Archive link to story here: https://archive.ph/HVNLH
Posted here because there is no community for Absolutely Infuriating (that I know of).
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water”, but that does not tell you much, as these are not scientists with independent studies and manufacturers usually do not publish their full internal testing methods.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.
Thank you very much for the paper.
For a bold claim it would be better form to indicate how or at least with which search engine the search was done. But the claim is much smaller then the Guardian makes us believe. They do not say, that it is the first study, but that it is the only one with currently available products. Directly before this sentence they talk about the rising use alternative menstrual products, such as “menstrual cups, menstrual discs, menstrual underwear or reusable pads”.
I would expect that manufacturer with some RnD budget will do more tests than the ones they publish. But if their results are inconclusive or unwelcome as you said, they will not publish it. They might also not publish good results for simple marketing reasons (“Bigger number is better”), but their product might still contain improvements due to those results.
When I read that news I was shocked too.
How possibly nobody tested with even animal blood?
Water and blood have different consistency and fluidity
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
Who said to kill animals just for this purpose? That would be irresponsible and incredibly asshole
The industry is already dumping too much animal blood as a waste, just take a small drop from something that otherwise goes in wastewater anyway
