Medical organizations and the university emphasize that the findings must be interpreted within the proper scientific context. (Photo: Christine Oelofse/Maroela Media)
The publication of new research on hormone-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in sanitary products has raised questions about the safety of millions of women who use them monthly.
The study, which was conducted by a team of researchers at the University of the Free State (UF) in February Science of theTotal Environment published, found small amounts of these chemicals in 16 types of sanitary napkins and seven types of mini wipes.
However, medical organizations and the university emphasize that the findings must be interpreted within the correct scientific context.
The researchers found small amounts of these chemicals in 16 types of sanitary napkins and seven types of mini wipes. (Photo: Christine Oelofse/Maroela Media)
According to the South African Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (SASOG), the South African Association of Reproductive Medicine and Gynecological Endoscopy (SASREG) and the College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (CMSA), it is important to understand that these substances are “pretty much everywhere in modern life”.
These associations believe that these chemicals are common and are found in low concentrations in various food products, household products, personal care and beauty products such as toothpaste, shampoo, body lotion, lipstick, clothing and electronics.
The finding that it was also found in products used for menstruation is, according to these bodies, “not surprising at all”.
The associations refer to a previous study in China according to which around 40% of EDC exposure comes from food, another 40% from other personal care products and 18% is attributed to indoor dust.
Of the personal care products analyzed, sanitary products represented only 6.8% of the overall exposure.
“If we relate these figures to the current study, it is clear that the findings must be read with the necessary perspective. Sanitary products should not be highlighted in isolation, as they probably only make a small contribution to the total EDC exposure,” reads a joint statement from the associations.
(Foto: Unsplash)
No proven cause for disease
The medical bodies emphasized that the findings must be read within the proper scientific context and that there is currently no reason for drastic action.
“The research does not show that the use of these products leads to infertility, hormone disorders or cancer. The findings must be understood in context, and there is no evidence in this study of harm to the general public.”
The associations also say that the calculated daily exposure is low and that the cumulative health risk has not yet been investigated.
“The currently available evidence does not justify a change in use. We have no evidence at this stage to advise consumers to stop using their menstrual products and there is no reason to change existing usage practices.”
(Photo: Christine Oelofse/Maroela Media)
UV stands for scientific integrity
In an official statement, the UFS further clarified the nature and scope of the research and emphasized that the study met strict academic standards.
“The research only involved laboratory tests to detect the presence of hormone-disrupting chemicals in sanitary products and did not include any testing on humans. This means that the research cannot prove that these chemicals cause diseases such as cancer or hormonal dysfunction.”
(Foto: Unsplash)
According to the university, the findings are based on laboratory data and rely on already published studies that investigated a possible link between the chemicals and health.
“The study is intended to provide scientific insight and indicate areas for further research, rather than to give concrete medical advice or determine direct health risks.”
The university has also confirmed the scientific integrity and credibility of the research process and the findings.
“The study was conducted in accordance with strict academic and ethical standards by researchers with recognized expertise in chemistry, microbiology and biochemistry. The methodology, data analysis and conclusions were subjected to independent peer review in an international scientific journal, which endorses the reliability of the work.”
However, the university makes it clear that the publication should not be regarded as a health warning against the use of sanitary products.
“The research does not claim that short-term use of menstrual products causes specific health conditions. Nor is the study designed to determine a direct causal relationship between the detected chemicals and diseases in women,” the statement reads.
“The findings are not intended to be medical advice or consumer prescriptions; they provide peer-reviewed scientific data and identify areas that require further clinical investigation.”
(Photo: Christine Oelofse/Maroela Media)
Regulation, transparency
Although the study raises questions about possible cumulative exposure over a woman’s reproductive life, the university emphasizes that no manufacturer is accused of illegal conduct.
“The study makes no findings of illegal conduct, regulatory non-compliance, negligence or willful misconduct by any manufacturer, supplier or distributor.
“Any provisions regarding compliance with applicable legislation fall exclusively within the mandate of the relevant regulatory authorities.”
However, the university believes the research has started a necessary conversation about product transparency.
“The study identifies an important knowledge gap, encourages further scientific and clinical investigation and emphasizes the need for greater transparency about the chemical composition of consumer products, as well as strengthened regulatory standards that are in line with current scientific evidence,” reads the statement.
(Photo: Christine Oelofse/Maroela Media)
Way forward
The university and the medical associations agree that further local research is needed to better understand the possible long-term impact of these chemicals.
The medical bodies have meanwhile recommended that South African regulatory authorities consider further testing to thoroughly evaluate the safety of these products.
The UFS points out that the study itself does not recommend that any of the tested products be withdrawn from the market.
“The aim of the scientific research carried out at the university is not to create fear, anxiety or panic.
“We strive to empower consumers, policymakers and health professionals through robust data and scientific evidence. While we recognize the public concern, scientific findings must be interpreted responsibly and within their evidence.”
