Did anyone have access to the original publication and can tell me, if they explain how they determined it being the first study and what other liquids have been used before in studies? The Guardian article only says “Manufacturers have traditionally used saline or water”, but that does not tell you much, as these are not scientists with independent studies and manufacturers usually do not publish their full internal testing methods.
I only have access to its abstract and curiously it does not mention it being the first published study with actual blood, so the authors themselves did not find it very noteworthy.
I can easily imagine, that a published, standardized, reproducible (model) menstrual fluid for such an analysis does not exist yet, but I am not that involved in medical publishing. If this is the case, that would be really infuriating. It might exist as some vendors sell artificial menstrual fluid.
No study exists comparing the capacity of currently available menstrual hygiene products using blood.
They don’t have to explain how they know. Literature searches are standard, and done before doing research like this. Funders want to know if they’re wasting their money on a question that has already been answered, and whether the proposed methods are appropriate given what has been done, and learnt, before.
That’s not to say that all literature searches are perfect. You can check on PubPeer for any howls of anguish from unacknowledged researchers. But the only legal requirement for testing is tampons due to toxic shock syndrome and its relationship to absorbency. It’s really unlikely that manufacturers are doing the tests without being forced to and, if they have done any, really unlikely they would fail to publish their results if they liked the results. If they are suppressing unwelcome results, the research might as well not exist.
I mean there’s probably a fuck ton of additional work that would need to be done to test with real blood. Like just the paperwork and health and safety stuff would make it not worth while. Then there’s sourcing it, the ethics, the potential of protest from anti-animal testing groups etc.
They’re billion dollar products, they absolutely could be made to test them if anyone cared enough to make them produce accurate labelling. If we can do it with food, we can do it with sanitary products. The NHS could do it, if it wanted to. It does plenty of independent trials to check up on how badly Pharma is lying to them this time.
4 billion people, affected 5 days a month, for 40 years.
Nah, you’re right - not worth the paperwork.
I mean, the ridiculousness of the disparity is highlighted in the article: we have a standardised measure for hot sauce, but not menstrual product absorbency.
My wife is pregnant. In her last month now. The discomfort and sacrifices woman go through… I’ve been joking that if it were men being the ones going through pregnancy, we would’ve perfected incubating the fetus in a machine or something decades ago. Also, 12 months of paid paternity leave, at the minimum. I’m not sure I’m joking…
Why kill animals? It’s not like menstrual products don’t work. just keep buying the stuff that works more than others if the little difference between the testing fluids and blood are really existent.
And it’s not like the products would be better with blood testing. That’s not how capitalism works. It needs to work good enough to be bought with the biggest profit margin possible. So using blood for testing just creates suffering for animals for no reason other than you can put “tested with animal blood” on the box. I wouldn’t see that as a plus
Water is comparable to blood in very very few ways. Outside of cleaning purposes I don’t want water where my blood is.
Also menstrual fluid isn’t water.
I want you to taste test this hamburger for me, you’re going to eat it 3 times a day 60 days a year, and you’re eating the beta version, which is actually a slice of pizza. Enjoy your hamburgers!
You don’t need blood to determine the absorbency of the products. We do in fact have a very clear idea how much more viscous blood is compared to water and adjust for that.
The people who are complaining about this I suspect have very little experience lab sciences.
I’m sitting between my hplc and gcms, if you think pH and acidity (both carefully controlled for by the body) have nothing to do with absorption you might have very little experience with lab sciences.
It’s about much more than viscosity, it’s about evaporation rate, chemical balance, and yes some absorbency. I would say just using generic human blood isn’t enough, the chemistry within the vagina is self regulated like no other part of the human body, it’s kinda the key organ to life’s continuance.
As the only real goal of tampons and pads is to absorb the discharged fluids and prevent their transfer to clothes and skin. Unless there is a rampant problem of menstrual products not working I fail to see how this is a problem.
If you actually work in a lab you should know how much more expensive using biohazards to test would be.
Yes I actually work in a lab, recycling/waste disposal is something we work into our budget. You think they aren’t funded well enough to afford those expenses?
Question my credentials again, please, it amuses me.
We need to stop using animals. Not extend it. I mean I really don’t get what’s so hard about testing if a product works on humans in the real scenario.
Because testing things in laboratories for healthcare requires stringent and rigorous controls. It’s a lot easier to standardise animal blood than human blood, and as the comment above highlighted - animal blood is already a waste product, whereas human blood is highly valuable for directly saving lives.
Arguing for less animal usage is a nobler cause, but this is not the fight to pick for it.
I have - but in this context the comparison made me think of sausages composed of period blood, which caused a physical reaction that prompted my response.
I meant it as a joke, but the down voters clearly didn’t find it funny. Ah well.
I’m still not satisfied because menstrual blood is much chunkier than a donated pint from your arm. Until they’re using mucus blood we’re still in the dark ages.
Iirc, weren’t lots of women going to send their used pads and tampons to that GOP politician something something monitor schedule to detect abortions…?
I’m post-menopause and post-hysterectomy myself so I didn’t pay complete attention, just sort of cheered them on.
Anyway you could start by doing a study based on recording the real-life experiences of a large pool of women who self-identify as having “normal” periods. To set a baseline at least, by which to judge “heavy” bleeding.
Or a smaller pool who are willing to alternate cup and tampons to better measure capacity. I think pouring from cup to tampon would be inaccurate because pressure from the vaginal wall affects tampon capacity.
Laboratory tests for pure absorbency makes sense for blood volume.
Functional absorbency is always going to be so much more nuanced as each woman has multiple factors in play. You’re better off calibrating pure absorbency first, then carrying those results forward to study and understand functional usage.
I guess it depends on your goal: better tampons or better healthcare. Is the problem that you can’t switch brands and have any expectation of similar absorbency? Or is the problem that your doctor asks “how many tampons do you use in a day?” and thinks it will tell him whether you really have a heavy flow, because he doesn’t believe you and doesn’t really understand how periods work? Both are real problems. Both deserve better research.
Maybe, maybe not. Blood stocks are precious but they do go out of date and blood banks would jump at the chance to do something useful with the wastage. It would also be perfectly possible to do RCTs with actual women. At the very least, it would be possible to produce a liquid with the right sort of viscosity instead of using water or saline. It’s just so ridiculously shit.
It sounds like nobody actually wanted to test with actual blood - not that there were technical or logistical difficulties, because if this was any other industrial problem, solutions would have been found the second time the problem showed up.
I don’t understand what the concerns against using real blood were. Was it expensive? Government regulated? It could have atleast had animals blood testing or something, or are we suddenly balking at all the butchering in the food industries now too?
I don’t agree with testing with real women though. That’s pretty much the same as saying skincare should be tested on real people, right? It should be TESTED elsewhere, and USED by women.
Anecdotally, when I was a child and an ad for maxi pads came on TV showing that blue liquid, I had to listen to my father bitch about how there shouldn't be ads for menstrual products because they're "disgusting." And he shouldn't "have to think of that."
...so it's anecdotal only but I may have a theory about why...
My take is blood is a biohazard unless it's quality is regulated, and therefore it's a biohazard unless it's expensive. I'll go read the article in a bit maybe I'm wrong.
Every drug you take is tested on real people. They are asked to give informed consent, of course. But we don’t just decide that something looks like it might work and start prescribing it. Testing period products is a trivial ask compared to something like chemotherapy. Bless every single person who consents to participate, we’d be fucked without them.
And I’m not sure about the cow stuff, but pig blood is almost completely identical to human blood down to the molecular level, so shouldn’t present many if any aberrations when compared to real life intended use!
Good point! Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m gonna fix my comment and then resume my steel girder and bath mats breakfast! Dennys have gotten WEIRD with their grand slam combos lately!
Mammal blood is all pretty much the same for something like this. Terrestrial mammals anyway, I don’t want to guess at the limits of adaptation for things like whales.
Add comment