Are your sanitary pads really toxic? What doctors want you to know

2026-03-04 - 10:43

A landmark South African study found traces of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in sanitary pads and pantyliners. However, leading gynaecologists and obstetricians say the findings have been dangerously misread. A study published in the peer-reviewed journal Science of the Total Environment in February 2026 set off a wave of public alarm after researchers at the University of the Free State detected endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in commonly used menstrual products. The study tested 16 sanitary pads and seven pantyliner brands purchased online and found small quantities of the chemicals present in all sampled products, concluding that menstrual products represent a significant but overlooked source of chemical exposure. What followed was a social media storm and a serious misreading of what the data actually shows, say South Africa’s top women’s health bodies. The South African Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (Sasog ), the South African Society of Reproductive Medicine and Gynaecological Endoscopy (Sasreg), and the College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists ( CoG CMSA) have jointly issued a position statement calling for calm, context, and correct interpretation of the evidence. ALSO READ: The menstrual standoff in South Africa: What do we do now? What the study actually found, and what it didn’t Sasog , Sasreg, and the COG (CMSA) explained that endocrine-disrupting chemicals are substances capable of interfering with the body’s hormonal systems, particularly reproductive and thyroid hormones, but only when concentrations exceed permissible levels set by the Cosmetic Ingredients Expert Panel, the body whose determinations inform regulatory guidelines used by agencies. According to the report, amounts detected in the Free State study were small, and critically, the research was not designed to establish whether those amounts cause harm. The organisations were direct in their joint statement: “The study by Blignaut et al, from the University of Free State, did not establish any causality between the use of menstrual products (pads and liners) and infertility, cancer or adverse health outcomes.” The three bodies further noted that while the presence of EDCs in everyday products warrants attention, the daily doses recorded in the study were low, and no research into cumulative health risk from menstrual product use has yet been conducted. “Currently, we do not have evidence to recommend that patients stop using any menstrual health products, and we do not recommend any change of usual practice,” they stated. Chemicals found in pads are a small part of the picture, say organisations Context, the medical bodies argue, is everything. They highlighted that EDCs are not unique to menstrual products. They are routinely found in low concentrations across a wide range of everyday items, from toothpaste, shampoo and conditioners to body lotions, lipsticks, clothing and electronics. The detection of trace amounts in sanitary pads, they say, is entirely consistent with findings from similar research conducted globally. “A Chinese study cited in the position statement offers a telling breakdown of EDC exposure sources: food accounted for roughly 40% of total exposure, other personal care products another 40%, and indoor dust approximately 18%,” the bodies highlighted. Furthermore, they noted that among all feminine personal care products analysed, sanitary pads contributed 6.8% of total EDC exposure in the study. Sasog, Sasreg, and the COG (CMSA) pointed to this data as evidence that menstrual products, while not exempt from scrutiny, “appear to be a small contributor to the overall total EDC exposure” and should not be assessed in isolation. “The implication to the general public of harm has not been proven in this study. The daily doses have been found to be low, and the cumulative health risk has not been studied. The evidence at present does not support a change of usual practice.” UFS clarifies research findings UFS, whose researchers conducted the study, moved quickly to address the public concern generated by the coverage. On Friday, 27 February, the institution was explicit about the nature and limitations of its work. “The research, which was conducted by a multidisciplinary team at the UFS and published in the peer-reviewed journal Science of the Total Environment, comprised an in vitro laboratory detection study and did not involve testing on human subjects,” the university confirmed. “It does not establish causation between the presence of endocrine-disrupting chemicals and disease outcomes.” The institution was equally clear about the intent behind its research, stating that it was not meant to cause alarm. “The purpose of the scientific research conducted at the university is not to create fear, anxiety, and panic, but to inform and empower consumers, policymakers, and health professionals through robust data and scientific evidence.” UFS also addressed concerns about manufacturer conduct, stating that “the study does not make any findings of unlawful conduct, regulatory non-compliance, negligence, or intentional wrongdoing by any manufacturer, supplier, or distributor”. Furthermore, it confirmed that no product withdrawals were recommended. What researchers say should come next While the health bodies and the university are united in urging the public not to panic, both acknowledge that the findings are not without value. The Free State study, they agree, identifies a meaningful knowledge gap that warrants further investigation. UFS stated that the research “identifies an important knowledge gap, encourages further scientific and clinical investigation, and highlights the need for greater transparency regarding chemical composition in consumer products, as well as strengthened regulatory standards consistent with current scientific evidence.” Sasog, Sasreg, and the Cog (CMSA) echoed this call, recommending that South African regulatory authorities undertake further testing to establish the safety profile of these products, a step they regard as necessary and overdue. “It is noteworthy that the study did not recommend that any of the tested products be withdrawn from the market,” the bodies stated, adding that while vigilance is appropriate, it must be grounded in evidence. “While it is important to note the existence of the endocrine disruptors in products used in our daily lives, there is no need to panic.” Bottom line for women using these products For the millions of South African women and girls who rely on sanitary pads and pantyliners every month, the collective message from the country’s leading gynaecological and obstetric societies is unambiguous: continue as normal. The science, as it currently stands, does not support alarm, behavioural change, or product avoidance. UFS acknowledged the particular weight these findings carry for those most directly affected. “The university recognises that the study findings may raise public concern, particularly among women and girls who rely on these products daily,” it said, while reaffirming that “scientific research must be interpreted responsibly and within its evidentiary scope.” Sasog, Sasreg, and the Cog (CMSA), representing South Africa’s foremost authorities in obstetrics, gynaecology, reproductive medicine, and endoscopy, reassured women that the evidence does not support stopping use of any menstrual health product, and their recommendation remains unchanged. READ NEXT: Hormone disrupting chemicals found in pads and pantyliners: What you need to know