Many women have become reluctant to use reusable menstrual pads. They say that hygiene, convenience, and comfort are paramount and that in light of potential chemical exposure from some commercial products, women need safe, reliable, and readily available options.
A University of the Free State (UFS) study has found hormone-disrupting chemicals in all tested sanitary pads and pantyliners, raising urgent questions about what millions of women are putting directly against sensitive tissue each month.
For one young woman, it began with an unexplained rash; for researchers, it ended with the discovery of chemicals that could have far-reaching health implications.
The UFS team tested 16 brands of sanitary pads and eight types of pantyliners, analysing them for three major groups of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), bisphenols, parabens, and phthalates. Bisphenols were detected in all pads and most pantyliners; parabens were in more than 81% of pads and 75% of pantyliners, while phthalates appeared in all pantyliners and half of the pads tested.
Although the study did not measure how much of these chemicals enter the body or directly cause disease, it raises concerns about repeated, long-term exposure, given that menstrual products come into contact with sensitive tissue for several days each month. The findings also highlight a lack of transparency in product labelling, leaving women unable to make fully informed choices.
For many, the revelations were both shocking and unsettling.
Thato Nkethu said the study left her “shocked, saddened, and deeply unsettled.”
"How could something like this be allowed without stricter regulation?" she asked.
Nkethu, who has been diagnosed with fibroids, said the research has forced her to question whether long-term exposure to certain products may have played a role in her health struggles.
"I have fibroids too; what if this is a contributor? I don’t know. Now I don’t even know what to use. Even the alternatives, we’re not sure if they’ve been tested or not."
Another woman, who asked to remain anonymous, said she experienced persistent irritation with a particular brand.
"I didn’t think much of it at the time," she said. "But every time I used Lil‑lets pads during my period, I developed a rash. I eventually switched to another brand, Always, and since then I haven’t had any symptoms at all. With Lil‑lets, it happened every cycle."
Neo Mokonyane shared similar concerns. She recalled a brief reaction to one brand, which made her cautious about what she uses.
"From now on, I will try a different brand and see what happens because I cannot use reusable menstrual pads."
The National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) Women’s Structure, which distributes sanitary products to vulnerable communities, expressed deep concern.
Nthabiseng Mashiteng, NUM Women’s Structure National Secretary, warned that: "The pursuit of profit must never override the right to life and the dignity of women. We welcome the UFS study and call for immediate and transparent investigations to hold manufacturers accountable."
Mashiteng urged urgent multi-sectoral action, calling on the South African Human Rights Commission, Commission for Gender Equality, National Consumer Commission, Department of Health, and the Department of Women, Youth, and Persons with Disabilities to collaborate.
"We will not remain silent while the most vulnerable members of our society are exposed to preventable health risks," she said. She also encouraged women to prioritise certified alternatives such as those verified under OEKO-TEX Standard 100 and stressed the importance of free and safe menstrual products.
The Department of Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities (DWYPD) confirmed it has engaged with UFS following the study. The department emphasised that the research is intended to inform, not alarm, consumers, and that it supports the National Consumer Commission’s investigation to ensure products sold locally are safe, accessible, and meet regulatory standards.
"While the study does not establish immediate or short-term health harm, it raises important concerns regarding long-term exposure and cumulative health risks. The purpose of the scientific research conducted at the university is not to create fear, anxiety, or panic, but to inform and empower consumers, policymakers, and health professionals through robust data and scientific evidence," the department said.
In response to the UFS study, the National Consumer Commission (NCC) has launched a formal investigation into nine major sanitary pad and pantyliner brands, assessing whether manufacturers complied with the Consumer Protection Act and whether the products pose health risks.
At the same time, Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Trade, Industry, and Competition called for a transparent, science-based probe, urging regulators to determine if affected products should be removed from shelves and how safety standards can be strengthened.
Committee chairperson Mzwandile Masina emphasised that the health and safety of women and girls must be prioritised and that manufacturers must be held accountable for compliance with safety regulations.
The Star
masabata.mkwananzi@inl.co.za
