Connect with us

Hormonal health

‘I’ve been dismissed and ridiculed’ – why is birth control failing women

The pharma industry funnels only two per cent of annual revenue from contraceptives back into research and development

Published

on

The contraceptive pill is often described as one of the most significant medical advances of the 20th century. So why is it still failing women?

Inextricably linked to the swinging 60s, free love and women’s liberation, the birth control pill was invented in the 1950s by the American biologist Dr Gregory Goodwin Pincus.

Despite its side effects, it was approved for release in 1960 and take-up was swift: within two years it was being used by 1.2 million American women.

Today, the pill is the most commonly prescribed form of contraception in the US, with approximately 25 per cent of women aged 15 to 44 who use contraception reporting using it as their method of choice.

But although its use has grown, women still have to put up with side effects, such as irregular bleeding, bloating, nausea, mood swings and headaches.

The normalisation of heavy periods and discomfort around menstrual health means that often they end up suffering in silence, says communications strategist and women’s health advocate, Hannah Wrathall from Wrapp Consulting.

“My personal experience discussing contraception with my GP has always focused on avoiding pregnancy or masking symptoms, never the impact on my overall health and wellbeing,” she tells Femtech World.

“When discussing non-hormonal options, I’ve been dismissed and ridiculed for questioning the safety of options like the pill and the coil.”

Hannah is not alone. Last year the women’s health strategy for England has revealed that 84 per cent of respondents recounted instances when they were not listened to by healthcare professionals, pointing to an urgent need to improve awareness, education and training among medical professionals.

“The stat speaks for itself. These are not isolated incidences but common occurrences for most women when they visit a GP or hospital.”

Alice Pelton, founder of the contraception review, advice and prescriptions platform, The Lowdown, agrees.

“Not being listened to by healthcare professionals is the everyday reality for millions of women worldwide.

“There’s a huge amount to cover in an eight-minute GP appointment and it’s almost impossible to talk a woman through everything in the right level of detail in that time.

“A Lowdown survey in 2021 showed that 87 per cent of The Lowdown community reported that they have not felt listened to by healthcare professionals, and of this, and 72 per cent of the instances were in relation to a reproductive or sexual health condition or treatment.

“The reasons behind this are a depressing smorgasbord of patriarchal nonsense, relentless underfunding and ignorance of women’s health issues, and double standards in the way we are treated by society and the medical establishment.”

Data shows little investment is put into large-scale clinical trials into new and existing forms of birth control.

Between 2017 and 2020, there were only 23 industry-funded clinical trials into contraceptives, compared to 600 for cardiovascular drugs and 140 for treatment relating to eye disorders.

Additionally, the pharma industry funnels only two per cent of annual revenue from contraceptives back into research and development.

“Side effects are notoriously difficult to track, study and solve, especially related to hormones, but we need more honesty on risks,” says Hannah.

“We hear from people that there is dissatisfaction with the current options so we need more research and investment to fill in those gaps and develop alternatives for all genders.

“I also think we need regular bias training for healthcare professionals to overcome their views on menstrual pain and women’s pain in general.”

Features

Menstruation linked to longer football injury recovery

Published

on

Football injuries during periods are more severe and take longer to heal, though menstruation does not itself raise injury rates, according to new research.

The study monitored 33 elite players competing in Spain’s top women’s football league over four seasons, from 2019/20 to 2022/23, tracking self-reported menstrual cycle data alongside injury records.

The research was led by Dr Eva Ferrer, who specialises in sports medicine at Sant Joan de Déu Hospital and is a female health specialist at the Barça Innovation Hub in Barcelona.

“We show that menstruation itself does not increase how often injuries happen,” said Ferrer.

“Although athletes were not injured more often during their period, the injuries that happened during menstruation caused three times more days lost than injuries occurring at other times of the cycle.”

Players logged bleeding and non-bleeding days, the only phases of the menstrual cycle that can be reliably identified without blood hormone testing.

A total of 852 menstrual cycles and 80 lower limb injuries were recorded, 11 of which occurred during menstrual bleeding phases.

The findings showed that injury burden was significantly higher during bleeding phases.

The burden of soft tissue injuries, affecting muscles, tendons and ligaments, was more than three times as high when injuries were sustained during bleeding days compared to non-bleeding days, with 684 versus 206 days lost per 1,000 training hours respectively.

“Hormonal levels may not cause the injury, but they may influence how severe the injury becomes and how long recovery takes,” Ferrer explained.

Low oestrogen levels may reduce muscle repair, while increased fatigue, pain and poor sleep can alter neuromuscular control.

Iron loss can lower endurance and slow recovery, and inflammation heightened during menstruation may cause worse tissue damage.

“Small modifications such as longer warm-ups, adjusted high-speed workload, or added recovery support may help reduce the severity of injuries if they occur,” Ferrer said.

The researchers said their findings have implications beyond professional football for women who exercise regularly.

“You do not necessarily need to avoid training during your period, but you may need to adapt it,” Ferrer said.

“Tracking your cycle and symptoms can help guide training intensity and recovery strategies.”

The study’s limitations include all participants belonging to the same club, the unequal number of bleeding and non-bleeding days in a cycle potentially limiting statistical power, and the absence of hormone measurements or data on external factors such as stress, sleep and nutrition.

“It supports a growing movement toward female-specific sports science instead of applying male-based research models to women,” Ferrer concluded.

Continue Reading

Features

How Westminster is finally talking about toxic period products

Published

on

By Ruby Raut, founder and CEO, WUKA

For years, campaigners, scientists, and brands like ours have been calling attention to a hidden issue: the chemicals, metals, and toxins found in everyday menstrual products.

At last, that conversation reached one of the most powerful rooms in the country.

In October 2025, the House of Lords hosted “Have We Reached the Tipping Point for Toxic Period Products?”, part of Environmenstrual Week led by the Women’s Environmental Network (WEN).

Bringing together politicians, scientists, NGOs, and advocates, the event asked one central question: if the evidence is already clear, what’s stopping us from protecting people who menstruate?

The Political Will Is Growing, Slowly

Baroness Natalie Bennett, former Green Party leader and long-time environmental campaigner, opened the event with characteristic honesty: progress in Westminster is real, but painfully slow.

She spoke candidly about the challenges of turning concern into regulation.

“Politics is a process, not an event,” she reminded the room. Amendments fail, votes are lost, and yet each attempt builds pressure for change.

Her remarks reflected the growing cross-party awareness that chemical safety in menstrual products is a public health issue, not a niche concern.

In the UK, these products are still classified as consumer goods, unlike in the US, where they fall under medical devices.

That distinction matters; it shapes what’s tested, what’s disclosed, and ultimately how safe products are allowed to be.

A Four-Year Window for Change

Bennett called the current moment a “rare window of opportunity.” With Emma Hardy now serving as Secretary of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs , there’s a chance to align environmental, health, and equality goals, something that hasn’t happened before.

She urged everyone in the room to act decisively over the next four years, while the government is receptive and the public momentum is strong.

This is a political sweet spot: the science is mounting, public awareness is rising, and even large brands can see that consumer trust depends on transparency.

Her message was clear: don’t let this window close without action.

Regulations for period products could mirror those for cosmetics or drinking water, where safe thresholds are continually lowered as research reveals new risks.

From Stigma to Policy

Bennett also reflected on how far the conversation has come.

She recalled going on BBC Radio 4’s Women’s Hour in 2015 to talk about the tampon tax, when hearing party leaders say the word tampon on air was considered revolutionary.

A decade later, Westminster is not only saying the words but debating what’s inside those products.

For Bennett, normalising the language is part of dismantling the stigma. “Just use the words,” she said. “Put it out there.”

That cultural shift is as powerful as any policy change.

When menstruation is treated as a normal part of life, not a taboo, it becomes easier to discuss safety, sustainability, and rights — openly and without shame.

Coalition Building: The Real Engine of Progress

One of the most practical takeaways from the session was Bennett’s emphasis on coalition-building.

Regulation won’t happen through Parliament alone; it needs the force of public demand.

She pointed to the Women’s Institute, which has already campaigned for over a decade on microplastics, and encouraged collaboration with trade unions, community organisations, and campaign groups like WEN, PAN UK, and Natracare.

Her point was simple: the communities most affected by chemical exposure — lower-income groups, industrial workers, those living near polluted areas — are often least represented in policy rooms.

Building a coalition across environmental, feminist, and labour movements is how systemic change takes root.

Momentum, Awareness, and Responsibility

The House of Lords event marked a shift from awareness to accountability.

After years of grassroots activism and scientific evidence,  from toxic metal testing to pesticide exposure studies, the discussion has finally reached the people who can make change possible.

For those of us in the menstrual equity movement, the message was energising. We’ve come a long way since the days when period poverty was barely discussed, let alone period safety.

But as Bennett reminded everyone, politics moves at a glacial pace, and every window of opportunity must be used wisely.

Change won’t come from Parliament alone.

It will come from pressure, from consumers, campaigners, and companies who believe that safe periods are a basic human right.

Learn more about WUKA at wuka.co.uk

Continue Reading

Hormonal health

Inadequate heavy bleeding care costs NHS millions a year, analysis finds

Published

on

Mismanaged heavy bleeding care is costing the NHS millions each year, a new analysis suggests.

Experts say thousands of patients could be treated earlier in the community rather than in hospital.

Heavy periods, affecting at least one in three women, are defined as blood loss that disrupts daily life.

Symptoms can be linked to conditions such as fibroids, endometriosis or adenomyosis.

Treatment options include hormonal contraception or tranexamic acid, a medicine that helps blood to clot and reduce bleeding.

Severe blood loss can lead to anaemia, a lack of red blood cells, sometimes requiring transfusion.

Janet Lindsay, chief executive at Wellbeing of Women, said: “This study shows that we cannot afford to dismiss heavy menstrual bleeding as just a period. The impact of heavy menstrual bleeding on women’s lives is real and it can be debilitating.”

Researchers at Anglia Ruskin University analysed 1,332 hospital visits from 98 NHS gynaecology units between January and June 2024, during which 3,025 units of red blood cells were used.

The mean cost per admission was £2,972, with post-discharge care averaging £1,735. Scaled across a year, this equates to a little over £13m.

The average hospital stay was two days, and one in five patients were discharged while still anaemic.

Dr Bassel Wattar, associate professor of reproductive medicine at Anglia Ruskin University, said: “This is a silent crisis in women’s health.

“We are seeing thousands of women admitted to hospital for a condition that could often be managed earlier and more effectively in the community.”

Dr Sue Mann, national clinical director in women’s health at NHS England, added: “It’s vital that women experiencing heavy bleeding seek help from the NHS before it leads to serious conditions such as chronic anaemia, so please do come forward for support.”

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025 Aspect Health Media Ltd. All Rights Reserved.