This is what’s on the current consultation from the government:

Spotlight on period products 

Recent scrutiny, driven by media and advocacy groups, has led to concerns about the presence and potential leaching of harmful chemicals and traces of heavy metals in period products, both internal (such as tampons and menstrual cups) and external (including pads and panty liners).

During the passage of the Product Regulation and Metrology Act, we committed to consult on period products. As part of that we have engaged with industry, other government departments and non-governmental organisations. To contribute to our consideration of period products, an internal literature review has been undertaken to assess the presence of hazardous chemicals in period products and their potential health risks. This review found that across all categories, chemical levels were consistently low. Conservative exposure models showed that the risk is well below thresholds of concern, suggesting minimal toxicological risk.

There have been calls for specific regulation of period products, rather than relying on GPSR 2005 or UK REACH [footnote 32] which provides the baseline controls on the use of chemicals in products sold in Great Britain – whether chemical substances on their own, in a mixture or in an article, such as a car, furniture or clothing.

Following our literature review and wider conversations, we consider that under the new framework we should make better use of standards and codes of practice rather than introduce additional detailed product-specific regulations, which may not keep up with product innovations. To contribute to this, we are supporting the development of an international safety standard (ISO 25130 Menstrual Products) which will standardise risk assessments and testing for period products. It is expected to be in effect by 2028 and we anticipate that once it has been approved, it would then be designated.

In addition, the proposal to introduce digital labelling would also enable more information to be provided more easily to consumers. Read more

We have prepared a suggested response you can adapt in your own words.

Please respond to this consultation running until the 23rd of June 2026. The consultation also covers other aspects of the PRAM Act, but we have been told by the OPSS that you can directly skip to question A20. There is no need to address any of the other questions on the consultation unless you wish too. 

We have suggested some responses below if you wish to add them.  The UK Government has told us they welcome your thoughts, concerns and opinions on this issue. 

We have prepped a suggested response below and some points which you can use to support the call.

 

How to respond

1. Open the government consultation to respond
2. Skip directly to Question A20:
   “Are there any further actions you believe we should take beyond the existing and proposed requirements to ensure period products are safe?”
3. Use your own words or adapt our suggested response below.
4. Submit your response before 23 June 2026.

If you cannot respond online, you may send your response by email to: ProductSafetyReform@businessandtrade.gov.uk, using the response form on this page.

If you are responding in writing, please make clear which question each comment relates to.

Written responses can also be sent to:

Market Surveillance and Enforcement Policy Team
Department for Business and Trade
Old Admiralty Building
Admiralty Place
London SW1A 2DY  

 

Wen’s suggested response that you can cut and paste

Open the consultation response guide

Question A20: Are there any further actions you believe we should take beyond the existing and proposed requirements to ensure period products are safe?

I am responding to this consultation because of my real concern about the safety of period products and the potential impact on the health of those who use these products. Women, girls and those who menstruate deserve the safest, most sustainable and accessible products available.  

Period products are a very unique product, used by millions who menstruate on a regular basis. I was very shocked to discover they have no specific regulation but are regulated alongside many everyday consumer products, which are not used so intimately and in such an absorbent part of the human body. For example candles.

I consider period products to be out of the scope of this regulation, given how and where they are used.  I believe, like cosmetics, they should have their own set of specific regulations. I would question if any other product covered by these regulations is used internally and in such an absorbent place as the vagina. 

The vagina is thought to be 10-80 % more absorbent than the skin on the rest of the body. Over the last 24 years Independent tests have found levels of heavy metals, pesticides, endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), per- and poly-fluoroalkylated substances (PFAS)  known as “forever chemicals”, and fragrance ingredients in period products. Yet few tests have been done on the potential harm to health from exposure to even low levels of these toxic chemicals, heavy metals and pesticide placed next to or in the vagina for hours at a time. 

Many people use period products monthly for decades, meaning even low-level exposures may accumulate significantly over a lifetime 

I find the lack of transparency and accountability by many of the bigger producers unacceptable. There is no information on the packer about where the products are made. Or information about any of the intentional and unintentional ingredients found in these products. I am also concerned about period products sold through online marketplaces, where there is little information about manufacturing standards, chemical content or regulatory compliance.

Commercial confidentiality means if industry uses additives, there is no responsibility to disclose so it’s very difficult to know what they are or to make an informed choice. Innovation has moved faster than relational which means additives like biocidal silver, synthetics fragrances and anti-odour chemicals have all been added to period products even though they are unnecessary and can wash out after a few washes. Yet they still potentially harm the health of the consumer. There is little or no accountability.

A number of these additives are used to address the age old stigma and taboos around menstruation and  menstrual odour. They serve little purpose in modern day products. 

But decades of research has shown these heavy metals, toxic chemicals and pesticides are linked to reproductive, developmental and neurological effects  and even to certain types of cancer. 

PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly referred to as “forever chemicals” because they accumulate in the human body and in the environment have been linked to cancer, liver damage, thyroid disease, hormonal disruption, fertility problems and other health problems. 

Some of the chemicals found in period products like the EDC phthalates, and PFAS have been banned or restricted for use in cosmetics. For many heavy metals such as lead, mercury and arsenic, there are no safe levels. These heavy metals are regulated from entering our air, soil and water and yet all of these have been found in period products. 

I am disappointed that the UK government has suggested voluntary standards and industry codes of practice as a possible route to ensure safety. t is very clear to me that existing voluntary industry codes of practices on product safety are not working. If voluntary codes were effective in keeping harmful substances from period products, why does independent research keep finding levels of harmful substances in period products when they are regulated elsewhere? 

While the upcoming International Standards Organisation (ISO) standard on period products might be a big step forward, it is a voluntary standard and will not be legally binding.  My worry is that it will not provide all the checks and balances to ensure the safety of period products. The ISO is not a global regulator, nor should it be; that responsibility lies with our governments to regulate. 

Some parts of the world are leading the way, for example, in the United States several PFAS and other harmful chemicals have also been banned or restricted for use in all consumer products including period products in several states including New York State.  The EU has developed a (voluntary) ecolabel which bans or restricts many harmful substances from use or detection in period products. 

But we need the UK Government to lead the way on this and ban harmful chemicals and substances in period products they really care about the health of the millions of women, girls and those who menstruate in the UK. We deserve better.

It’s not lost on me the gendered nature of period products, and the fact that the health of women, girls and females is always last in the queue when it comes to safeguarding and regulation. Those on lower incomes may also have fewer choices and less access to safer products, making strong regulation even more important.  

The ongoing attention given to free provision of period products has been progressive but now we also need to focus on safety. 

I believe menstruation and menstrual health are a public health and human rights issue and should be given the scrutiny they deserve through proper and specific regulation. 

 

Some other bullet points you can include

• Wen and PAN UK report, Blood, Sweat and Pesticides found levels of glyphosate (a harmful pesticides linked to cancer) in tampons bought in the UK at 40 times the legal limit allowed in drinking water. 
• Biocidal silver used as an antimicrobial to ease consumer concerns is found in period pants but washes out after a couple of washes. 

PFAS or forever chemicals have been found in period products and the product packaging at similar levels they have been found in outdoor gear such as raincoats.

 

2.3 Other optional questions you may wish to answer

The consultation contains many questions. While Question A20 is the most important question for period product safety, you may also wish to comment on some of the other questions below if you have time. We have only included the questions that we consider most relevant. 

Question A1: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed scope of the regulations, including the exemptions from scope? Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Don’t know 

Suggested answer: Disagree. I consider period products to be out of the scope of this regulation, given how and where they are used.  I believe, like cosmetics, they should have their own set of specific regulations. I would question if any other products covered by these regulations are used internally and in such an absorbent place as the vagina.

—————————

Question A2: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed definition of a safe product? 

Suggested answer: Disagree. I am concerned by the proposed definition stating that a product may be considered safe if it “does not present any risk or only the minimum risks compatible with the product’s use”. I believe that the definition of a safe product should reflect the precautionary principle – “better safe than sorry” in relation to toxic chemical exposure as well as people who are more susceptible to harm, especially vulnerable populations such as those a group of people who are at a higher risk of experiencing poor health, discrimination, or poverty. 

—————————

Question A3: Do you agree or disagree with the new list of considerations when assessing safety?  Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Don’t know 

Suggested answer: Disagree. I can’t imagine that safety assessments cover vaginal exposure? This is not clear. Especially as this regulation is proposed to cover period product

—————————

Question A5: Do you agree or disagree that essential safety requirements, testing or conformity assessment may be useful in the new framework?  

Suggested answer: Disagree. I believe third party, transparent independent testing should be required for all period products to ensure safety. 

 —————————
Question A6: Do you agree or disagree with introducing the ‘designation’ mechanism for products covered by the framework?

Suggested answer: Disagree. While voluntary standards can support businesses, they should not replace legally binding regulations. Existing voluntary approaches have not prevented harmful chemicals from being found in everyday consumer products,  specifically period products. 

 —————————

Question A7: In what circumstances, if any, might it be appropriate to designate a standard from a competent standards body other than BSI, European standards bodies, or international standards bodies? 

Suggested answer: I don’t believe the safety of period products can be designated and controlled by any voluntary standards.

—————————

Question A9: Do you agree or disagree with the requirement that producers must only place safe products on the market? Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Don’t know.

Suggested answer: Agree. Producers/manufacturers should be responsible for ensuring products on the market are safe. Especially for products with repeated, intimate and long-term exposure, including period products. 

 —————————

Question A10: Do you agree or disagree with the requirement that onward suppliers should act with due care and not supply a product unless it is compliant?

Suggested answer: Agree. Onward suppliers should have a clear duty of care to ensure products are compliant and safe. 

 

Question A11: Do you agree or disagree that online marketplaces should be required to act with due care to prevent, identify and remove non-compliant products from their sites?

Suggested answer: Agree. Specially given growing concerns around harmful chemicals in consumer products and the complexity of supply chains

 —————————
Question A12: Do you agree or disagree with the introduction of a requirement that online marketplaces should practice due diligence to identify and take action against non-compliant sellers and sellers that provide non-compliant goods?

Suggested answer: Agree. 

 —————————

Question A13: In which situations or for which products do you think additional verification requirements or local presence requirements would be useful? 

Suggested answer: Additional verification requirements would be particularly useful for products associated with intimate, prolonged and repeated exposure, including period products. Especially when consumers have limited information about manufacturing standards, chemical content or regulatory compliance. 

 —————————

Question A14: Do you agree or disagree that we should give all supply chain actors a duty to participate in monitoring of products already supplied and to cooperate in corrective action?

Suggested answer: Agree

—————————

Question A15: Do you agree that all supply chain actors should have a duty to cooperate with relevant authorities and others in the supply chain? Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Don’t know

Suggested answer: Agree

 —————————

Question A16: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal for online marketplaces and producers to have a single point of contact?

Suggested answer: Agree

 —————————

Question A17: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal for information that must be provided on or with the product?

Suggested answer: I support requirements for clear product information, including safety warnings and producer details. 

 —————————

Question A18: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed types of information that can be provided digitally?

Suggested answer: Digital information can provide transparency and access to more detailed safety and chemical information. But it should complement, not replace clear physical safety information on products where there may be a health risk. 

 —————————

Question A19: What, if any, protections would be necessary to ensure that consumers with limited digital access or low digital confidence online are not disadvantaged? 

Suggested answer: Safety information should always physically remain accessible.Consumers should not be required to rely on QR codes, smartphones, internet access to access health and safety information. 

 —————————

Question A21: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed information that producers and onward suppliers selling products online should provide on an online listing?

Suggested answer: Agree. Consumers should have access to clear safety, compliance and seller info before purchasing products online. 

 —————————

Question A22: Do you agree or disagree that online marketplaces should be required to design their interface to allow sellers to provide customer information?

Suggested answer: Agree.

 —————————

Question A23: Should online marketplaces introduce additional steps, such as verifying certain product information or making some information mandatory, before listings are published?

Suggested answer: Agree