situ hybridization amplified vs IHC 3+) is generally not correlated with recurrence risk, although it might be associated with greater responsiveness to anti-HER2-targeted therapies. Patients with early-stage, HER2-positive tumors with clinically positive lymph nodes are usually candidates for neoadjuvant systemic treatment with chemotherapy and pertuzumab plus trastuzumab. Age alone usually does not indicate if a patient may be considered for neoadjuvant systemic treatment, but data have shown that younger age (≤ 50 years) has been linked to disease recurrence in this population "across all treatments." The number of live births before age 40 years alone usually does not indicate if a patient may be considered for neoadjuvant systemic treatment as well. Learn more about family history and genetic risk factors for breast cancer. A diagnostic companion test for germline BRCA status is needed to select patients for PARP inhibitors in many countries. Such status can help determine how certain patients will respond to this treatment, as patients with germline BRCA mutations tend to have heightened sensitivity to PARP inhibitors and other DNA-damaging agents. Further, detecting these mutations in select patients and treating them with PARP inhibitors has been shown to improve progression-free and distant-disease-free survival, and they have become "a crucial treatment for breast cancer with BRCA mutations." For example, in 2022, the European Medicines Agency and the US FDA approved adjuvant olaparib, a PARP inhibitor, for the treatment of patients with deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA mutation and a diagnosis of HER2-negative, high-risk, early-stage breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. Ki-67 measurement, MRI findings alone, and a diagnostic companion test for ERBB2 (HER2) are usually not required when selecting adjuvant therapy with a PARP inhibitor in this setting. Learn more about PARP inhibitors for breast cancer. Editor's Note: This article was created using several editorial tools, including generative AI models, as part of the process. Human review and editing of this content were performed prior to publication.


Forbes
14 hours ago
- Forbes
Our Malady: Lessons In Liberty From A Hospital Diary by Timothy Snyder — Review
Health care should be a right, not a privilege, for the sake of our bodies, and for the sake of our souls. Emergency room visit. getty This summer, I have been deeply immersed in the many fascinating books written by Timothy Snyder, the inaugural Temerty Chair in Modern European History at the University of Toronto. Professor Snyder, who is currently on indefinite leave from his faculty position at Yale University, is an American historian specializing on 20th century atrocities, mainly those committed by the Nazis and the Stalinists. Amongst all his books – all brilliantly written – this particular book stood out to me because most people don't think so intensely about the intersections between history, politics, human rights and healthcare, including, as it turns out, the author himself. This changed abruptly after Professor Snyder fell ill in Germany just prior to the start of the pandemic in December 2019. He was released from hospital, undiagnosed, the following morning but ended up in hospital again a week or so later after returning to the United States, where an appendectomy seemed to correct his problems. He was released less than 24 hours after the surgery. A week later, he was back in hospital in Florida, suffering from a complex array of confusing symptoms. Were they related to the appendectomy or were they caused by something else entirely? No one knew. After this, Professor Snyder, who maintains a demanding schedule, was in and out of a number of hospitals in several states and European countries, but a diagnosis and an effective treatment remained elusive. Meanwhile, Professor Snyder became progressively, inexplicably, sicker. A few months later, he was gravely ill. Despite having health insurance, access to healthcare and a lot of support from family and friends, Professor Snyder almost died. Certainly, most Americans without healthcare in this situation would have died. I know I would have. Cover art for Our Malady: Lessons in Liberty and Solidarity by Timothy Snyder (2020, The Bodley ... More Head, London) The Bodley Head, London Throughout the entire ordeal, Professor Snyder kept a hospital diary where he recorded his symptoms, the test results and treatments provided, events and conversations, his dreams and he even drew pictures. This diary, which Professor Snyder refers to several times as 'a rant', was the basis of his book, Our Malady: Lessons in Liberty from a Hospital Diary (2020; Penguin Press / The Bodley Head). Despite its small size (168 pages, including 20 pages of notes in the back), Our Malady is a timely and gripping examination of the state of the healthcare system in the USA as compared to healthcare systems in several European countries. As you might guess: the USA does not measure up very well. 'Americans helped to establish health care as a human right around the world,' Professor Snyder laments (p. 41). 'Why then is health care not seen as such in the United States? Why are Americans not protected by the agreements that our government signed? Should we accept that citizens of other democracies enjoy a right that we are denied, and live longer and healthier lives than we do? Many of us seem to find that acceptable. Why?' The answer lies in the chokehold that the health insurance industry wields over Americans' access to healthcare and over the authority of medical doctors to provide adequate and necessary care to their patients. Without any relevant medical training or apparently, even any empathy, insurance agents often make medical decisions based on what's best for their insurance company's bottom line, rather than what's best for the patients; effectively prioritizing profits over people. 'When money becomes the only goal, values disappear, and people imitate the oligarchs,' Professor Snyder warns (p. 139). 'We do this now when we admire oligarchs' fantasies of immortality rather than ask why our own lives must be shortened. When we indulge the daydreams of the ultra-wealthy, we create what Plato called 'a city of the rich' and 'a city of the poor'.' Can you guess which of Plato's 'cities' all of us live in? Professor Snyder interweaves his thoughts about the U.S. healthcare system with his personal story of serious illness as he develops his ideas on democratic values, love of family, and even the meaning of life. Only by formally recognizing equal access to healthcare as a human right, by elevating the authority of doctors and of truth, and by planning for our children's future can everyone be truly free. Foremost, the author argues that we must see the provision of health services as a human right because without good health, any other ideas about freedom that we might have cease to have any value. This thoughtful and important book is a quick read and an incisive analysis of the profoundly flawed medical system in the United States. It presents a powerful and well-written proposition in support of the re-evaluation and reform of the healthcare system in the USA to make it more humane and effective for everyone involved, by removing the profit motive. What does a health insurance company do, anyway, except collect its subscribers' money and deny these same people access to healthcare when they become ill? Although this cri de coeur is largely based on Professor Snyder's participation as a patient in the US healthcare system, I find myself increasingly worried about what I see happening in Britain, where some of my family live, as that country appears to be moving towards abandoning the NHS in favor of privatized, for-profit medicine. Don't do this to your country , to your communities, to your families, to yourselves, I want to shout. This is a grotesque mistake. This will not end well . Throughout the entire book, Professor Snyder writes passionately about how prioritising profit over human lives in health care makes us all more unhealthy and more unfree. 'America is supposed to be about freedom, but illness and fear render us less free,' Professor Snyder observes (p. 17). 'The word freedom is hypocritical when spoken by the people who create the conditions that leave us sick and powerless. If our federal government and our commercial medicine make us unhealthy, they are making us unfree […] Rather than pursuing happiness as individuals, we are together creating a collective of pain.' Highly recommended. © Copyright by GrrlScientist | hosted by Forbes | Socials: Bluesky | CounterSocial | LinkedIn | Mastodon Science | Spoutible | SubStack | Threads | Tumblr | Twitter