by Samantha A. Mitchell

An English Literature major with a minor in Philosophy, Sammi Mitchell wrote this essay for Tim Bradford’s “Humans, Nature: Fragile Future” class.

Recently, while my friend Jen and I were indulging in our bi-weekly shopping trip to TJ Maxx, after taking an aromatic stroll down the candle isle, we approached the ladies’ intimates’ section. Following a brief unimpressed look of the selections, Jen wandered off to the makeup section while I began to thumb through the racks loaded with bras of assorted colors and styles. Quickly becoming equally as unimpressed as my friend, I began to lose interest until I caught a glance of a dangling price tag affixed to a Calvin Klein bra that read “$39.99”. I quietly laughed to myself in that sort of “you’ve got to be kidding me” way. Calling over to Jen, I held up the garment with price tag in clear view. She began to shake her head with the same “you’ve got to be kidding me” connotation I had conveyed a few moments prior. We both let out a sigh of frustration accompanied by an eyeroll. The familiar feeling of annoyance caused by the ever rising prices of items that are considered essential to a women’s comfort was mutual. Jen looked at me with disappointed eyes and said, “The cost of being a woman is only going up” and we both knew that she wasn’t just referencing the monetary cost.

In an article published by The Mental Health Foundation that discusses the psychological toll of being a woman in modern society, research scientists provide the upsetting statistic that women are three times more likely than men to suffer from common mental health conditions, such as anxiety and depression (“Men and Women: Statistics”). One often-considered cause of these mental health struggles is the evident misogynistic ideology that persists in modern society and negatively affects many aspects of a woman’s life. One of these effects being the financial strain caused by gender biased pricing on essential women’s items such as bras, personal care products, and disposable feminine products (“Statement on the Detrimental Impacts of Misogyny on Mental Health”). In a 2015 study, The Department of Consumer Affairs found that in every industry, products indicated as being for women were 43% more likely to be priced higher than those equivalent to men (Blasio and Menin). More specifically, according to the National Organization for Women, feminine products will cost a woman an average of 18,000 dollars from the beginning of menarche to the ending of menopause (Williams). While the high monetary cost of these products is a burden to the wallets of women everywhere, the 200,000 metric tons of waste that tampons, pads, and panty liners generate annually make them a burden to the environment as well. Because the main components used to produce disposable feminine products are plastics and other non-compostable materials, they can take 500 to 800 years to decompose, polluting the earth for generations to come (Rodriguez). Still, despite the negative environmental and economic impacts caused by disposable feminine products, it is a fact that both pads and tampons remain the most frequently chosen menstrual management products amongst consumers, but the question is why (“Period Products”)? I believe that the answer may lie in the aforementioned misogynistic ideology that has affected the way that menstruation is socially perceived since the ancient Greek Era.

In an article published by National Geographic, it is said that the process of menstruation was thought of by the Grecian writers of the time as “something fundamentally insalubrious, a symbol of female excess, a “humor” that needed to be expelled from the body in order to maintain balance and health” (Borunda). This attitude towards menstruation persisted for centuries and by the mid 1800’s, the notion had made its way to the United States where a women’s period blood was often harshly referred to by men as “bad blood” and “shameful” (Borunda). As the biased rhetoric toward menstruation continued to grow, women began to look for ways of making the process discreet and inconspicuous to avoid embarrassment. Prior to the 20^th century many women attempted to repurpose common items to provide the discretion they desired and add comfort to the process of menstruation. While women were resourceful, using a variety of materials such as left-over pieces of fabric and even soft pieces of tree bark, these methods proved unsuccessful in their management of menstruation and more importantly, were extremely uncomfortable (Booker). However, in 1921 the popular feminine hygiene brand Kotex swooped in to save the day — or pollute it — when the first packages of disposable feminine products hit drugstore shelves (“The History of Tampons”). By the 1930’s tampons were deemed the sensible choice by many women who saw it vital to continue “hiding” their periods. Because of this, the invention of the tampon in 1931 was a life altering addition for many women due to its increased convenience and discretion that allowed female athletes and women in the workplace to carry on with their daily functions while menstruating (“The History of Tampons”). The success of the tampon skyrocketed and by the end of World War II, sales of the disposable feminine menstrual product had quintupled (Borunda). However, women were not the only ones intrigued by the new and improved menstruation management products. By the 1960’s, following quick-paced technological advances with plastics, manufacturers turned their attention to the world of menstrual products, seeing it as a market in which their plastics could be largely successful. Proving correct, during the 1970’s, chemists discovered that plastics could be molded into thin, flexible, rounded shapes, and along with this discovery came the entirely plastic tampon applicator that we still see in product manufacturing today (“The History of Tampons”).

The use of plastics in disposable feminine products provided many improvements in the ways of convenience and comfort, and as such, the inclusion of the material in the production process has continued, with modern tampons and pads being composed of up to 90% plastic (Daish). Considering the mass quantities of plastic needed to keep up with the high demand for disposable feminine products in modern times, the earlier mentioned centuries long decomposition process of them becomes even more concerning. Additionally, the improper disposal of these (not so disposable) feminine products further extends the environmental decline that they cause. While disposing of feminine products in a garbage bin is the appropriate disposal method, many choose to flush tampon applicators and pantyliners down the toilet, finding it more discreet. Because of this, the flushed items ultimately end up in sewage, waterways, and on beaches in excess amounts. In 2004 The Ocean Conservancy’s International Coastal Cleanup reported collecting almost 18,000 used tampons and applicators from beaches around the world (“Together Ocean”). This pollution of waterways and beaches not only effects humans, but significantly endangers marine ecosystems as well as their inhabitants such as turtles, fish, seabirds, and many others. As disposable feminine products progressively break down into microplastics, referring to tiny plastic debris components broken down from consumer products, countless marine animals mistake these particles for food and ingest them. As their stomachs become full of plastic, many of these animals die of starvation, or contamination (Dillon). Regardless of whether disposable feminine products occupy a landfill for the next several hundred years, or compromise natural ecosystems by way of water, the environmental threat that is caused by their unsustainable composition is inescapable.

Despite the prevalent environmental threat imposed by plastic containing feminine products, the copious amounts of fossil fuel needed to produce them is of greater concern to environmentalists. According to an article published by Leafscore.com, a year’s worth of disposable period products was estimated by a Harvard researcher to have a carbon footprint of 5.3 kg CO2 equivalents. In comparison, the carbon footprint from the production of reusable feminine menstruation products such as multi-use menstruation cups or washable pads, was 3.4kg CO2 equivalents a year, which is a 35% reduction of impact (Matthews). These excessive amounts of Carbon dioxide in the air warm the earth, causing climate change and progressive environmental decline, and environmental scientists from various specialties all agree that humans are the problem. An article published in MIT’s Climate Portal explains that the human species arose, evolved, and experienced sustainable life in a climate that contained approximately only 200-300 ppm (parts per million) of atmospheric CO2 and, additionally, the amount of CO2 in the air recorded several centuries ago before humans began to burn CO2 producing fuels, such as coal and oil at an industrial scale, was as low as roughly 280 ppm (Moseman). So, just how much have we as humans increased that number over time? Climate change scientist at NASA say that the most recent reading shows 419 ppm of CO2 in our air, further confirming the expedited evolvement of our pollution, as the reading taken only 15 years ago in 2017, was 380 ppm.

Environmental scientists believe that as the earth’s population continues to increase, activities such as burning coal, driving gas powered cars, and the production of many commodities, like feminine products that have already raised the atmospheric CO2 levels by 50% over the past 200 years, will only become more frequently practiced (NASA). As the CO2 levels in the atmosphere continue to rise, so does the earth’s temperature. With these increasing temperatures, we are poised to see rises in sea levels, leading to the loss of coastal land, a change in precipitation patterns, increased risks of droughts and floods, and threats to biodiversity. As temperature elevation continues it will cause many serious alterations to the environment, and eventually the decline of human health due to more frequent extreme weather events, changes in the prevalence and geographical distribution of food, and water-borne illnesses and other infectious diseases. With these harmful consequences in mind, environmentalist and scientist alike are pleading that we take seriously and heed their warning that the temporary comforts that require burning of profuse amounts of fossil fuel, will ultimately cause burdens for generations to come.

However, the environment is not the only victim of the harmful effects of unsustainable feminine products. In the United States, while feminine products such as pads and tampons are regulated by an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the products are included in the “medical devices” category, along with other items such as dental floss and condoms. This means that, while the FDA recommends that manufacturers include details regarding the material composition on their packaging, it is simply no more than a recommendation rather than a mandatory disclosure (Medicine). Meanwhile, while pet food is also regulated by the FDA, according to FDA.gov, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) requires that pet foods, like human foods, be safe to eat, produced under sanitary conditions, contain no harmful substances, and be truthfully labeled (Medicine). This means that there are in fact more government regulations placed on disclosing the ingredients in pet food than within the products that those with periods place inside their bodies.

This abhorrent lack of government regulation seems deceitful and unnecessary, leading me to pose yet another question regarding disposable feminine products; why is this neglect by the FDA rarely, if ever, discussed or even known of? Because misogynistic ideology involves the perception of women as inferior to men in a variety of ways, including intelligence, it again seems plausible to consider the prevalent existence of misogyny as a potential reason for the troubling lack of disclosure on feminine products. Although the reason for the lack of easily accessible information about the materials within disposable feminine products remains in question, the end result of uniformed consumers that it causes remains fact. Thankfully, two scientists based out of New York took matters into their own hands by conducting the first U.S. study to uncover just what is inside of these widely consumed products. During their study, scientists Gao and Kannan collected a variety of feminine hygiene products of varying prices from 47 popular brands that are widely marketed throughout the United States. The results were shocking with more than 90% of the feminine products analyzed containing nine different phthalates and all the products containing more than one paraben. According to the study, elevated exposure to these phthalates and parabens has been associated with early puberty, endometriosis, female genital tumors, breast cancer, and ovulation disorders that have the potential to largely affect fertility (Gao & Kannan).

So, with these environmental and biological hazards in mind, what is the solution? Women in India might have an answer. Because women represent nearly 50% of the population in India, the amount of non-biodegradable waste caused by disposable feminine products plagues the country with significant environmental implications. Additionally, many of these women are from low-middle class backgrounds, making the need for sustainable and affordable menstruation products overwhelmingly high (Achuthan, Muthupalani, Kolil, et al). During the COVID-19 pandemic India’s “period poverty” as it is sometimes referred to, was at an all-time high. With the ability to earn an income and large-scale production of pads and tampons being impeded by the pandemic, in addition to the progressive environmental decline, women in India began to look for an alternative to expensive, disposable, and now hard to find feminine products. The answer came in the form of a yellow, radioactive fruit, the banana (Edwards). Though longtime hailed as a versatile fruit for culinary needs and a wonderful source of potassium, the banana, or more aptly, its fiber, has provided women in India with a surprisingly effective alternative to plastic based, and chemical containing feminine menstruation products. In 2013, Saukhyam Reusable Pads, an India based feminine product company that was determined to provide sustainability, affordability, and accessibility to the women of India, was born.

In an interview with Healthshots.com, co-director of the company, Anju Bist, discusses what makes their products different and how they are fighting the stigma surrounding menstruation. Bist explains that banana fiber is the main component of the reusable Saukhyam pads and unlike popular disposable feminine products that often require the demolition of trees for production, “The banana tree fruits only once after which it is cut. Banana fiber is extracted from agro waste, and no living trees are harmed”. Bist goes on to explain that these pads contain a grand total of only two materials in comparison to the standard disposable feminine products discussed above. These two materials, banana fiber and cotton cloth, are safe for the human body, biodegradable, and can be reused for up to 5 years (Bhardwaj). Both sustainable and affordable, the price of the banana fiber pads (BFP’s) is an affordable 280 Rs (Indian Rupee) and can be reused for years to come, unlike their alternative single use feminine products that Indian women are estimated to spend approximately 1200 Rs on in a single year. Additionally, addressing the issue of “period poverty” within India, Bist says that the company is committed to providing accessibility to women who are in dire need of their products and providing public education on the importance of better menstrual management options for women. “Our team is trying to build the last-mile delivery network, so that these pads can be easily available and accessible to all” says Bist. With the considerable success of the BFP’s, the company is looking to expand their team to the most rural and remote parts of India. Bist is hopeful for the future and says, “Reusable will become mainstream, and disposable will come to be known as the old-fashioned idea that it is – we are moving ahead with this conviction”, which is certainly an outcome, regardless of geographical location, we should all hope for (Bhardwaj).

While banana fiber pads seem like the perfect solution for a detrimental problem, unfortunately this sustainable option might not be possible for the U.S. With the largest crop in terms of total production in the U.S. being corn, the restricted access to banana trees and bananas that isn’t a factor in India, poses a logistical problem in producing BFP’s in North America (Capehart & Proper). While a multitude of banana tree farms could be created here in the U.S., doing so would require the destruction of native land and ecosystems that have thrived for centuries, solving one problem and creating another. With limited access to banana trees in North America, the idea of outsourcing the BFP’s and ordering them directly from India seems like an easy solution. However, receiving the BFP’s from India requires the use of transportation via cargo planes which emit 500 grams of carbon dioxide/metric tons of cargo per kilometer of transportation (Kilgore). With the distance between the U.S. and India being 13,568km, and 500 grams of CO2 emitted each kilometer, the total CO2 emissions for a cargo plane to make only one delivery of BFP’s to North America is a staggering 6,784,000 grams (“Distance from India to United States”). With this in mind, the sustainability that BFP’s would offer the U.S. would come at the cost of various significant unsustainable requirements once again, solving one problem, and creating another.

While we may not have large scale access to banana trees here in the U.S., or the ability to manufacture or receive BFP’s without significantly negatively impacting the environment, there is another alternative to unsustainable feminine products in North America that is widely accessible and have been…for nearly a century. Although menstrual cups have been around since the 1930s, the shame surrounding menstrual blood and its management, hindered the products success until recently, during the 21^st century (North & Oldham). A menstrual cup is a flexible cup made of natural rubber, chemical free silicone, or thermoplastic elastomers designed to be utilized the same way as its unsustainable alternative, the tampon. However, because the materials of the cup allow it to collect the period blood rather than absorb it, the product has the ability to be reused for up to ten years (Nall). Evidence of the products sustainability can be seen in an article published by CNN.com that explains how one menstrual cup produces an estimated 0.4% of the plastic waste that single-use pads build up, or 6% of that created by tampons in the span of 10 years (Avramova).

Still, while the use of the menstrual cup offers users a chemical free, sustainable option for menstrual management, there are drawbacks to the product with many of its users considering it “messier and more shameful” than standard unsustainable feminine menstruation products (Higgins). While the solution to unsustainable menstrual products in the U.S. isn’t black and white (or in the case of BFP’s, yellow), continuing technological advancements allow the production of new sustainable, yet need-specific, options for menstrual management such as reusable period underwear and menstrual discs. More encouragingly, as the discussion of environmental decline becomes more prevalent, so does consumer awareness, with 79% of purchasers being willing to change the products that they use for more sustainable options if they were available (“Consumers Are Ready for Environmentally Friendly Hygiene Products.”).

As women continue to fight everyday misogyny and the social stigmas surrounding the management of menstruation, the lack of government regulation unsustainable feminine products in the U.S. cannot be overshadowed. Continual progression of consumer awareness and technological advancements are crucial for the protection of the environment and the health of those who utilize feminine products. With continued efforts for the demand of safer, more sustainable menstrual products, women have the opportunity to prove their resilience and determination yet again.

Works Cited

Achuthan, K., Muthupalani, S., Kolil, V.K. et al. A novel banana fiber pad for menstrual hygiene in India: a feasibility and acceptability study. BMC Women’s Health 21, 129 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-021-01265-w

Avramova, Nina. “There’s an Effective, Environmentally Friendly Option for People with Periods, and Few Know about It, Research Says.” CNN, Cable News Network, 16 July 2019, www.cnn.com/2019/07/16/health/menstrual-cup-study-intl-trnd/index.html.

Bhardwaj, Nikita. “These Reusable Sanitary Pads Made of Banana Fibre Are Helping Women Have an Eco-Friendly Period.” Healthshots, 14 Jan. 2021, www.healthshots.com/intimate health/menstruation/these-reusable-sanitary-pads-made-of-banana-fibre-are-helping women-have-an-eco-friendly-period/.

Blasio, Bill De, and Julie Menin. “From Cradle to Cane: The Cost of Being a Female Consumer.” Government Publications Portal, Dec. 2015, a860-gpp.nyc.gov/concern/nyc_government_publications/t148fh55b.

Booker, Ashley. “The Shocking Evolution of Period Products.” Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest, Inc., 2016, www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-pacific southwest/blog/the-shocking-evolution-of-period-products.

Borunda, Alejandra. “How Tampons and Pads Became Unsustainable and Filled with Plastic.” Environment, National Geographic, 3 May 2021, www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/how-tampons-pads-became unsustainable-story-of-plastic.

Capehart, Tom, and Susan Proper. “Corn Is America’s Largest Crop in 2019.” USDA, 29 July 2019, www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/11/remove-plastic-from-period-products/.

“Consumers Are Ready for Environmentally Friendly Hygiene Products.” News | Stora Enso, 2022, www.storaenso.com/en/newsroom/news/2021/10/consumers-are-ready-for environmentally-friendly-hygiene-products.

Daish, Ella. “My Fight for Plastic-Free Period Products, and Why It Matters.” World Economic Forum, 2020, www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/11/remove-plastic-from-period-products/.

“Distance from India to United States.” Distance Between Cities, 2023, www.distancefromto.net/distance-from-india-to-united-states.

Edwards, Gordon. “About Radioactive Bananas – CCNR.” Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, 2020, www.ccnr.org/About_Radioactive_Bananas.pdf.

Gao, C., & Kannan, K. (2020). Phthalates, bisphenols, parabens, and triclocarban in feminine hygiene products from the United States and their implications for human exposure. Environment International, 136, 105465.

Higgins, Erin. “Are Menstrual Cups Right for You?” Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, 23 Mar. 2023, health.clevelandclinic.org/tired-of-tampons-here-are-pros-and-cons-of menstrual-cups/.

Kilgore, Georgette. “Air Freight vs Sea Freight Carbon Footprint (the Real Numbers in 2023).” 8 Billion Trees, 2023, 8billiontrees.com/carbon-offsets-credits/carbon-ecological-footprint calculators/air-freight-vs-sea-freight-carbon-footprint/.

Matthews, Leigh. “The Environmental Impact of Menstrual Products.” LeafScore, 21 Apr. 2022, www.leafscore.com/eco-friendly-bath-products/environmental-impact-of-menstrual products/.

Medicine, C. for V. (n.d.). Information on marketing a pet food product. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Retrieved December 3, 2022, from https://www.fda.gov/animal veterinary/animal-health-literacy/information-marketing-pet-food-product

“Men and Women: Statistics.” Mental Health Foundation, 2016, www.mentalhealth.org.uk/explore-mental-health/statistics/men-women-statistics.

Moseman, Andrew. “What Is the Ideal Level of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere for Human Life?” MIT Climate Portal, 2021, climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/what-ideal-level-carbon dioxide-atmosphere-human-life.

Nall, Rachel. “Are Menstrual Cups Dangerous?” Healthline, Healthline Media, 2022, www.healthline.com/health/menstrual-cup-dangers.

NASA. (2022, August 22). Carbon dioxide concentration. NASA. Retrieved November 30, 2022, from https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

“Period Products: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.” UT Health Austin, 20 Mar. 2019, https://uthealthaustin.org/blog/period-products.

Rodriguez, Leah. “Which Period Products Are Best for the Environment?” Global Citizen, May 2021, www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/best-period-products-for-the-environment/.

“Statement on the Detrimental Impacts of Misogyny on Mental Health.” CAMFT, 2022, https://www.camft.org/Membership/About-Us/Social-Policy-and-Public-Statements/Detrimental-Impacts-of-Misogyny-on-Mental-Health

“The History of Tampons.” Barnhardt Purified Cotton, 5 Feb. 2020, barnhardtcotton.net/blog/the-history-of-tampons/.

Together Ocean – Ocean Conservancy, 2004, oceanconservancy.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/04/2017-Ocean-Conservancy-ICC-Report.pdf.

Williams, Chloe. “Female Homelessness and Period Poverty – National Organization for Women.” National Organization for Women –, 22 Jan. 2021, now.org/blog/female homelessness-and-period-poverty/.