Industry pushes back as UFS study finds hormone‑disrupting chemicals in sanitary pads
EDANA offers a counter‑narrative that urges caution in interpreting the findings and emphasises existing global safety assessments.
A groundbreaking study by the University of the Free State (UFS) has detected hormone‑disrupting chemicals in every sanitary pad and pantyliner tested in South Africa, sparking widespread concern among consumers and health professionals. But now, industry body EDANA has entered the conversation, offering a counter‑narrative that urges caution in interpreting the findings and emphasises existing global safety assessments.
Widespread contamination raises health questions
The UFS study—published in Science of the Total Environment—found that all 16 sanitary pad brands and eight pantyliner types tested contained at least two endocrine‑disrupting chemicals (EDCs), including phthalates, bisphenols (such as BPA), and parabens. Bisphenols appeared in 100% of pads and 75% of liners, while parabens were present in over 81% of pads. Phthalates were detected in all pantyliners and half of sanitary pads tested.
Researchers warned that even low‑level exposures may become harmful over time. Because menstrual products come into prolonged contact with **mucosal tissue—far more absorbent than regular skin—**repeated use may contribute to hormonal imbalances, fertility issues, endometriosis, and even some cancers.
“We do believe manufacturers should disclose all chemicals in their products, even if they fall below daily limits,” said Prof. Deon Visser, Head of Chemistry at UFS, who emphasised gaps in South Africa’s regulatory framework. Currently, South African standards test for absorbency and microbiology but not for chemical contaminants, and manufacturers are not required to disclose full ingredient lists.
EDANA responds: ‘Detection does not equal danger’
In a detailed statement responding to the UFS findings, EDANA, the international association representing the nonwovens and absorbent hygiene industry, urged the public and media to interpret the results within proper scientific context.
EDANA serves as the global voice of the nonwovens industry, acting as a key advocate for safety, sustainability, and technical standards in the manufacturing of absorbent hygiene products, including sanitary pads (femcare). They provide industry guidelines, safety assessments, and stewardship programs to ensure the quality and safety of menstrual products.
The organisation emphasised three key points:
1. Chemicals were not intentionally added
EDANA maintains that the chemicals identified are not intentionally included in sanitary products but may appear as trace environmental contaminants at extremely low levels. These, they say, align with “background environmental presence” rather than direct addition by manufacturers.
2. Exposure—not detection—determines risk
According to EDANA, laboratory methods that measure total content do not necessarily reflect what users are exposed to. They argue that Exposure‑Based Risk Assessment (EBRA)—aligned with WHO and European Chemicals Agency standards—is the appropriate method for determining safety.
The association notes that trace detection does not automatically translate into health risk, as what matters is the migratable fraction—the amount that actually transfers to the body under real‑world use conditions.
3. Products already undergo safety assessments
EDANA insists that member‑manufactured menstrual products are subject to rigorous pre‑market safety evaluations and comply with national and international frameworks. They caution against drawing conclusions based solely on the presence of chemicals without considering actual exposure and industry‑standard risk assessment practices.
Consumer uncertainty grows amid competing narratives
The industry’s response adds complexity for consumers already unsettled by the UFS findings. While researchers highlight long‑term exposure risks and lack of regulation, EDANA argues that context, assessment methodology, and exposure science are critical to avoid causing unnecessary alarm.
Still, UFS insists that South Africans cannot rely solely on “clean” or “chemical‑free” labels, which the study found do not necessarily reflect the true chemical profile of the products.
What consumers can do right now
Amid conflicting messages, experts recommend practical steps for those seeking safer options:
✔ Choose products certified under the OEKO‑TEX Standard 100
This international certification tests for harmful substances using some of the world’s most stringent criteria. Prof. Visser advised consumers specifically to look for this mark.
✔ Consider reusable alternatives
Reusable sanitary pads—particularly those made of natural fibres—may reduce exposure to chemical residues. The UFS team is developing a new reusable pad with antimicrobial properties, part of their broader initiative to improve menstrual health access and safety.
A call for greater transparency
Despite differing viewpoints, one message is clear: South Africa needs stronger chemical safety standards and full disclosure requirements for menstrual products. UFS researchers say this is essential for informed consumer choice, while EDANA argues that improved harmonisation of testing and risk assessment could help align public understanding with scientific reality.
As the debate continues, one thing is certain, millions of South African consumers are demanding clarity, and the spotlight on menstrual product safety is unlikely to dim anytime soon.
©Higher Education Media Services