Menstruation. Your Period. Aunt Flo.

Women’s Trouble. That Time of The Month.

Coming Into Womanhood. The Crimson Wave. 
The Red Badge of Courage.

Flying Your Colors. The Invasion of the Red Army.

Riding the Cotton Pony. Full Stop.

I have a feeling I may have lost the
male demographic already…

For something so little discussed,
it has so many names.

Menstruation has long been taboo across many
cultures,

with women’s cycles regarded

as everything from inconvenient to unclean.

With the creation and evolution

of various
feminine hygiene products

a term which itself frames women
as being in need of sanitation,

the big red taboo remains,

only now with brightly colored packaging

and laughably unrealistic advertisements

of blissfully happy menstruating women.

With the introduction
of tampons in the 1930s

a new level of freedom was afforded
to menstruating women everywhere.

Or so they were told

Underneath the sanitized imagery

of these apparently revolutionary devices

remains the inter-related
and oft-neglected question:

Are tampons vegan?

And are they even safe?

Hi it’s Emily from Bite Size Vegan

and welcome to another vegan nugget.

When I started researching
for this topic,

I figured it would be 
a relatively simple video

to throw together.

Twenty plus hours later,

I found myself deep in a 
US patent document from 1997,

tracing down various horrific
tampon safety experiments from the 1980s.

Starting with
the obligatory Google search,

I found a lot of people asking 
about the vegan status of tampons,

but only uncertainty
and vague supposition in response.

Certainly they couldn’t
be tested on animals.

I mean, how would that even work?

As I dug further into the legal history 
of tampon regulation and litigation,

I realized that this video needed to
encompass more than a simple yes or no.

Today we’ll be looking at three
inter-connected aspects of the

tampon issue: women’s health,
animal testing, and environmental

impact, though this topic bleeds
into many other areas as well...

couldn't help myself...

including important women's
rights issues.

We’ll spend a good bit of time
on the health aspect

because it lays the groundwork
for both the animal testing

and environmental impact aspects,

and is incredibly vital information
for women and girls to have.

You can find chapter markers
for navigation in the video description.

I will have a list of resources,
along with citations to everything I state,

available on the blog post for this video
if you want to delve deeper.

This is a rich and complex subject
that one could spend a week

every month investigating
and still have more to learn.

Moving on…

Feminine hygiene products are marketed as
synonymous with feminine health.

But are they, and tampons in particular,
really in a woman’s best interest?

When it comes to the health impact
of tampons there are three main variables:

the ingredients, the absorbency level,
and the bleaching process.

Each of these relates
to two main health concerns:

Toxic Shock Syndrome 
and dioxin exposure.

To address each of these,
we need a brief history

of the little cotton rockets.

Things have come a long way since 
the belted-on cotton rag contraptions of old,

but really, tampons aren’t as new
as you may think.

Introduced commercially
in Europe in the 1930s,

they didn’t reach wide acceptance in the
United States until around 1974,

due to puritanical concerns
that they threatened

the integrity of a woman’s virginity.

In 1974, Procter and Gable

released the Rely brand tampon
and American women joined

their European counterparts
in revolutionizing that time of the month.

Because what woman doesn’t want
“an assurance of daintiness [she’s] never known before”

while doubled over in pain as her uterus
plays out its personal Armageddon?

As early as 1975, anecdotal evidence arose
connecting Toxic Shock Syndrome

to tampon use.

Toxic Shock Syndrome, or TSS, is a rare
but potentially fatal medical condition

caused by toxins produced
by a bacterium and characterized

by fever, headache, nausea
and vomiting, diarrhea, confusion,

low blood pressure, rash, and sometimes
seizures, among other symptoms.

Regardless of this disturbing connection 
to their products, tampon companies

didn’t investigate for five years,
and only then when confronted

by the Center for Disease Control
and forced to pay damages to affected women.

Finding the companies had literally 
no information about the effects

of their products on vaginal physiology 
and microbiology,

the CDC undertook it’s own tests
and within 3-4 weeks

had established that TSS was caused
by a particular toxin secreted

by a particular bacterial strain
known as staphylococcus aureus.

In the summer of 1980, 
the CDC recommended warnings be issued

with tampons, a regulation which
went into formal effect in 1982

and remains today,
as well as cautioned women

that if they wanted to avoid 
the risk of TSS, to stop using tampons.

The CDC report also found that Procter and
Gamble’s Rely tampons

carried the highest risk for TSS.

Rely tampons were uniquely composed
of carboxymethylcellulose

and compressed beads
of polyester

while other companies 
utilized a blend of cotton and rayon.

“It’s totally different from any other
tampon. See Rely is made of two materials.

Each has advantages of its own, 
but combined, they’re even better.”

Originally tampons were 100% cotton, 
but in an effort to combat leakage,

companies increased absorbency
by introducing blends of synthetic fibers

including polyester, polyacrylate rayon,
carboxymehtylcellulose and viscose rayon.

With the rise of TSS cases,
all but cotton and rayon were phased out.

While the Food and Drug Administration
insists that rayon is safe.

experts like Dr. Philip Tierno,
director of microbiology

and diagnostic immunology at New York
University Medical Center,

insists that 100% cotton tampons
present the lowest risk.

But before you run out to purchase
a small cotton plantation

for residence in your nether regions,
it’s important to note that cotton

is the dirtiest crop on the planet,
occupying only 2.4% of the world’s cropland

but using 16-25% of the world’s pesticides.

Aldicarb, for example, a pesticide commonly
used in cotton production,

is so toxic that a single drop
absorbed through the skin

can kill an adult human.
And let’s not forget Lauren Wasser,

the model who at 24 years old had
her right leg amputated

due to Toxic Shock Syndrome
contracted from Kotex Natural Balance.

cotton tampons.
Though she’s now

she's doing excellent work challenging
and redefining beauty standards.

But tampon ingredients
aren’t the only factor.

In 1980 two influential studies
were published

which indicated that
tampon absorbency rating

was a greater risk factor for TSS
than tampon ingredients,

with the risk rising
with absorbency level.

The FDA sprung into action
and four years later proposed the creation

of federal regulations 
for absorbency standards.

After only another five years
of lively back and forth

with industry leaders, the FDA finally
released their ruling

for “Ranges of Absorbency Labeling”
for menstrual tampons

on October 26th, 1989.
Made it in under a decade.

Well done.

While women could now take comfort in the
uniformity of tampon absorbency levels,

it was still impossible for them 
to know exactly what they

were putting in their bodies.

As early as 1982, 
the FDA was asked to require

ingredient labeling for tampons
due to growing customer concerns.

But despite the advice of its own
Obstetrics-Gynecology Devices Panel,

it refused to do so.
For a product that has such prolonged

and intimate contact with one of
the most sensitive and absorbent

part of the body, 
the nondisclosure of ingredients

is unsettling at best.

Because the FDA classifies tampons
as medical devices, companies

are under no obligation to reveal
what’s in their tampons.

Which leads us
to the second major health concern:

dioxin exposure in relation
to the bleaching process

of tampon production.

Dioxins are a group
of chemically-related compounds

that are persistent environmental
pollutants

which, due to their fat solubility, 
accumulate and remain in the body

for 7-11 years.

According to the World Health
organization, “dioxins are highly toxic

and can cause reproductive
and developmental problems,

damage the immune system, interfere
with hormones and also cause cancer.”

While the majority of dioxins people come
into contact with are through meat, dairy,

fish and shellfish consumption,
they are also a byproduct

of the chlorine bleaching process
used in the manufacture of paper products,

including the rayon in tampons.

In 1987, an FDA scientist stated that, “It
is critical to an adequate risk assessment

that the level of dioxins in tampons,
sanitary pads, diapers,

and other medical devices be measured.

The capacity to measure such levels
exists within FDA.

Extraction data for dioxin
from these products...

would improve the accuracy
of any risk assessment.”

Yet the FDA again refused the advice
of its own people,

saying there wasn’t adequate data
on dioxins to warrant labeling.

Later in 1990, along with the EPA
and Consumer Product Safety Commission,

the FDA authored a study of risks
related to products containing

chlorine-bleached wood pulp and found
the dioxin levels to be negligible.

However, numerous specialists
disagreed with their conclusion.

One particularly firm voice was that of
House Representative Carolyn B. Maloney,

who introduced a bill on November 7, 1997
proposing an act entitled

“The Tampon Safety
and Research Act of 1997.”

The act “provided for research
to determine the extent to which

the presence of dioxin, synthetic fibers,
and other additives in menstrual

tampons pose any risk to 
the health of women.”

Sadly, Maloney’s act was not passed.
But, ever persistent,

she resubmitted it in 1999,

2003,

2005,

2008,

2011,

2014

and 2015,

now calling it “The Robin Danielson Act,”
after a woman who died from TSS in 1998.

An important element of Maloney’s
argument remains that the FDA itself

doesn’t monitor dioxin levels, 
but rather relies on companies

to self-monitor and submit reports.

Because if ever there were someone
the honor system was made for,

it’s faceless multi-billion
dollar corporations!

The dioxin levels found to be negligible
by these organizations are based

on one tampon, 
negating the accumulation

within the body.

Maloney compares this to 
basing the health risks of smoking

on one cigarette.

While tampon companies have moved from
the original chlorine gas bleaching methods

to either elemental chlorine-free
bleaching or totally

chlorine-free bleaching, 
most manufacturers use the former,

which still produces dioxins.

Now know what you must be thinking. 
“Okay, okay, I get it!

Tampons are toxic, infection-filled
cancer sticks for my naughty bits.

It’s a tamponspiracy!

But what’s that got to do with
veganism?” I’m so glad you asked.

Well, with all the aforementioned
safety issues,

scientists of course realized that
the only way to keep women safe

from the great white threat
was to torture and kill mice, rabbits,

chickens, rats, hamsters, guinea pigs,
monkeys, sheep, goats and baboons.

Because nothing says feminine daintiness
like brutal vivisection.

While I’ve always had to dig down
several layers to get to the substantial

studies when I’ve researched animal testing
for particular products like medication,

cigarettes or what have you,
there’s always been some readily

accessible information with which to start.
This was not the case with tampons.

Outside of questions and debates on vegan
forums and a totally uncited excerpt

posted and reposted on vegan tumblrs,
I couldn’t find specific information

on how or even if tampons
are tested on animals.

However, much like nature’s gift to women,
I’m nothing if not persistent.

I eventually found my way
to a document for

US Patent number 5641503 A
for additives to tampons,

filed on January 13th, 1995 and published
June 24th, 1997, on behalf

of Mcneil-Ppc, Inc, owned by the more
widely known Johnson & Johnson.

This document described
several experiments,

giving me just enough to search
out the original papers as a starting place.

Now I’m not sure the difficulty of finding
such studies was purposeful

but it was certainly in the best interest
of tampon producers everywhere.

I’ll briefly describe some
choice examples

of the very un-vegan side of tampons,
but do refer to the blog post

for links to additional
and more thorough examples.

And I won’t be showing anything graphic.

The studies were hard enough
to find let alone photos.

To start, almost every experiment
I encountered,

whether using live animals or not,
at least employed the use of rabbits’ blood

and either bovine brain heart agar,
which is exactly what it sounds like,

or some sort of beef heart medium,
with several also employing

sheep erythrocytes,
and one using fetal calf serum.

A rather unique study incubated fertilized
hen’s eggs for 11 days and then injected

the live chicken embryos with Toxic Shock
Syndrome Toxin One, knows as TSST-1.

The embryos were then “examined
for death 24 hours after the injection.”

Rabbit models for tampon safety
come in several variations.

Some rabbits received multiple
intradermal injections into their backs

of the TSS toxin over a period of 7 weeks
at which point “the rabbits were bled.”

One experiment described
strapping the rabbits into a rack

for four hours to acclimate them
so they’d fight less

when restrained for injection.

Then their “deaths were recorded
and surviving rabbits were observed after

four days for gross myocardial
and liver necrosis.” Some were also

given endotoxins “to determine
their susceptibility to lethal shock.”

Other methods implanted subcutaneous
diffusion chambers under the rabbits’ skin

for a steady release of toxins.

One such experiment included
that their diffusion chambers were made

of “perforated polyethylene gold balls.”

Yet other rabbits had four
diffusion chambers implanted

in their uteruses, releasing toxins
directly into their wombs.

The chambers were “recovered
at the time of death

or after 14 days
when the experiment was terminated,”

at which time all remaining rabbits
were killed and dissected.

Some rabbits endured the repeated
vaginal insertion of actual tampons

laced with live TSST positive bacteria.

In one such experiment,
rabbits had an infected tampon inserted

and left for four hours before having it
removed and the process repeated

with a sterile tampon,
and then again with a third

that was left in for 14-16 hours
to simulate overnight usage.

Menstruation was simulated
by injecting a mixture of rabbit blood

and bovine serum albumin
into the rabbits’ vaginas

once the tampons were in place.

Perhaps the most bizarre iteration
was an experiment where tampons

were inserted subcutaneously into the
tissue on the back of the rabbits’ necks.

The forced vaginal insertion
of toxin-laced tampons

was also inflicted upon baboons,
with one experiment leaving them in

for twelve hours at a time
“to allow for additional growth

of staphylococcus aureus and TSST-1
production within the vaginal cavity.”

Guinea pigs also received intravaginal
innoculations of the TSS toxin

and other associated strains
in an experiment carried out

at a University 15 minutes
from where I currently live.

One report used terminology
I’ve never before seen in a scientific paper

stating that the rabbits
who hadn’t already died

were “sacrificed” for dissection,
a term which actually captures

rather simply the main
argument for animal testing.

Namely that it’s a necessary sacrifice
for the greater good.

I have an entire video series
on animal testing delving into

this argument and more,
but a summary review

on Toxic Shock Syndrome research
from within the scientific community

itself and one that’s in favor
of continued experimentation,

says it better than I ever could:

“That S. aureus strains produce
a wide number of extracellular products…

which cause severe biologic effects
in some animals makes it difficult

to confirm that the symptoms noted
in animals given TSST-1 or infected

with TSST-1-producing strains are
specific for TSS in humans.”

Basically meaning because these are mice,
rabbits, rats, hamsters,

guinea pigs, monkeys, sheep,
goats, and baboons, and not humans,

the results can’t be relied upon
as indicators of human reactions.

So what was the point?

Well, the report assures that
“Nonetheless, most animal model data

relating to the effects
of TSST-1 strongly support its role

as the most prominent toxin causing TSS.”

Excellent.

Now we know that the Toxic Shock
Syndrome Toxin Number One

is the most prominent cause
of Toxic Shock Syndrome.

I’m sure every one of those beings
who was injected,

cut into, raped with toxin-laced tampons,
and “sacrificed” can rest easy knowing

their invaluable contribution to
science was not in vain.

While most of the specific experiments
I described were from the eighties

and nineties, with a few in the 2000’s
this kind of experimentation

continues today all over the world,
right in our own backyards.

Now if what we’ve covered already isn’t
reason enough to ditch

the little toxic seeds
of vaginal destruction,

let’s briefly look into the environmental
impact of our Monthly Visitor

The average woman will throw away
250-300 pounds of menstruation products

including as many as 16,800 tampons
in her lifetime.

While both tampons and pads leach
chemicals, including dioxins, into the water

and soil, tampons in particular
are a major hazard to marine life.

The buoyant applicators can float out
for miles and are often eaten

by marine wildlife,
becoming lodged in their digestive tracts,

causing them to slowly starve to death.

Some also contain bisphenol A,
an endocrine disruptor

proven to have harmful effects
on aquatic wildlife.

Used tampons and pads
can harbor harmful pathogens and bacteria,

and their decomposition in landfills
is unlikely to impossible with a 2005 study

showing tampons to be the slowest 
to degrade of all paper/cotton products.

I think it’s safe to say,
after all of this,

that mainstream tampons
are decidedly not vegan

and very, very likely, not safe.

So what’s a girl to do
when the Uterine Ninjas arrive?

Well, luckily there are alternatives
which I have links to on the blog post.

There are several brands
of 100% organic cotton tampons,

which sidesteps the toxic chemicals
of conventional cotton

and the questionable affects of rayon,
though can still contribute

to pollution even if
labeled biodegradable.

The ones I have listed on the blog post
have clear no animal testing policies.

An alternative that checks all the boxes
is a menstrual cup,

which, believe it or not,
even predates the tampon,

with the first known concept arising in 1867.

Though distributed since the 1930’s,
menstrual cups have not seen

the same success as tampons,
possibly in part because of their lack

of built in obsolescence,
meaning most of the companies

are small and independently run.

Options include the Keeper,
the Diva Cup, and more.

Additionally, for your pads,
as they are composed of the same

questionable materials and toxins,
and just as environmentally destructive,

there are reusable cloth options
like GladRags and Lunapads,

with organic non-bleached options.

Both the cups and reusable pads
have to struggle against societal norms

and menstruation taboos as they require
a bit more intimacy with your own anatomy.

But when you think of your health,
the needless torture of animals,

and the destruction of the planet
and its marine life, getting a little more

acquainted with your private parts
seems a small price to pay.

And since cups and cloth last for years,
you actually save money!

I hope that this video has been helpful.
It’s far longer than I originally envisioned

but in seeing how very little reliable
information is out there on this topic,

I really wanted to be thorough.

Menstruation is nothing to
be ashamed of or secretive about.

Just like the importance of exposing
the animal products industries,

it’s only when we shine a light on what’s
hidden that we can know what we

are supporting and choose to make
different decisions from here on out.

The time it took to produce this video
clocks in at about [62 hours].

If you’d like to help support
Bite Size Vegan so I can keep

putting in the long hours to bring you
this educational resource,

please check out the support links in the
video description below where you can give

a one-time donation or receive
perks and rewards for your support

by joining the Nugget Army, the link for that
is also in the iCard sidebar.

I’d like to give a special thanks my $50
and above patrons and my whole Patreon family

for making this
and all of my videos possible.

You are beyond awesomtastic.

Now I’d love to hear your thoughts on this
red-hot report.

Did you know this information about tampons?

What alternatives do you use
or think you’d like to try in place

of those treacherous tomes of toxic death?
Let me know in the comments!

If you enjoyed this video, please give it
a thumbs up and share it around

to help inform other women and girls.
If you’re new, be sure to hit

that big red subscribe button down there
for more awesome vegan content

every Monday, Wednesday, and some Fridays.

Now go live vegan,
Ride the Crimson Wave

on the Cotton Pony, 
and I’ll see you soon.

I just discovered something great!
It's Rely.

A new tampon from Proctor and Gamble.
It's really different and better.

Really a better tampon.
Remember they named it Rely.

If you use Rely Tampons here is an
important message from Proctor and Gamble.

Women who use Rely Tampons should
stop using them and return any unused

product to Proctor and Gamble
for a refund.

Proctor and Gamble has suspended the
sale of Rely tampons.

This action has been taken until more
is known about a new disease

called Toxic Shock Syndrome.
Some studies suggest that Rely Tampons

increase the risk more than other
tampon brands.

We advise you to stop using Rely
tampons.

Remember they
named it Rely