We Fought for Access to Period Products. Now We Must Talk About What’s in Them.
I spend a lot of my time talking about periods in rooms where people would rather not. Classrooms. Boardrooms. Policy meetings. Radio studios. Sometimes the people listening are menstruators who feel seen for the first time. Sometimes they are decision-makers who have never had to think about menstrual products beyond picking them up for someone else.
So when news broke about a recent University of the Free State study detecting traces of hormone-disrupting chemicals in some menstrual pads and pantyliners sold in South Africa, my first reaction was not panic. It was a kind of quiet, familiar frustration. Not because the findings were surprising — but because they fit into a pattern many of us in menstrual health have been naming for years.
Menstrual health is often treated as urgent when it comes to access, but optional when it comes to safety and research.
For those who do not menstruate, this moment might feel distant or technical. But imagine using a product every month, for several days at a time, over decades, and having little to no information about what it contains, how it is tested, or how it is regulated. Imagine being told that this product is essential for your participation in school, work, and public life, but that questions about its composition are overreactions.
That is the reality many menstruators live with.
Access was always only the beginning
Over the past decade, South Africa has made important progress in recognising menstrual health as a public issue, with the Sanitary Dignity Policy Framework. We are fighting for free product distribution in schools. We are pushing for dignity packs and policy inclusion. We are working to normalise conversations that were once whispered.
I have been in classrooms where learners tell me how access to pads will allow them not to miss out on school. I have seen the relief that comes with not having to improvise or hide. Those moments matter. Access matters.
But as access improves, new questions emerge. What exactly are we giving people access to? And who is responsible for ensuring that these products meet the highest safety standards?
The University of the Free State study does not tell us to panic. It tells us to pay attention. It reminds us that menstrual products are not neutral objects. They are used repeatedly, intimately, and over long periods of time. That alone should make them a public-health priority.
Why this moment matters — even if you don’t menstruate
For non-menstruators reading this, it is easy to see menstrual products as ordinary consumer goods. But they are closer in use to healthcare items than to household items. They sit against the body for hours at a time. They are used by young people whose bodies are still developing. They are relied upon by adults who must continue with daily responsibilities while menstruating.
If traces of hormone-disrupting chemicals are present in some products, even at low levels, it is reasonable to ask for more research. It is reasonable to ask for transparency. And it is reasonable to expect strong regulatory standards.
This is not a fringe issue. It is a public-health issue.
Menstrual health has historically been under-funded and under-researched. Conditions such as fibroids, endometriosis, and severe period pain continue to be under-diagnosed and under-treated, particularly among Black women. Research shows that Black women are more likely to experience fibroids and related complications, yet are often less likely to be taken seriously when seeking care.
When we talk about menstrual product safety, we are not only talking about chemistry. We are talking about whose health concerns are prioritised and whose are delayed. We are talking about a broader pattern in which women’s health, and particularly Black women’s health, has not always received sustained investment.
One of the challenges of this moment is how easily it can tip into extremes. On one side, there is the risk of alarmism: the idea that all menstrual products are suddenly dangerous. On the other, there is the risk of dismissal: the suggestion that raising questions is unnecessary or disruptive.
Neither response serves menstruators well.
Many people rely on disposable pads and liners because they are the most accessible and affordable option. Conversations about chemical safety must not undermine access to these products. At the same time, access should not come at the cost of transparency.
It is possible to hold both truths:
Menstruators need access to products.
Menstruators also deserve products that are safe, well-regulated, and transparent.
These are not competing priorities. They are interconnected.
When I read about the UFS findings, I thought about the young people I meet in workshops across the country. Many are still learning the basics of how their bodies work. Many are still navigating stigma at home and at school. They are often told to be grateful simply to have access to products at all.
Gratitude should not cancel out curiosity. Access should not cancel out accountability. We can be thankful for progress and still ask questions about quality. We can celebrate increased distribution and still push for stronger regulation. In fact, that is what progress requires.
As the menstrual health movement grows, our questions must evolve. We have moved from silence to conversation. From stigma to visibility. Now we must move from visibility to accountability.
What happens next
The University of the Free State study should not be the final word. It should be the beginning of deeper research, clearer regulation, and more transparent communication. It should prompt collaboration between researchers, policymakers, manufacturers, and advocates.
We need:
- Continued independent research into menstrual product composition and long-term exposure
- Stronger safety and testing standards
- Clearer labelling and ingredient disclosure
- Public education that empowers informed choice
Most importantly, we need to treat menstrual health as an integral part of public health – not as a niche issue to be addressed only when it becomes newsworthy.
Why this conversation matters now
For years, menstrual health advocacy has been about ensuring that menstruators can show up to school, work, and public life with dignity. That work continues. But dignity also means trust. It means knowing that the products you rely on every month have been tested, regulated, and transparently produced.
The UFS study does not demand fear. It demands attention. It invites us to expand our understanding of menstrual justice — from access alone to access plus safety, research, and accountability.
For those who do not menstruate, this is an opportunity to listen and engage. Menstrual health affects families, workplaces, schools, and communities. It affects public health systems and economic participation. It is not a private issue. It is a collective one.
We have fought hard to make menstrual health visible.
Now we must ensure that visibility translates into care, investment, and trust.
Because menstrual health is public health.
And public health deserves our full attention.
Period.