Connect with us

News

After a study found toxic metals in tampons, lawmakers are pressing the FDA to act

Published

on

After a study found toxic metals in tampons, lawmakers are pressing the FDA to act

Four female House Democrats sent a letter to the FDA commissioner on Thursday urging the agency to address concerns about the safety and regulation of tampons.

Loic Venance/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Loic Venance/AFP via Getty Images

Lawmakers are calling on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to do more to address concerns about the ingredients in tampons after a study released earlier this summer found toxic metals in products from over a dozen popular brands.

Members of the Democratic Women’s Caucus called on the FDA to “review and improve the current safety standards for tampons” in a letter sent to Commissioner Dr. Robert Califf on Thursday.

“We urge the FDA to take swift action to ensure that women are safe from harmful and toxic substances in tampons,” they wrote. “We look forward to reviewing your plan to address these concerns and working with you on this issue.”

Advertisement

They did not specify a timeline or next steps.

The letter, a copy of which was shared with NPR, was signed by Reps. Summer Lee of Pennsylvania, Grace Meng of New York and policy task force co-chairs Kathy Manning of North Carolina and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts. The Democratic Women’s Caucus includes all Democratic women in the U.S. House of Representatives.

An FDA spokesperson told NPR that the agency “has received the letter and will respond directly to the Caucus.”

Safety concerns about tampons, and calls for stronger regulation, are not new. More than a dozen studies in recent years have evaluated the presence of various chemicals in widely used menstrual products, including a 2019 study that found higher concentrations of blood mercury in tampon users (which is cited in Thursday’s letter).

But they intensified in July after a first-of-its-kind study published in Environment International detected amounts of 16 heavy metals — including lead — in various tampons made by 14 common brands, which were not named.

Advertisement

Heavy metals have been linked to all sorts of negative health effects, from damaging the cardiovascular, nervous and endocrine systems to increasing cancer risks to harming maternal health and fetal development.

The study authors caution that more research is needed to determine to what extent the metals might “leach out of tampons” and into peoples’ bodies, and what health impacts they might have if so.

But they say more transparency is needed, too — especially considering millions of Americans spend so many hours with tampons inside their bodies. The study found that people who menstruate may use more than 7,400 tampons over their reproductive years.

“I think it’s important that we ask for clear labeling on our products so that people can make informed decisions for themselves based on their own values and health priorities,” lead author Jenni Shearston, a postdoctoral scholar at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health, told NPR in July.

“And I think it’s also important that we try to get better testing, especially of heavy metals like arsenic or lead in tampons so we can make sure everyone’s safe.”

Advertisement

When asked about the metals study in July, the FDA mentioned the “limitations” of the research — since it didn’t evaluate to what extent metals might be absorbed by the body — but said it would look into it.

The spokesperson told NPR on Thursday that the FDA has since commissioned an independent literature review and initiated an internal bench laboratory study to evaluate metals in tampons.

“These initiatives will enable FDA to complete a risk assessment of metals contained in tampons, based on a worst-case scenario of metal exposure,” they wrote, adding that the findings will be released publicly once they have been peer-reviewed. “The FDA will also continue monitoring these devices going forward as part of its total product lifecycle approach to medical devices.”

The FDA doesn’t currently require tampons to be tested for chemicals

Various brands of tampons on store shelves.

The FDA says all tampons legally sold in the U.S. go through a review process before they can hit store shelves, but critics say that doesn’t go far enough.

Brandon Bell/Getty Images


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Brandon Bell/Getty Images

The FDA regulates and classifies tampons as medical devices, so manufacturers are not required to disclose their ingredients on the label the way that other consumer products do, as the letter points out.

Advertisement

The FDA’s tampon guidance from 2005 doesn’t mandate that products be tested for chemical contaminants. And it recommends — but doesn’t require — that tampons “be free of” the highly toxic compound dioxin as well as “any pesticide and herbicide residues.”

Chemicals could get into tampons in a number of ways, from raw materials like cotton being contaminated by pollutants in the soil and water to manufacturers intentionally adding them as odor control or antimicrobial agents.

Tampons must meet FDA requirements for safety and effectiveness before they can be legally sold in the U.S.

The spokesperson said that process involves toxicity testing, which consists of identifying potentially harmful substances — “such as some metals” — and assessing the risk of those substances coming out of the product and being absorbed by the body during single as well as repeated use.

“As part of the FDA’s review, manufacturers submit data including the results of testing to evaluate the safety of the materials used to make tampons and applicators (if present); tampon absorbency, strength, and integrity; and whether tampons enhance the growth of certain harmful bacteria or change normal bacteria levels in the vagina,” the agency explained in an online fact sheet.

Advertisement

The Center for Baby and Adult Hygiene Products (BAHP), a North American trade association, defended the safety of its members’ menstrual products in a 2022 statement in which it said all absorbent hygiene products “undergo a thorough safety assessment beyond what is required by the applicable regulatory framework.”

It said any chemicals in menstrual products are “not intentionally added by the manufacturers,” saying such “impurities” may be present in the environment or “even made by the human body.”

“Our members routinely test their products with external labs for the presence of background substances and these reports affirm our products are safe and that women can use them with confidence,” it said.

Thursday’s letter isn’t the first from members of Congress who want answers and action.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wa., the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, sent a letter to Califf of the FDA in late July, several weeks after the publication of the metals study.

Advertisement

“In light of this alarming reporting, I urge the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to carefully examine these new findings and evaluate any necessary actions to ensure the safety of tampons and menstrual products,” Murray wrote.

Murray asked the FDA to respond in writing to six specific questions about what it currently does and plans to do to ensure the safety of period products, and to brief her staff on the “regulation and safety processes for tampons and menstrual products,” by specific dates in August.

NPR has reached out to Murray’s office about the status of those requests. The FDA says it “will respond directly to Senator Murray regarding questions in the letter.”

Some states are passing their own laws in the absence of federal requirements

The New York State Capitol building in Albany.

New York was the first state to require manufacturers to disclose ingredients on the packing of period products, with a law that took effect in 2021. California and Nevada have since followed suit.

Bennett Raglin/Getty Images


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Bennett Raglin/Getty Images

Congress has tried unsuccessfully in the past to strengthen regulations on tampons and other menstrual products.

Advertisement

In 2022, Reps. Debbie Lesko, R.-Ariz., and Meng — one of the letter’s signatories — introduced the “Menstrual Products Right to Know Act,” which would have required the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to “treat menstrual products as misbranded if their labeling does not list each component of the product.”

The legislation was referred to a subcommittee and did not progress further.

In a report that same year, the House Appropriations Committee expressed concern about the “potential danger of fragrance ingredients used in menstrual products that are medical devices.

“These products are used frequently by consumers without knowledge of the presence of these ingredients, or understanding of their potential harms,” lawmakers wrote, noting that the FDA does not currently maintain a list of such ingredients.

The committee’s report directed the agency to evaluate the fragrance ingredients in its existing records and “if necessary” compile a list. It also directs the FDA to determine at what concentrations it would recommend that manufacturers disclose the presence of such ingredients in their product labels.

Advertisement

The FDA spokesperson said the agency will continue working to update its existing guidance to include recommendations outlined in the report, and “looks forward to engaging with patients, health care providers, and others during a public comment period when those guidance updates are proposed.”

In the meantime, some states are taking matters into their own hands.

In 2019, New York became the first to pass a law requiring manufacturers to contain a “plain and conspicuous” list of ingredients on the packaging for menstrual products. It took effect in 2021.

The nonprofit group Women’s Voices for the Earth (WVE) conducted a field study on ingredient disclosures from late 2021 to early 2022 and found that the ingredients newly announced on period product labels included chemicals that can irritate skin, trigger allergic reactions, cause cancer and release microplastic particles into the environment.

“Numerous additives to period products are now being disclosed for the first time, indicating that chemical exposure from period products is much more complicated than previously assumed,” they wrote in a May 2022 report.

Advertisement

The group also noted that while compliance with New York law was imperfect — for example, some products described ingredients as “fragrance” or “adhesive” without including the actual chemical names — ingredient information appeared to be becoming more standard on menstrual product labels nationwide.

“We commonly found products in other states with ingredient disclosures on the package similar or identical to what is required in New York, affording period product users across the country the right to know what is in their products,” WVE added.

California followed suit in 2020, passing a law that requires period product manufacturers to disclose “intentionally added ingredients” both on labels and online starting in 2023. And last year, Nevada became the third state to require ingredient disclosure, with a law slated to take effect at the start of 2025.

In June, Vermont became the first state to ban so-called PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” from menstrual products; that law is poised to take effect in 2026.

Half a dozen other states have also enacted phaseouts of PFAS in menstrual products so far, according to the national environmental health alliance Safer States. They include Maine, Colorado, Connecticut and Minnesota.

Advertisement

News

Map: 2.3-Magnitude Earthquake Reported North of New York City

Published

on

Map: 2.3-Magnitude Earthquake Reported North of New York City

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Eastern. The New York Times

A minor, 2.3-magnitude earthquake struck about 12 miles north of New York City on Tuesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 10:17 a.m. Eastern in Sleepy Hollow, N.Y., data from the agency shows.

The Westchester County emergency services department said in a statement that it had not received any reports of damage.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Advertisement

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Eastern. Shake data is as of Tuesday, March 10 at 10:30 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Tuesday, March 10 at 2:18 p.m. Eastern.

Continue Reading

News

Ed Martin, outspoken Justice Department lawyer, is formally accused of ethical violations | CNN Politics

Published

on

Ed Martin, outspoken Justice Department lawyer, is formally accused of ethical violations | CNN Politics

Ed Martin, an outspoken Trump administration official, is facing attorney discipline proceedings in Washington, DC, for a letter he sent to Georgetown Law about its diversity programs, the district’s professional conduct investigator announced on Tuesday.

Martin is formally accused of violating his ethical codes as an attorney for telling Georgetown Law’s dean last year that his Justice Department office wouldn’t hire students because of the school’s diversity, inclusion and equity initiatives programs, according to the filing from Hamilton Fox, the disciplinary counsel for DC who acts as a quasi-prosecutor on attorney discipline matters.

Unlike unsolicited complaints, Fox’s formal disciplinary complaint kicks off professional conduct proceedings for Martin in which he will need to respond and could be sanctioned or ultimately lose his law license.

Fox’s announcement on Tuesday marks the first major bar discipline proceeding against a high-profile administration official or attorney supporting President Donald Trump during Trump’s second term. Several Trump lawyers faced disciplinary proceedings after the efforts to overturn Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election, including Rudy Giuliani, who lost his law license.

“Acting in his official capacity and speaking on behalf of the government, he used coercion to punish or suppress a disfavored viewpoint, the teaching and promotion of ‘DEI,’” Fox wrote in the complaint. “He demanded that Georgetown Law relinquish its free speech and religious rights in order to continue to obtain a benefit, employment opportunities for its students.”

Advertisement

Martin was removed from the top prosecutor job in DC after senators made clear he would not be confirmed to the role, but has remained at the Justice Department in several roles, including as pardon attorney.

“Mr. Martin knew or should have known that, as a government official, his conduct violated the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States,” Fox wrote.

Martin is being represented by a Justice Department attorney, a source told CNN.

A spokesperson for DOJ attacked Fox’s complaint. “The DC bar’s attempt to target and punish those serving President Trump while refusing to investigate or act against actual ethical violations that were committed by Biden and Obama administration attorneys is a clear indication of this partisan organization’s agenda,” DOJ said.

Martin had sent the letter to Georgetown Law while serving temporarily as US attorney for DC, a prominent Justice Department position, and told the school his federal prosecutors’ office wouldn’t hire Georgetown’s law school students. It came at a time when the Trump administration was beginning to crack down on universities for their DEI efforts.

Advertisement

In his letter, Martin claimed a whistleblower told him that the school was teaching and promoting DEI.

Martin also violated attorney ethics rules by contacting judges of the DC court directly, Fox alleged, rather than going through official channels, once he was informed he was under investigation for his professional conduct. The DC Court of Appeals ultimately signs off on attorney discipline findings.

Early last year, Fox’s office had formally asked Martin to respond to a complaint it received by a retired judge regarding the Georgetown letter.

Martin instead wrote to the judges on the DC court complaining about Fox.

“In that letter, he stated that he would not be responding to Disciplinary Counsel’s inquiry, complained about Disciplinary Counsel’s ‘uneven behavior,’ and requested a ‘face-to-face meeting with all of you to discuss this matter and find a way forward,’” Fox wrote.

Advertisement

“He copied the White House Counsel ‘for informational purposes because of the importance of getting this issue addressed,’” Fox said.

The top judge in the DC courts told Martin the court wouldn’t meet with him about the disciplinary matter and that he would need to follow procedure.

With Fox’s complaint, there will now be several steps ahead of bar discipline authorities looking at Martin’s action, and Fox didn’t specify how Martin should be reprimanded or punished if the discipline boards and the court ultimately determine he violated his ethical codes.

Spokespeople for the Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment on Tuesday morning.

In recent days, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced her office would have a more powerful role in reviewing attorney discipline complaints against Justice Department attorneys, potentially setting up an approach that could keep the department at odds with the bar on behalf of DOJ attorneys facing their own individual disciplinary proceedings.

Advertisement

CNN’s Paula Reid contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

News

Europe and Asia battle for LNG as Iran war chokes supply

Published

on

Europe and Asia battle for LNG as Iran war chokes supply

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Asian and European buyers are battling to source liquefied natural gas after the war in the Middle East choked off shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, blocking a fifth of global supplies.

In an indication of the intensifying contest for LNG since the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran, a handful of gas carriers have abruptly changed course while sailing to Europe and swung towards Asia instead, according to ship monitoring data analysed by the FT.

Countries across Asia are highly dependent on oil and gas sent through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway where shipping has slowed to a near standstill.

Advertisement

Most of the LNG produced in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates is ordinarily shipped through the strait to Asia, and Asian LNG prices surged almost immediately after war broke out, creating an incentive to divert US gas to the region.

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

Taiwan, South Korea and Japan are among the countries that need to source LNG to make up for supplies they will not receive from the Gulf, said Massimo Di Odoardo, head of gas and LNG analysis at consultancy Wood Mackenzie.

Taiwan relied on Qatar for more than 30 per cent of its gas consumption in 2025, according to Citigroup, while for South Korea and Japan the figures were 15 per cent and 5 per cent respectively. Asia typically uses more gas than Europe in the hotter summer months because of more air-conditioning use, creating urgency for Asian utilities to secure cargoes.

The vast majority of LNG is sold under long-term contracts rather than on the spot market, but some buyers are able to change the final destination of their purchases and some sellers are willing to break contracts if prices rise high enough.

Advertisement

By Thursday, surging European gas prices and rocketing shipping rates had swung the balance back against diversion of US LNG to Asia, according to data company Spark Commodities.

The decision on where to send gas carriers can depend on the relative levels of the European gas price, Asia’s JKM benchmark for LNG and shipping rates.

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

For European buyers, the battle with Asia for LNG supplies is eerily familiar to the situation four years ago after Russia slashed pipeline natural gas flows to the continent following Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Competition for spare cargoes then pushed prices to record levels.

On Monday, European gas prices reached as high as €69.50 per megawatt hour, more than double their level before the Iran conflict began. Even so, prices are still far from the €342 per megawatt hour reached in 2022.

JKM gas prices also more than doubled since the start of the war to $24.80 per 1mn British thermal units by Monday, equivalent to €73.10/MWh.

Advertisement

European buyers have learnt from their experience in 2022. “Europe has more weapons at its disposal in this extreme price scenario to try and fight,” said Alex Kerr, a partner at law firm Baker Botts.

Buyers had started putting clauses in contracts to say that suppliers would face much higher penalties if they diverted cargoes for commercial gain, Kerr said.

There is also much more LNG on the market now that is not committed to set destinations, largely because of new projects starting in the US.

While producers such as Qatar impose strict rules on where its LNG can be sent, almost all US exports are allowed to sail wherever buyers want. Several analysts said there had also been an increase in the willingness of some producers to break contracts for financial advantage.

This makes diversions more likely, while the reluctance of some European buyers to sign long-term supply contracts before the outbreak of war this month could prove costly.

Advertisement

Expectations of a global supply glut convinced some European buyers that it would be cheaper to wait until later in the year to sign supply deals.

Wood Mackenzie’s Di Odoardo said the buyers had also held off on LNG purchases because new EU legislation on methane emissions made it unclear whether they could incur penalties in the future.

The risk of prices rising as Europe and Asia fight for available cargoes is increasing every day the Strait of Hormuz stays almost closed.

Gas is more difficult to store and to carry in tankers than oil, making its markets more vulnerable to shortages and price shocks.

“The longer the Strait remains shut, the greater the risk that the shipping disruption turns into a genuine gas shortage, as tankers cannot load and facilities have limited storage,” said consultancy Oxford Economics in a research note.

Advertisement

Additional reporting by Harry Dempsey in Tokyo. Data visualisation by Jana Tauschinski

Continue Reading

Trending