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

Under Trump, Green Card Seekers Face New Scrutiny for Views on Israel

Published

on

Under Trump, Green Card Seekers Face New Scrutiny for Views on Israel

For decades, immigrants who have followed the rules and have not broken the law have had hopes of earning a green card, a document that allows them to live legally in the United States and gain a path to citizenship.

But under new guidance issued by the Trump administration, immigrants can now be denied a green card for expressing political opinions, such as participating in pro-Palestinian campus protests, posting criticism of Israel on social media and desecrating the American flag, according to internal Department of Homeland Security training materials reviewed by The New York Times.

The documents, which have not been previously reported, show how expansively the Trump administration is carrying out a directive from last August to vet green card applicants for “anti-American” and “antisemitic” views.

The administration includes criticism of Israel as a potentially disqualifying factor, with the training materials citing as an example of questionable speech a social media post that declares, “Stop Israeli Terror in Palestine” and shows the Israeli flag crossed out.

The materials were distributed last month to immigration officers at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security and handles applications for green cards and other forms of legal status.

Advertisement

They reflect how U.S.C.I.S. — long considered the gateway agency for legal migration — has rapidly transformed under President Trump into another cog in his administration’s deportation machine. The agency has worked to strip naturalized Americans of their citizenship and has hired armed federal agents to investigate immigration crimes.

The administration is also granting permanent legal residency to far fewer applicants. Green card approvals have fallen by more than half in recent months, according to a Times analysis of agency data.

“There is no room in America for aliens who espouse anti-American ideologies or support terrorist organizations,” Joseph Edlow, the agency’s director, told Congress in February.

Critics of Mr. Trump’s approach say the administration is seeking to restrict legitimate political speech, and has conflated opposition to Israeli government policies with antisemitism.

Basing green card decisions on “ideological screenings is fundamentally un-American and should have no place in a country built on the promise of free expression,” said Amanda Baran, a senior agency official under President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Advertisement

Administration officials said they were defending American values.

“If you hate America, you have no business demanding to live in America,” said Zach Kahler, a spokesman for U.S.C.I.S.

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said the administration’s policies had “nothing to do with free speech” and were meant to protect “American institutions, the safety of citizens, national security and the freedoms of the United States.”

The administration has moved aggressively against immigrants for expressing political views that officials have deemed anti-American, making ideology a central part of its immigration vetting process. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has revoked the visas of pro-Palestinian student activists, including one who wrote a column criticizing her university’s response to pro-Palestinian demands.

The Department of Homeland Security has proposed reviewing the social media histories of tourists seeking to visit the United States.

Advertisement

Immigration officers have significant discretion in deciding whether to grant foreigners long-term permanent residence. They have long considered a variety of factors, including criminal records, national security threats, family ties to the United States and employment histories.

Ideology has also traditionally been one of those factors. In some cases, U.S. law forbids officers from granting green cards to people who have belonged to a Communist or other “totalitarian” political party, have promoted anarchy or have called for the overthrow of the U.S. government by “force or violence or other unconstitutional means.”

But in the past, immigration officers have focused on statements that could incite or encourage violence, given concerns about infringing on constitutionally protected speech, former U.S.C.I.S. officials said.

The new training materials reviewed by The Times guide immigration officers through the factors they should consider when ruling on green card applications. They discourage officers from granting green cards to people with a history of “endorsing, promoting or supporting anti-American views” or “antisemitic terrorism, ideologies or groups.”

Immigration officers have been told to weigh those factors as “overwhelmingly negative.”

Advertisement

The documents list support for “subversive” ideologies as among other factors that could lead to an application being rejected. As an example, the materials point to someone “holding a sign advocating overthrow of the U.S. government.”

In addition, the guidance describes the desecration of the American flag as a negative factor, citing Mr. Trump’s executive order last year directing the Justice Department to prosecute protesters who burn the flag. The Supreme Court has ruled that flag burning is a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment.

Immigration officers have also been told to scrutinize applicants who encourage antisemitism “through rhetorical or physical actions.” They were instructed to “focus particularly on aliens who engaged in on-campus anti-American and antisemitic activities” after the Hamas attacks against Israel in 2023, the documents show.

Further examples in the documents of conduct characterized as antisemitic include a social media post showing a map of Israel with the nation’s name crossed out and replaced with the word “Palestine.” Another illustrative post suggests that Israelis should “taste what people in Gaza are tasting.”

Immigration officers must elevate all cases involving “potential anti-American and/or antisemitic conduct or ideology” to their managers and to the agency’s general counsel’s office for review, according to the documents.

Advertisement

In recent months, the agency has also changed the way it refers to the employees who adjudicate green card applications, long known as “immigration services officers.” In job postings, it now calls them “homeland defenders.”

“Protect your homeland and defend your culture,” one posting says.

Steven Rich contributed reporting.

Continue Reading

News

America’s bid for energy supremacy is being forged in war

Published

on

America’s bid for energy supremacy is being forged in war

Additional work by Jana Tauschinski

Oil and gas tanker location and destination data are from Kpler. The map shows the latest position for vessels with an active AIS signal on April 19–20, filtered by minimum capacity thresholds: crude tankers of at least 50,000 deadweight tonnage (DWT); oil product tankers of at least 55,000 DWT; oil/chemical tankers of at least 40,000 DWT; LNG carriers of at least 150,000 cubic metres; and LPG carriers of at least 50,000 cubic metres. Net fossil fuel import data by country are based on Ember analysis of the IEA World Energy Balances 2023.

Continue Reading

News

Roommate faces murder charges in deaths of 2 University of South Florida doctoral students

Published

on

Roommate faces murder charges in deaths of 2 University of South Florida doctoral students

A 26-year-old man is facing two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of two University of South Florida doctoral students who went missing last week, local authorities said Saturday. 

The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office in Florida said that evidence presented to the state attorney’s office resulted in the charges against Hisham Abugharbieh, the roommate of Zamil Limon, one of the doctoral students. 

Abugharbieh is accused of premediated murder with a weapon. He was arrested on Friday, the same day Limon was found dead. 

The family of Nahida Bristy, the other doctoral student, told CBS News that police said she is also likely dead. That is based on the volume of blood discovered at Abugharbieh’s residence, which he shared with Limon.

“Police told us she is no longer with us,” Bristy’s brother, Zahid Prato, said early Saturday.

Advertisement

The family was told her body may never be found and police believe she may have been dismembered, according to Prato. 

CBS News has reached out to police for more information.

Authorities said in a statement Saturday they were still searching for Bristy.

Limon’s remains were found on the Howard Franklin Bridge in Tampa Friday morning, Chief Deputy Joseph Maurer with the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office said. His cause of death was pending autopsy results.

Deputies with the sheriff’s office took Abugharbieh into custody on Friday after responding to a domestic violence call at a home in the Lake Forest Community, a neighborhood near USF’s Tampa campus, officials said. He also faces charges of domestic violence and evidence tampering, as well as a charge of failing to report a death to law enforcement.

Advertisement

Limon and Bristy, both 27, had last been seen in the Tampa area on April 16. 

Limon was studying the use of AI in environmental science and was set to present his doctoral thesis this week, his family said. Bristy is studying chemical engineering. 

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending