Lead, arsenic and other heavy metals in tampons prompt FDA investigation
News article: https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/10/health/fda-tampons-heavy-metals-wellness/
Research paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024004355?via%3Dihub
Background
Recently there has been growing interest in studying menstrual products such as tampons as potential chemical exposure sources. Tampons have received special attention due to their function necessitating direct contact with epithelial tissue in the genital region. Several studies over the past few years have revealed the presence of chemical congeners like dioxins and furans in tampons, but this study conducted by Jenni Shearston et. al. is the first to investigate the concentrations of toxic heavy metals. This study garnered a fair bit of attention and controversy when it was first published, particularly in a somewhat misleading press release article from Berkeley Public Health, which overextended the claims of the paper and failed to highlight its limitations.
In her article published two months after the initial release of the paper and slightly distanced from the buzz of the original paper’s publication, Sandee LaMotte, a journalist with a background documenting chemical contaminants in commercial products. Her article is doubly a review of the paper as well as an overview of the FDA’s response to it, to which it dedicates the first portion of the article.
Research Paper
The Environmental International paper first outlines their acquisition method for the tampons, which were 24 blindly sourced and distinct product lines from both the US and UK, from both online and brick and mortar stores. Samples were divided dissolved in a microwave digestion system, and subsequently analyzed using inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy. They analyzed only the internal absorbing portion of the tampons, although a few had external non-woven coverings that were included in their samples. A diagram demonstrating how an ICP-MS functions is depicted below:
(Figure 1. Diagram of ICP-MS function.)
In organizing their data, the Shearston group tried to align measurements by a few distinguishing factors, but most notably by differentiating organic from non-organic tampons and differences between name-brand and store-brand, and US vs. UK products..
All of the samples tested demonstrated concentrations of 12 of the 16 analyte metals exceeding the limit of detection, and the remaining 4 were each measured in at least a few of the samples. Of the toxic heavy metals, lead was observed with the highest average concentrations, containing values of 100 ng/g across all measured samples. A few of the other metals and metalloids observed which may pose concern included the carcinogens arsenic and cadmium, (the paper cites a study in which vaginal arsenic exposure was evaluated in rats, in which an oxidative mechanism on the tissue was found). In discussing potential sources for the metals, they note production-stage contamination, in which common ingredients such as cotton, rayon, and viscose are exposed either atmospherically or through wastewater. Particularly for Pb, raw materials might be exposed to the element in the water where they are produced. Certain metals are added intentionally, such as for lubrication, pigmentation, and odor control. The authors discuss the comparative opacity of the content labels on the packages, noting that while the ingredients and materials come from a variety of different sources and countries with different standards of allowed chemical content, the package labels especially in the US, make this sourcing work virtually impossible.
(Figure 2. From the Shearston paper, a correlation diagram between all of the analytes measured. As you can glean, the correlational relationships between products are still not entirely clear.)
The group goes on further to discuss the differences between organic and non-organic tampons, where it found the greatest discrepancies. Because of the composition of organic tampons being “100% cotton”, they suggest that the use of fertilizers and pesticides may alter the pH of the soil in which the cotton is grown, which might alter its bioavailability for arsenic, which is consistently found in higher levels in organic tampons. The paper concludes its discussion section with a note on the current regulation status of tampons in the US, EU, and UK. Regular product testing is not required in any of the three bodies, and there is no requirement to test for chemical contaminants. There are generally next to no policies for oversight on tampon products in these three government bodies.
The paper goes into depth describing its limitations as a study, and it is important to keep in mind that this is a pilot study within a subject that is already underexplored. There is a bias towards US products, the absorbency of the individual sampled products was not in and of itself measured, as well as the general broad scope of this article. However, he biggest limitation here, as the researchers discuss multiple times throughout the paper, is the lack of research done into the actual absorbance rates of chemicals into the vaginal epithelial tissue, and how much they actually leach from the tampon matrix into the tissue.
CNN Article
The article published in CNN generally does not stray particularly far with regards to the paper, and sticks to it in an agreeably banal manner. It’s clear that LaMotte has a degree of experience in reporting this, and she generally does not stray too far from what is reported in the article. She pretty much omits the methods portion, which does not feel deeply detract from the article given where it is being published and the word count limitations associated, but it should nonetheless be noted. The first portion of the article mostly deals with the FDA response, featuring several quotes from the Shearston, though mostly highlighting responses from the FDA, along with a representative of the CHPA. Its actual engagement with the article remains fairly balanced and respectful of the original authors’ stated limitations, and does not extend itself too far, which might have to do with its release a few months after the paper. On the contrary, there are a few omissions of information here that, to me at least, feel as though they detract from the nuanced urgency in original findings. I think including more details regarding the risks of these heavy metal contaminants, as well as more of a background on research surrounding the presence of other toxic chemicals within tampons, would have been helpful in establishing the preexisting basis going into the matter. These are minor points, but I think this somewhat leads to a less rhetorically sound positioning of the data garnered by Shearston et al..
Overall, I believe that the CNN article does a pretty good job interpreting the study. The nature of the paper and the point at which the paper was written demands a level of care in approaching information of such a broad significance and implication (for a journalist this would probably be the most vital point in composing an article for something like this), and I believe LaMotte for the most part understands this and works that angle. I would give the article a 7/10.
Works Cited
LaMotte, Sandee. “Lead, Arsenic and Other Heavy Metals in Tampons Prompt FDA Investigation.” CNN, CNN, 10 Sept. 2024, www.cnn.com/2024/09/10/health/fda-tampons-heavy-metals-wellness/index.html.
Shearston, Jenni A., et al. “Tampons as a Source of Exposure to Metal(Loid)S.” Environment International, vol. 190, no. 108849, Elsevier BV, June 2024, pp. 108849–49, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108849.
Wilschefski, Scott C., and Matthew R. Baxter. “Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry: Introduction to Analytical Aspects.” Clinical Biochemist Reviews, vol. 40, no. 3, Aug. 2019, pp. 115–33, https://doi.org/10.33176/aacb-19-00024.
Great analysis Nicolette! I agree, I think the article does a satisfactory job of summarizing the publication. I also agree that an extra section about the health risks of heavy metal contaminants, especially when in contact with permeable membranes. I do think it could be useful to include the statistic about how few samples of tampons tested above the MDL for certain metals. I also found it a little odd that calcium and iron were included in the study, given that most of their common oxidation states are necessary for human function. I'm no biochemist, but I remember learning that calcium was good for my bones... However, I appreciate the article highlighting only the toxic heavy metals. In regards to background information, to what extent to do you feel it is the responsibility of the journalist to provide it? Do you feel articles should discuss background concepts more or simply link to places where one can learn? The comments under this article seemed a mix of scared, confused, and upset, and I'm not sure the limitations were delineated enough.
ReplyDeleteThis was such an interesting topic and great review! I totally agree that the CNN article did a good job at conveying the information from the journal article. I really liked how Sandee emphasized that this study wasn't saying don't use tampons. I think that is immediately the first conclusion readers jump to after reading the title. But she did a great job backing up the information with solid quotes from multiple experts from both the author and from other experts. Sandee avoided many of the pitfalls we have seen from other CNN articles that exaggerate the data. I think the fact that she accurately conveyed the message for this high interest study topic alone was incredibly impressive. Honestly I might even give Sandee a 7.5 or 8/10 just for how well she addressed the topic.
ReplyDeleteHi great review, though I do think that I would have rated the CNN article a little higher. While I agree it's lacking some information, I think that this helps to narrow the focus to the main idea that there is lead and arsenic in tampons and there shouldn't be. I also think the article does a good job of highlighting how big of an issue this is by comparing the lead and arsenic amounts to what is allowed in water and emphasizing that there shouldn't be any arsenic found in tampons at all. I think if they had gone too much into the background they would have lost their narrative a bit. LaMotte specializes in health articles, and I think the flow of her writing paints a good picture of the main findings of the study without fearmongering too much. Yes, this is a concern, but it needs to be studied more.
ReplyDeleteGreat job on the blog post! I think that this is an important topic to research and report about since there is very little research in this are and half of world's population menstruates. I agree with you that overall the CNN article did a good job or summarizing the results of the paper, and does not misrepresent or exaggerate any of the findings. I am on the fence on whether or not more background on the risks of heavy metals contamination and other toxic metals would add that much to the article. I think that there are several points made that signal to the risk and urgency of heavy metal contamination. For example a quote from one of the authors stating that there are no safe levels of lead exposer. Also, the author of another study on tampon contamination is also quoted showing that this topic is important enough to be researched by several professionals in the scientific community. Overall, I would consider giving the article a slightly higher rating mostly off of the accuracy, and how it conveyed of the study, reiterating a couple times that there is still no evidence to say that the presence of these chemicals means for certain they leach into the vaginal tissue.
ReplyDeleteThis topic is equally terrifying and horrifying. I am concerned by how long it has taken for someone to consider researching this topic. I am impressed by the CNN article's account of the research and the results of that information. I don't know if it would be worth the space it would use in the article, but do you think LaMotte should have brought up the potential sources of the lead and arsenic? I also noticed that the exact things the FDA tests for are not mentioned in the article. Do you think that would have been useful context?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the news article is good but not perfect. I feel like the weight given to the FDA is important because this article was written in response of an FDA announcement about the research paper and government studies into this topic. I however felt that too much weight was put into the words of industry spokesman who were all but saying to ignore the results of the study. I also agree they should have went more into the history of contamination of menstrual products, showing that is not an issue that should be ignored. Proper tampon hygiene felt a bit off topic and I don't fully understand why the news paper ended with that.
ReplyDeleteGreat job on the blog post and analysis. I completely agree with your rating. The CNN article did a good job presenting the study in a way that was easy to follow. I especially liked the part where they included safety tips for tampon use. It’s a nice touch because it helps raise awareness and gives readers practical advice. I also appreciated the references to the FDA, which adds credibility to the information.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I agree with your point that the article could have gone into more detail about the risks of heavy metals, which was the main focus of the Elsevier study. While the article covered safety tips, it didn’t dive deep enough into the potential health risks of metals like lead and cadmium in tampons. A bit more on that would have helped readers better understand the study’s finding. Since tampons are something many people use regularly, I think the article could have given a more in-depth look on how heavy metals can cause health effects. Overall, I think CNN article was well presented.
Great job on the blog post! I agree that the article did a solid job of covering the key points of the paper articles. The CNN articles also provide some tips for using the tampon. I found it super interesting. Besides the advantages of the CNN articles, I also agree with Anika's point that they should cover more about the potential dangers of heavy metals. Overall I agree the CNN article worth a 7/10
ReplyDeleteGreat post! Very interesting! I agree with a lot of your thoughts here and was curious about something. Do you think the article could have benefited by talking more about the fact these metals were found in organic tampon brands as well as nonorganic? This was certainly mentioned in the CNN article, but I felt that this result of the study was breezed over a little. To me, I found that result super interesting because I feel like a lot of the organic brands advertise benefits of using less-processed, more natural materials that would theoretically be less exposed to metals during industrial manufacturing than other nonorganic brands. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteGreat job on the blog! I agreed with a lot of the points you made. I think one thing that could have added a lot to the CNN article would be more background information on sources of metals and their importance (aka potential health risks besides toxic shock syndrome). The article did a great job of not straying too far from the journal article, but adding background information to readers who may not be familiar with the topic could have given the article more of a sense of purpose or urgency to address the results of the peer reviewed paper. However, I agree with your rating of a 7/10 overall because the article was factually correct and concise.
ReplyDeleteI really appreciated this research pick! I think women's health is generally understudied so I was excited to see this study come out. I agree that the CNN article did a decent job of distilling all of the research paper's key findings without misconstruing. It wrote this in a way that, for someone familier with menstruation and tampons, informs us to potential risks but does not fear monger. Articles like this pave the way for public health improvements. However, I agree that more background and call to action could have been written in. This is especially important so that people who don't get periods and who don't understand period products can grasp the full negative impact of tampons containing heavy metals and connect with this as a public health concern.
ReplyDeleteReally interesting topic and analysis! Looking at news covering research which has previously been somewhat misconstrued, as you mentioned in your introduction, creates unique challenges, and it makes sense that CNN might choose a reporter experience with the topic to combat possible misinformation. Do you think that LaMotte adequately cleared up any previous misconceptions? What do you think of the different challenges of writing a news article on a paper several months after its release as opposed to the day of its release?
ReplyDeleteGreat summary and explanation! This is a very interesting and important topic. I mostly agree with your rating of this article, if anything I think it might a bit higher, 7.5 or 8. It seems like the main difference between the content in the article and the paper is the methods section. We have had a few conversations on the costs and benefits of omitting the methodology in public facing media. Generally, I think that this is an acceptable practice, unless the limitations of the methodologies are pertinent to public interest. Given the extreme relevance of this topic to the general public as well as the nature of heavy metals as extremely potent toxins. It seems acceptable in this case.
ReplyDeleteHi Nicolette! Great analysis of this paper/article, and this is an extremely important topic! I agree that excluding the methods section from the CNN article does not take away from this article. Like we have mentioned many times in class, including the methods of a paper, which are often extremely complicated, into an article meant for the general public could actually detract from the comprehensibility of an article. I also agree with you that the risks of toxic heavy metals, such as lead and arsenic, should have explicitly been stated, as this helps create a sense of urgency to address this pressing health risk. Because of this, I agree with your rating of 7/10.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting blog post. I had previously only known about the safety hazard of toxic shock syndrome with respect to tampons, but had not considered that there could be heavy metals/other chemicals in them besides cotton. I quite agree with your evaluation and think that this article would be made stronger by explaining why we should avoid these toxins more clearly. I suppose a good thing to try and balance is identifying the problem and its risks and also not sewing too much fear into the public, which uses these products extremely widely and regularly.
ReplyDelete