SCENE: A group of happy, energetic women talking together candidly outdoors.
WOMAN #1: I feel like I can exercise more.
WOMAN #2: Yeah, it's much easier. You don't have to keep changing them.
WOMAN #3: Now I even go swimming during my period!
CLOSE-UP on WOMAN #4 (smiling): I just love the safety and security I feel wearing a [INSERT BRAND] tampon, especially knowing that I risk getting Toxic Shock Syndrome and I may be exposing myself to dioxin, a carcinogenic chemical!
That's one commercial you'll never see.
73,000,000 women in the United States today directly risk exposing the most absorbent tissue in their bodies to a carcinogen called dioxin. And most women in this country -- and increasingly worldwide -- will do this for the majority of their lives, as they use chlorine-bleached, rayon-containing tampons and pads like Tampax, Playtex, and o.b.
This month, students across the country are campaigning against the dioxin and rayon in conventional tampons and pads, and the lack of complete, accessible information about the health risks these products pose to women everywhere.
Throughout April, students are writing letters of complaint to the CEOs of major tampon and pad manufacturers, and writing to their congressional representatives to support H.R. 890, the Tampon Safety and Research Act of 1999.
The action will culminate on April 22nd, Earth Day, when the complaint letters are sent to the companies along with women's rejected boxes of tampons and pads.
I had heard of the dioxin supposedly found in conventional tampons, and of the risks -- including cervical, ovarian, and breast cancers, Toxic Shock Syndrome, endometriosis, and infertility -- of bleaching and putting rayon in your body. But I had also heard that all the health risks were just rumors. A little research turned up plenty of conflicting information.
Here are the basic facts: 1) Most tampons contain a mixture of cotton and rayon. Rayon is a wood product, and like most other wood pulp products in the U. S., is bleached using chlorine gas or chlorine dioxide. The same goes for bleached cotton. Chlorine bleaching produces the chemical commonly known as dioxin, which is classified as a "known human carcinogen" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization. So, the rayon and cotton that go into tampons, if bleached with chlorine, are dioxin-laden.
2) Dioxin absorbs into fat cells. Vaginal tissue is some of the fattiest, most absorbent tissue in the female body.
3) Toxic Shock Syndrome is an often-fatal disease associated with tampon use. Tampon users (I hope) know this already; it's labeled on the box. What isn't labeled, however, is the medical fact that rayon harbors the TSS toxin-producing bacterium Staphylococcus aureus. A study published in the journal Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynecology found that all-cotton tampons did not produce Staphylococcus aureus.
A web search led me to a Food and Drug Administration page that claims that while the chlorine bleaching process formerly used in the U.S. to bleach the rayon in tampons did produce dioxin, this process is no longer in use.
The new Elemental Chlorine Free (ECF) bleaching process, the FDA says, does not produce dioxin. On the other hand, the text of the Tampon Safety and Research Act, which was introduced in the U. S. House of Representatives by Carolyn Maloney in 1997 and again on March 1, 1999, says that "most pulp and paper manufacturers, which produce the raw materials used in tampons, currently use either elemental-chlorine or chlorine-dioxide bleaching processes. Both of these bleaching processes use chlorine and therefore produce dioxin."
Who Should You Trust ? Given that the FDA relies on data provided by tampon manufacturers to monitor the safety of feminine hygiene products, and that a 1992 House study revealed FDA internal documents that indicated that "the agency has not adequately investigated the danger of dioxins in tampons," I'm inclined to believe the House of Representatives.
I called Rep. Maloney's office to find out how they reconciled the bill's data with the FDA website information. According to Maloney's office, the ECF process actually does use chlorine. A lawsuit is pending against wood pulp processors to change the misnomer, and the FDA recently told Maloney that they would fix the wording of their webpage.
At the very least, the House bill suggests that there just isn't enough information, and that what exists is unclear. The bill calls on the National Institutes of Health to research "the extent to which the presence of dioxin, synthetic fibers, and other additives in tampons and similar products used by women with respect to menstruation pose any risks to the health of women."
Risk of both dioxin poisoning and TSS increase with repeated exposure. An average use of up to 16,800 tampons (the House's estimate) in a woman's lifetime sounds like repeated exposure to me. I would say it's time for independent research.
The issues at stake extend beyond the few facts and figures I've outlined here. Pages of scientific, congressional, and corporate reports only raise questions about differing standards within government agencies for dioxin danger thresholds, gender bias within medical testing, and consumer right-to-know. When I think about the lack of information available on this subject, I have to wonder whether this would still be an issue if men used tampons too.
Women who use bleached pads are at less of a risk than tampon users, but ideally, we would use all-cotton, unbleached tampons and pads. Few women know that such a product exists, but there are in fact several brands.
Most health food stores, carry at least one, though they may not always be in stock.
A better bet is to purchase online at the websites of NatraCare, Terra Femme, Seventh Generation, and the many other environmentally-friendly tampon and pad companies.
FROM : Yale Daily News - April 1999 - Hilary Kaplan |