The First Taboo:
How Menstrual Taboos Reflect and Sustain Women's Internalized Oppression

an undergraduate thesis by Jenn Frederick

The Heath and Environmental Dangers of Traditional Menstural Products

Women's "dirty little secret" has been used by corporations for decades as a way to make more money for men. These corporations may not have created the shame surrounding menstruation, but they most certainly have cashed in on it and used it to their advantage to create a $1.7 billion market (Houppert, 1995). It is estimated that a woman will use as many as 11,400 tampons or pads in her lifetime (SEAC). That's a lot of money spent on concealing a natural, biological function. But that may not be the only cost. Women's health and the environment may be paying an even heavier price.

Nevertheless, it is a biological inevitability. So what's a woman to do? Well, according to a rapidly growing movement, a movement I refer to as the "menstrual movement," there is plenty that can be done. This movement focuses on four particular areas. First is the need to take the shame out of menstruation. By doing this they can open the lines of communication among women in order to let them know the dangers we face and what we can do about it. Second, there is a focus on women's health issues. Third is the issue of the environment. Finally is the issue of women's economic concerns.

This is not a new movement. In fact, women at the beginning of the second wave of feminism were active in this same type of movement. However, this movement has now been picked up by a new generation of women, many of whom were not even born at the beginning of this movement, nor even during the Toxic Shock scare of 1980.

The concerns over tampons and pads are rising. These concerns involve extensive health, environmental and economic concerns, all of which impact women's lives immensely.

Between the spring of 1980 and January of 1981, forty women died and another 902 women were diagnosed with tampon-related Toxic Shock Syndrome (TSS) (Houppert, 1995; Armstrong & Scott, 1992). TSS was quickly linked to super absorbent synthetic materials in many of the newer tampons, particularly Proctor and Gamble's Rely tampons. Scientists discovered that these super-thirsty synthetics provided an ideal breeding ground for the bacteria, Staphylococcus aureus. This bacterium is generally present in a benign state in 5 to 15 percent of women's vaginas at any one time. However, the blood absorbed by the tampon, together with the oxygen that is added to the normally anaerobic environment of the vagina when inserting the tampon, provide a good surface for which the bacteria to breed (Houppert, 1995; Armstrong & Scott, 1992).

After the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) threatened to remove the Rely tampons from the market, Proctor and Gamble "voluntarily" removed the tampons themselves, and a sigh of relief was breathed by millions of women across the nation. However, it was, in fact, a premature sigh of relief. Over the next ten years, an estimated 60,000 women were struck with TSS. Their injuries ranged from amputated limbs to deafness to death. Although men, children and non-menstruating women were also afflicted by TSS during this time, 70 percent of the cases involved women who were using tampons (Armstrong & Scott, 1992). Over the years, more patterns concerning TSS emerged. It was discovered that girls between the ages of fifteen and nineteen are most at risk, as girls of that age have not built up natural immunities to the bacterium. Continuous, uninterrupted use of tampons over the course of even a single day increases a woman's chances of contracting TSS by a factor of thirty-three. Moreover, of course, there is the issue of absorbency. Researchers have estimated that a woman's risk of contracting TSS increases by 37 percent with each additional gram of liquid a tampon can absorb (Armstrong & Scott, 1992).

The FDA has since required tampon manufacturers to include warnings about TSS on and in their packaging, advising women about the risks involved. In addition, because absorbency is so closely linked to TSS, the FDA has required tampon manufacturers to standardize absorbencies. While the tampon manufacturers have complied with these regulations, and have removed some of the synthetics in their tampons, instead using a cotton-rayon blend, the risk of TSS remains. Dr. Philip Tierno, Jr., from the New York University Medical Center maintains that the risk of TSS will remain as long as the companies continue to use viscose rayon in their products because viscose rayon enhances the production of TSS much more than cotton (Armstrong & Scott, 1992). Unlike cotton, rayon has a tendency to shred, which means that when the tampon is removed, fibers may be left behind in the vagina. These fibers are breeding grounds for the TSS-causing bacteria, as well as increasing a woman's exposure to dioxins (discussed later).

Most women, however, are unaware of the additional health risks associated with tampons. Rayon is a culprit in much more than just TSS. It is also a culprit in vaginal dryness, as it absorbs natural and necessary vaginal secretions in addition to blood (Armstrong & Scott, 1992). Approximately 65 percent of what is absorbed by the rayon tampons is blood. The remaining 35 percent is other vaginal secretions that are necessary to a healthy vagina. The vaginal dryness that results can lead to vaginal ulcerations, a tearing or peeling of the mucous membranes from the vaginal walls. In addition, both cardboard and plastic tampon applicators can cause vaginal lacerations.

Perhaps the biggest, but least known, health risk of tampons is dioxins, a potentially harmful by-product of the chlorine bleaching process. Studies have indicated that dioxin is not only a potential carcinogen, but is also toxic to the immune system and a cause of birth defects (Houppert, 1999). In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asserts that hormonal changes associated with dioxins have been linked to decreased fertility in men and women (Houppert, 1999). Other health agencies and doctors believe that the use of tampons may be attributed to abdominal cramping, urinary tract infections and chronic and recurrent vaginitis (Armstrong & Scott, 1992). The Endometriosis Association has linked the explosion in endometriosis to dioxin exposure. Endometriosis is a painful, chronic disease in which cells from the uterine lining migrate outside of the uterus and mutate into growths or tumors in the pelvis. This disease often results in painful cramping, internal bleeding, the formation of scar tissue and infertility (Houppert, 1999). While most of the studies on the link between dioxin exposure and endometriosis have been conducted on monkeys, scientists believe that they may be seeing the same patterns in humans.

In 1992, a congressional subcommittee in charge of overseeing the FDA stumbled upon some internal FDA memos dating back to 1989 regarding the findings of trace levels of dioxins in tampons. These memos further indicated that the risk of dioxins in tampons "can be quite high," (Houppert, 1999, p. 19). Despite this finding, the FDA maintains its stance that the trace levels of dioxins found in tampons does not pose a threat to women's health. Of course, the FDA has never actually tested any tampons. They have relied on tests performed by the tampon manufacturers that used "dermal contact" tests, but never indicated how the dermal contact in the vagina may differ from regular dermal contact (Houppert, 1999). Because dioxins are lipophilic (fat-loving), the fatty tissue of the vagina is significantly more likely to absorb dioxins than skin. These tests also do not test for long-term effects of continued exposure.

Concerned that the FDA may be glossing over a huge health risk, Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) has introduced "The Tampon Research and Safety Act," which calls for federal money to be allocated to independent researchers, who will be overseen by the National Institute of Health, to test the safety of tampons. Her bill calls for testing not only dioxins of, but also of the pesticides sprayed on cotton, as well as other additives such as perfumes (Findley, 2000). This bill has been introduced twice so far, but still no action has been taken. Instead, it has been shuffled from one subcommittee to another, where it dies without being debated. According to Maloney, several congressional representatives have said that they would consider sponsoring the bill if she removed the word "tampon" from its title. Once again, the shame associated with menstruation rears its ugly head.

Until we have independent, scientific research performed on the health risks of dioxins, we may not get any definite answers about the risks involved. However, there are certainly plenty of confirmed studies on the dangers of dioxins in the environment. The wastewater flowing from chlorine-bleached pulp mills contains substantial levels of organochlorines, including dioxins. Some of these organochlorines are accidents, the unwanted by-products of other processes, and so are new to nature. They resist breakdown and are very slow to decompose. Some may break down into even more toxic compounds. These compounds are hydrophobic and lipophilic, which means that they do not dissolve in water, but rather gravitate towards fat-containing organisms, like the fish in the streams. These organochlorines also travel extremely well, carried by atmospheric winds, river systems and ocean currents, thereby arriving in areas that are otherwise almost untouched by humans, like the Arctic (Armstrong & Scott, 1992).

In addition to the chemical destruction the processing of rayon for tampons can pose to the environment, the tampons and pads themselves are dangerous to the environment. In 1990, there were approximately 11.3 billion sanitary pads land-filled or incinerated in the U.S. alone (Armstrong & Scott, 1992). This number is drastically growing as a result of a successful campaign by the menstrual product industry to convince women that we need more "protection." Despite a mere one percent growth per year of menstruating women, the demand for externally worn sanitary pads has climbed by about five percent per year (Armstrong & Scott, 1992). These pads are made from plastics and synthetics as well as being wrapped in plastic, all of which is virtually unable to break down in the landfills.
The cardboard applicators and tampons themselves can create their own havoc on the environment. Most people do not think of what happens to these items once they are flushed down the toilet, but they do not simply disappear. At the sewage treatment plant, most of these items are screened out and taken to the local landfill. Some of these items, however, sneak by the screening process and get into the plant's pipes, pumping machines and sewage digesters. In some smaller towns and cities there is no sewage treatment plant, and many of these items end up flowing into our rivers and oceans (Armstrong & Scott, 1992).

The plastic tampon applicators are proving to be extremely invasive and devastating to the wildlife and environment. These applicators are finding their way into ocean currents via overloaded, outdated sewage systems. (Armstrong & Scott, 1992). They do not break down, and are washing up on shores around the world years after they enter the oceans. Rely tampon applicators, the infamous TSS tampons that were taken off the market in 1980, were still washing up on the shores of New Jersey in 1992 (Armstrong & Scott, 1992). Some of these applicators are eaten by marine life, including seabirds, fish, turtles and whales. Plastic, being indigestible, can accumulate and lodge in an animal's stomach and intestines, blocking its digestive tract. "An estimated two million seabirds and one hundred thousand marine mammals die annually as a direct result of ingesting or being caught in plastic," (Armstrong & Scott, 1992).

If the health and environmental effects of the feminine hygiene industry weren't devastating enough to women, there are also the economic effects. According to Tambrands, the leader in the industry, the average American woman spends $2,137 on tampons in her lifetime. In addition, the government has decided that tampons and pads are "luxury items," and therefore, we are forced to pay additional sales tax on top of the price of the tampons.

So where is all this money going? It's not going back to women; it is going right into the pockets of the male-dominated feminine hygiene industry. Tambrands, the leader in the industry, dominating fifty-five percent of total sales, listed a single female senior executive in its 1995 annual report. While there are nine men in Tambrands Corporate, there are only three women, two female VPs to the six male VPs in Tambrands North America, and no female VPs or Directors in Tambrands International. Out of twelve members who serve on the board, only two are women (Houppert, 1995).

Some women who opt for alternatives to bleached rayon tampons have had to pay the extra cost. For women who want to obtain one hundred percent cotton, unbleached tampons, they often have to buy them at a higher price from a health food store or on the internet. While no major feminine hygiene company produces a one hundred percent cotton, unbleached tampon, some do offer some alternatives. However, these are priced higher than the regular tampons as well. For instance, while the Tambrands regular tampons currently cost $3.50 for a box of 18, the Tambrands Naturals cost $3.90 for a box of 16 (Houppert, 1999).

So what can we do?

The Blood Sisters Project, out of the Simone De Beauvoir Institute at Concordia University in Montreal, Quebec, claim to be "an exciting launching pad girl base fueling action to combat the silence surrounding our female bodies . . . [they] are girls using [their] own feminine protection to work against the corporate and cultural constructions of menstruation." These girls are "publishing zines, weaving a web girl network, terrorizing bathroom walls, giving healthy health workshops, organizing art exhibits, distributing affordable, alternative products, sharing 'n boycotting, tabling 'n lobbying, stitching 'n bitching and always with winged power."

The Blood Sisters are not alone out there on the worldwide web. There are new websites dedicated to this new menstrual movement appearing all the time. Some other previously established websites are also dedicating space to this issue. In addition to the web, there are articles and books being written.

Regardless of the medium used to spread their message, most of these women have the same goals:

• Reconstructing body politics and eliminating the shame surrounding menstruation
• Disseminating information to women about the dangers to health and the environment
• Offering alternatives to commercial tampons and pads
• Offering pro-active steps for individuals to take to change the way the menstrual industry is currently run