July 7th, 2024

First study to measure toxic metals in tampons shows arsenic and lead

A UC Berkeley study found toxic metals like lead, arsenic, and cadmium in tampons, raising health concerns due to high absorption potential. Manufacturers urged to test products and improve labeling. Future research planned.

Read original articleLink Icon
First study to measure toxic metals in tampons shows arsenic and lead

A recent study led by a UC Berkeley researcher has revealed that tampons from various brands contain toxic metals such as lead, arsenic, and cadmium. The study, the first of its kind, highlights concerns about potential health risks associated with these contaminants, especially considering the high absorption potential of the vaginal skin. Metals like arsenic and lead, known to pose health risks including dementia, infertility, and cancer, were found in all types of tampons tested. The concentrations varied based on factors like organic vs. non-organic and store- vs. name-brand tampons. The study emphasizes the need for manufacturers to test their products for toxic metals and for better labeling on menstrual products. While the study did not determine if these metals lead to negative health effects, future research will investigate the leaching of metals from tampons into the body and explore the presence of other chemicals in these products. Funding for the study was provided by various institutes, and the full paper can be accessed for more details.

Related

Forever chemicals are absorbed through human skin

Forever chemicals are absorbed through human skin

A study from the University of Birmingham reveals 'forever chemicals' PFAS can be absorbed through human skin, contradicting previous beliefs. PFAS in consumer products pose risks, with some chemicals absorbed more easily.

Scientists find another way we're exposed to forever chemicals: Through our skin

Scientists find another way we're exposed to forever chemicals: Through our skin

A study found PFAS in beauty products can penetrate skin, entering the bloodstream. Shorter chains absorb more, raising health concerns. Awareness and choosing PFAS-free products are advised to reduce exposure risks.

PFAS absorbed through skin at levels higher than previously thought

PFAS absorbed through skin at levels higher than previously thought

New research from the University of Birmingham shows high skin absorption of toxic PFAS forever chemicals, challenging previous beliefs. PFAS, found in makeup, pose health risks including cancer and birth defects. Further research is needed.

Coffee, eggs and white rice linked to higher levels of PFAS in humans

Coffee, eggs and white rice linked to higher levels of PFAS in humans

A study links PFAS levels in humans to coffee, eggs, white rice, seafood, and red meat consumption. PFAS are persistent chemicals associated with health risks. Advocates urge environmental protection and varied diets for lower PFAS exposure.

WHO says talc is 'probably' cancer-causing

WHO says talc is 'probably' cancer-causing

The World Health Organization's cancer agency classified talc as "probably carcinogenic" due to limited evidence linking it to ovarian cancer. Johnson & Johnson withdrew talcum-based products amid safety concerns. Acrylonitrile was also classified as "carcinogenic to humans."

Link Icon 6 comments
By @defrost - 5 months
Study measuring toxic metals in tampons shows arsenic, lead, other contaminants

Article: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-07-toxic-metals-tampons-...

Full paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041202...

HN: 2 days ago | 3 comments | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40879497

By @noisy_boy - 5 months
I am genuinely curious about such not-so-infrequent reports of finding metals like arsenic/lead etc in various commonly used items. Are these metals such essential/common part of modern industrial processing that chances of them being everywhere is inherently higher? If so, is it that much cost prohibitive to change the processing to remove them from the final product? Even if so, how come they haven't been removed due to the massive scaling/improvement of production process that we have witnessed in the last few decades?
By @complaintdept - 5 months
Can anyone with access to the paper list the results by brand?
By @RecycledEle - 5 months
120 nanograms of lead per gram = 0.1 PPM lead levels