Activists challenge official assurances after study flags hormone-disrupting chemicals in menstrual products

Activists say dismissing a University of the Free State finding does not equal proof of safety, urging clarity on possible risks in menstrual products.

Activists said authorities’ assurances on menstrual product safety do not settle concerns raised by research from the University of the Free State that reported hormone-disrupting chemicals in some items.

The University of the Free State, a South African public university, reported that its study detected substances associated with endocrine disruption in menstrual products. Details of the study’s methodology, specific products assessed and the peer-review status were not immediately available, and the findings could not be independently verified at publication.

Officials have offered broad assurances about product safety, according to activists, who argue that dismissing the university’s findings is not the same as demonstrating that products are safe. They urged authorities to clearly explain how risks were evaluated and what evidence underpins official statements.

It was not immediately clear what data or testing standards regulators relied on to issue their assurances. Authorities had not publicly released detailed testing results or a timeline for further review.

The World Health Organization says endocrine-disrupting chemicals can interfere with hormonal systems and have been linked in research to reproductive, developmental and other health effects. The presence of such substances in consumer goods depends on materials and manufacturing, and exposure risks can vary by product and use, according to WHO guidance.

Public health bodies note that regulatory approaches to possible endocrine disruptors differ across jurisdictions, and risk assessments often weigh exposure levels, frequency of use and product composition. Without publicly available data on the products in question, independent experts cannot assess the level of risk, if any.

Menstrual products are widely used and intended for close, repeated contact, which heightens public interest in their safety. Health advocates say that when studies raise potential red flags, transparent testing and disclosure can help maintain trust.

Activists called on authorities to outline next steps, including whether additional testing will be commissioned, how results will be communicated, and what criteria will be used to determine safety. They also pressed for clarity on whether any guidance to consumers is under consideration while reviews are underway.

Officials did not immediately provide detailed responses addressing the university’s reported findings or how the government reached its assurances. It was not clear whether regulators are engaging with independent laboratories or academic institutions to re-examine the products.

The University of the Free State did not publish a full dataset alongside its initial communication, based on information available at publication time. Additional documentation could help outside researchers and regulators assess the robustness and relevance of the results.

Until more information is released, the debate underscores the tension between precaution and proof in consumer health: activists say precaution warrants transparent verification, while officials have signaled confidence in existing safeguards. Further disclosures from regulators and the university are likely to shape public guidance and any policy response.