The trouble with tampons

Julie Gumerman
SEED member Julie Gumerman
hosts a Tampaction
workshop at Kent
State University.
Photo by Brett Wilhelm


By Julie Gummerman
     Tampons on the market create problems pose problems to the environment and women’s health. Chemicals present in the cotton out of which tampons are made get into local ecosystems and women’s bodies, as do the dioxins created by the tampon-bleaching process. The enormous number of tampons used by women both fills landfills and increases the risk of harmful health impacts on users. Fortunately, several alternatives to tampons can be made and purchased. These alternatives are friendly to women and the environment.

Fiber Content

     Most fibers used in tampons come from the cotton plant. Unfortunately, cotton is one of the crops most heavily treated with pesticide. Five out of nine of the pesticides used on cotton have been proven to cause cancer, and all nine pesticides have been labeled as dangerous by the EPA.
     Rayon, another fiber present in tampons, is a cotton derivative. It is made from gin trash: the leaves, short fibers, and stems of cotton. Because California law forbids feeding gin trash to cattle due to the chemicals, it is used in products such as cotton balls and tampons.
     Rayon also causes problems because its fibers are rougher and sharper than those of natural products. These fibers are abrasive on the walls of the vagina. Back in the 1970s and early 1980s these abrasions were found to be the cause of Toxic Shock Syndrome.

Bleaching Process

     The bleaching process normally used by tampon manufacturers produces dioxins. While only trace amounts of these are found in tampons currently marketed, the EPA has determined that no safe level of dioxin exists. Side effects of dioxin exposure include birth defects and less successful immune systems. Additionally, due to tampons being used in the most absorbent part of a woman’s body, dioxin levels may add up over time. The average woman uses over 16,000 tampons during her life.

Organic tampons: $4-6 a box.

Pros:
• Contain no pesticides
• Support women-owned businesses
• Bleaching process does not create dioxin

Cons:
• Create same amount of waste as the average tampon
• Expensive
• Suck up all vaginal fluids, which can cause yeast
infections (also a problem with corporate tampons)


Sea sponges: $9 for sponges officially for this use,
much less for sponges at art stores.

Pros:
• Readily available
• Sea sponges are a sustainable resource

Cons:
• Not FDA approved
• Need to be replaced every three cycles
• Need frequent squeezing


The Keeper and the DivaCup: $25-35; reusable for at
least 10 years.
This is a cup that is inserted into the vagina and emptied
a couple times daily.

Pros:
• Look ma! No trash!
• Measures flow
• Work well for travel because there is nothing to
carry around
• Catches blood rather than absorbs it
• Lots of users say it gets rid of cramps

Cons:
• Can be awkward while learning how to use it
• Only comes in two sizes
• Might cause yeast infections in some women
• Shouldn’t be used by women with frequent UTIs


Cloth pads: Cost ranges from next-to-nothing for
homemade pads to $30 and up for ready-made.

Pros:
• Fun to wear
• Reusable
• Blood flows naturally
• No risk of yeast infections and TSS

Cons:
• Can be bulky
• Need to be washed
• May need to bring backups if out for a long time

Environmental Risks

     The average woman in the United States uses between 250 and 300 pounds of tampons and pads in her lifetime. Every year, over 6 billion tampons and 11 billion pads are thrown away, ultimately ending up in sewer systems and landfills. In 1998 and 1999, over a hundred thousand tampon applicators were found along U.S. beaches. Additionally, cotton production involves pesticides that get into water systems and the soil, as do chemicals released during tampon production.

User-Friendly Alternatives

     Many alternatives to corporate-manufactured tampons are available. Most of these options are reusable, resulting in less long-term cost. All pose far fewer health risks and are friendlier to the environment.

Spring 2005

Home