Opinion
The science behind the scar: What’s really in our period products

By Ruby Raut, founder and CEO, WUKA
Over the past year, headlines about “toxic period products” have been hard to ignore. Stories about PFAS, heavy metals, and hormone disruptors in pads, tampons, and underwear have sparked global concern, and for good reason. But behind the fear, there’s a scientific story worth understanding.
At the recent House of Lords event, “Have We Reached the Tipping Point for Toxic Period Products?”, researchers and policymakers came together to separate fact from panic. The truth is more nuanced: yes, chemicals and metals are present in some menstrual products, but understanding how much, where they come from, and what that means for our health is key to driving change that’s informed, not sensational.
What Scientists Have Found So Far
Dr Kathrin Schilling, an environmental health scientist at Columbia University, shared new research that tested 16 metals in menstrual products, including arsenic, cadmium, lead, and antimony, all known toxic substances linked to long-term health effects such as cardiovascular disease, kidney problems, and hormonal disruption.
The findings were striking:
- Non-organic products showed higher levels of lead and cadmium than organic ones.
- Some reusable and single-use products exceeded 30,000 nanograms per gram (ng/g) of antimony, a toxic metal commonly used in plastics manufacturing.
- Lead levels varied dramatically, some products contained 100× more than others.
To put this in perspective, even very small doses of lead can cause harm. The World Health Organization confirms there is no safe level of lead exposure. Chronic, low-level contact can gradually affect the nervous system and fertility. The same applies to arsenic, where countries have tightened drinking water limits from 10 µg/L to as low as 1 µg/L after learning that long-term exposure causes disease.
So while the numbers in menstrual products might sound tiny, what matters most is frequency and route of exposure. Menstrual products are used regularly and in contact with one of the body’s most absorbent tissues — the vaginal wall — where absorption is estimated to be 10–80× higher than through skin. Over decades of use, even low concentrations can add up.
Understanding PFAS — The “Forever Chemicals”
Alongside metals, PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) have become another major concern. These synthetic compounds are used for absorbency and stain resistance — but they don’t break down easily, earning the name “forever chemicals.”
They accumulate in soil, water, and the human body, and have been linked to reproductive issues, thyroid disease, and immune dysfunction. California recently became the first state to ban PFAS in menstrual products, while New York is pushing for broader restrictions that include heavy metals and hormone disruptors.
These international shifts signal a clear message: the world is moving towards stricter, transparency-first regulation — something the UK could soon follow.
Why It Matters for Our Bodies
It’s important to remember that our world is already filled with background exposure, from air pollution, processed food, and household plastics. We all live in a chemically complex environment. The key isn’t to fear every product but to understand which exposures matter most and how to minimise them.
Menstrual products are unique because of their intimate and repeated contact with the body. Even trace chemicals can bypass the body’s natural detox systems when absorbed vaginally. This doesn’t mean every product is dangerous, but it underscores why regular, independent testing and clear ingredient disclosure are essential.
Internal vs. External Exposure: Why It Makes a Difference
One of the least understood parts of this debate is the difference between internal and external products. A pad or period underwear sits on the skin; it can only transfer chemicals through surface contact. But products like tampons or menstrual cups are inserted directly into the vagina, an environment that absorbs substances 10–80 times more efficiently than normal skin.
That’s because the vaginal wall is highly vascular, full of small blood vessels, and it bypasses the liver, the organ that usually filters and detoxifies harmful substances. So when a chemical is absorbed vaginally, it goes straight into the bloodstream.
Yet, most testing and regulation still treat all menstrual products as if exposure happens through skin contact. There’s very little research separating the risk profiles of internal (tampons, cups, discs) versus external (pads, underwear) products. That’s why scientists like Dr Schilling emphasised the need for new safety standards that actually reflect how the body interacts with these materials, not just how a fabric performs in a laboratory test.
How Responsible Brands Are Responding
Some brands are already ahead of regulation.
At WUKA, we take this responsibility seriously. We are one of the very few period underwear brands with no PFAS detected in our products. Every batch is tested rigorously, both at source (in China) and again in the UK by Eurofins laboratories, an independent global testing agency.
We also screen for toxic chemicals, metals, and harmful finishes, ensuring that what touches your body is as safe as it is sustainable. As a founder, I always remind our team: I use our products myself. If I wouldn’t wear it, I wouldn’t make it for anyone else.
Our philosophy is simple, transparency builds trust. Consumers shouldn’t need a chemistry degree to choose a safe period product.
The Path Ahead
The science is clear: menstrual product safety deserves the same rigour as drinking water, cosmetics, or food. But we can also take heart, awareness is growing, data is expanding, and governments are beginning to act.
As policymakers push for international standards (through bodies like the ISO TC338 on menstrual products), and as responsible brands lead by example, the future of menstrual care looks safer, smarter, and far more transparent than the past.
This isn’t just about fear of toxins, it’s about empowering everyone who menstruates with knowledge and choice. Because understanding the science is the first step toward changing it.
Find out more about WUKA at wuka.co.uk
Opinion
We built Ema like a nurse: Here’s why that matters

By Claire Pettengill, science intern and Jade Anstine, clinical AI intern, Ema EQ
Every year, Gallup asks Americans which professions they trust most. Every year, nurses win. Not doctors. Not scientists. Nurses. And if you spend any time thinking about why, the answer is not hard to find.
Medicine runs on the nurse noticing first. In other words, the diagnosis follows the nurse sounding the alarm. They ask questions that feel human, not procedural. They explain what is happening in language you can understand.
And, critically, they know when something is beyond their scope and get you to the right person without making you feel like a burden for needing more.
That is the model we built Ema on.
When we set out to build an AI companion for women’s health, we could have just built something that answers questions efficiently. Pattern matching. Fast retrieval. Clinically accurate outputs.
Those things matter, and Ema does all of them. But accuracy alone does not build trust, and trust is the entire game in healthcare.
A woman asking about her postpartum recovery, her fertility, or her breastfeeding supply is not looking for a search engine. She is looking for someone who will take her seriously.
Women’s concerns don’t just need to be ‘validated’; they also need to be believed. Dismiss a woman’s pain as anxiety once, and you’ve taught her to doubt her own body.
The nursing model of care is built on exactly that premise. It is care that is shaped by her story. It asks about context and symptoms.
It treats the person as a whole, and it recognises that the right answer is sometimes a referral, not a response.
We trained Ema to escalate. That may sound like a small thing, but in AI, it is a deliberate design choice.
Most AI systems are optimised to answer and maintain engagement. Ema is optimised to help, and sometimes helping means saying “you need to speak to a clinician” and making that path easy.
This matters especially in women’s health, where the clinical trust gap is well-documented.
In a 2022 nationally representative survey of over 5,000 women, nearly 1 in 3 reported that their doctor had dismissed their concerns, and 15 per cent said a provider simply didn’t believe them.
Women are more likely to have their symptoms dismissed, their concerns minimised, and their pain undertreated. Among women under 35, nearly half reported at least one of these experiences.
They have had to learn how to advocate within systems designed for efficiency, built on men’s health.
With Ema, every conversation is an opportunity to make a woman feel heard, informed, and directed to the right level of care, neither over-triaged nor undertreated.
The goal is not to replace clinicians. It is to create a trustworthy first point of support that listens carefully, explains clearly, recognises limits, and helps women move toward appropriate care.
The nurses who top those Gallup rankings every year earn that trust through consistency. They show up, listen, follow through, and know their limits.
Ema is simply that trust, built into technology. That is the standard we hold Ema to: a trustworthy presence that knows when to answer and when to hand off.
Medicine spent a long time teaching women not to expect to be believed. Ema is built by the people who never stopped listening.
Bios
Claire Pettengill is a psychiatric nurse and DNP-PMHNP candidate at Columbia University School of Nursing, specialising in women’s mental health across the lifespan and algorithmic justice – ensuring the AI tools shaping women’s care are built to actually listen. She joined Ema EQ as a science intern focusing on clinical safety standards for evaluating AI in women’s health.
Jade Anstine is a senior nursing student at Gustavus Adolphus College looking to bridge the gap between frontline medicine and digital health innovation. He joined Ema EQ as a Clinical AI Intern to assess the Ema AI model across different clinical populations, specifically pediatrics and LGBTQ+.
News
The technology exists: Why are women still waiting?

By Jane Lewis, chief operating officer, chief financial officer and women’s health lead, ABHI
For years, the conversation around women’s health has rightly focused on recognition.
Recognition that women wait longer for diagnosis. Recognition that symptoms are too often dismissed or normalised. Recognition that healthcare systems have historically been designed around male biology, leaving gaps in research, evidence and care.
That recognition matters. But awareness alone will not improve outcomes.
The challenge facing women’s health today is no longer simply identifying the problem. It is acting on the solutions already available.
At ABHI’s Women’s Health Summit earlier this year, leaders from across healthcare, government, academia and industry came together to discuss the future of women’s health.
One message emerged repeatedly throughout the day: we do not have an innovation problem.
Across medical devices, diagnostics, digital health and genomics, there are already technologies capable of transforming outcomes for women.
From self-sampling approaches for cervical screening and non-invasive diagnostics to AI-enabled tools and advanced imaging, innovation is happening. The question is whether healthcare systems can adopt it quickly enough.
Too often, promising technologies become trapped in pilot programmes, fragmented procurement processes or lengthy implementation pathways. Evidence generation, commissioning and adoption are frequently treated as separate challenges rather than part of a single journey.
The consequence is that innovations capable of improving quality of life and reducing pressure on health services take years to reach the women who could benefit from them.
This matters because women’s health extends far beyond reproductive health.
Historically, many discussions have centred on fertility, pregnancy and gynaecological conditions. These remain critically important, but they represent only part of the picture.
Women experience cardiovascular disease differently to men. They are disproportionately affected by autoimmune conditions. They face distinct health challenges throughout their lives, from adolescence to healthy ageing.

Jane Lewis
Yet healthcare systems often continue to approach these issues in isolation.
A woman does not experience her health in separate compartments. Pregnancy, cardiovascular risk, menopause, mental health and musculoskeletal conditions are interconnected.
Healthcare systems need to reflect that reality through more integrated, life-course approaches to care.
There has never been a better opportunity to do so.
Across the NHS, the shift towards prevention, community-based care and digital transformation aligns closely with the needs of women’s health.
Women’s Health Hubs are already demonstrating the benefits of bringing services together around the needs of women rather than organisational boundaries. Digital technologies are helping to identify risk earlier and support more personalised care.
Innovation can help deliver all three of the NHS’s major transformation ambitions: moving from treatment to prevention, from hospital to community, and from analogue to digital care.
But innovation alone is not enough.
Closing the women’s health gap also requires us to address longstanding gaps in research and evidence.
Women remain underrepresented in many areas of clinical research, and sex-disaggregated analysis is not always applied consistently. The result is that clinical pathways and treatment decisions are often based on evidence that does not fully reflect female physiology.
Better data, stronger research participation and greater focus on female-specific and female-predominant conditions will be essential.
There is also a compelling economic case for action.
Women’s health is often framed as an equality issue, and equality remains central. But poor health affects workforce participation, productivity and economic growth.
Improving outcomes for women benefits not only patients, but employers, healthcare systems and wider society.
Yet despite this, women’s health innovation continues to attract only a fraction of the investment directed towards other areas of healthcare.
That is beginning to change.
Across the UK and internationally, momentum is building. Governments, investors, researchers and innovators increasingly recognise that women’s health is both a societal necessity and an economic opportunity.
The conversation has moved on significantly in recent years. Topics that were once overlooked are now firmly on the policy agenda.
The next challenge is ensuring that awareness translates into action.
The technologies exist. The evidence is growing. The policy direction is increasingly clear.
ABHI is increasingly taking this agenda beyond national boundaries. Through our engagement with international industry associations, policymakers and healthcare leaders, we are working to ensure that women’s health is recognised as both a health and economic priority.
We are helping to shape discussions on innovation, regulation, investment and adoption, while sharing lessons from the UK with partners around the world.
Whether addressing the gender health gap, improving access to diagnostics or accelerating the uptake of new technologies, international collaboration will be essential.
The challenge now is not recognising the need for change, but delivering it.
Women have waited long enough for acknowledgement of the problem. They should not have to wait any longer for the benefits of the solutions that already exist.
ABHI is the UK’s leading industry association for HealthTech. Its members, ranging from multinationals to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), develop and supply technologies spanning everything from syringes and wound dressings to surgical robots, diagnostics, and digitally enabled healthcare solutions. ABHI’s 400 member companies represent approximately 80% of the UK HealthTech sector by value.
Opinion
Women’s Health has waited long enough for innovation

By Dr Fran Conti-Ramsden, clinician at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, academic at King’s College London, and chief medical officer of MEGI Health.
A woman gives birth. A few days later she goes home, often with a bag of medication for her blood pressure, and then, very often, very little structured follow-up for her heart (cardiovascular) health.
In my clinical work, and through our collaboration with Action on Pre-eclampsia, I see and hear about this postnatal cliff edge again and again, and it still shocks me.
We invest a lot of medical care and attention whilst a woman or birthing individual is pregnant, then, at the very moment emerging evidence suggests we have a window of opportunity to modify long-term health, the support falls away.
That cliff edge is a symptom of a deeper issue: we have come to treat “women’s health” as a synonym for reproductive health. Pregnancy, periods and fertility, important as they are, have crowded out everything else.
Yet the conditions that do most to shorten and limit women’s lives are not reproductive at all.
Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in women worldwide, and it is still too readily thought of as a man’s problem.
Heart disease in women is more likely to be missed and under-treated, in part because for decades women were under-represented in the research that built our knowledge.
Pregnancy makes this vivid.
Conditions such as pre-eclampsia are not only risks to be managed for nine months; they are early warnings about a woman’s future, markers that she is more likely to develop heart disease and high blood pressure in the years to come.
We have the knowledge to act on that. What we mostly do instead is discharge her and look away.
This is exactly the kind of problem better tools should help us solve: spotting risk earlier, supporting women and their clinicians through the vulnerable postnatal window, and providing continuity where the system currently provides a drop due to lack of capacity.
Artificial intelligence and digital health have real potential here; in risk prediction, in monitoring blood pressure at home, and in helping stretched clinicians know who needs attention and when.
And yet this is not where most of the energy is going.
It is far easier to build, fund and scale an app that tracks a cycle than a tool that changes the trajectory of a woman’s heart.
So, innovation clusters at the lighter, lower-risk end of innovation, while the conditions that actually kill and disable women, and moments like the postnatal cliff, stay under-served.
Closing the women’s health gap could add at least a trillion dollars to the global economy each year, the World Economic Forum estimates, but the bigger prize is women living longer, healthier lives.
None of this means technology is a cure in itself. It is a tool, and a tool built carelessly can do harm.
Because women have been under-represented in medical data, systems trained on that data can quietly carry the same blind spots forward, deepening inequalities rather than closing them.
Responsible innovation, with clinical-grade evidence, privacy and equity designed in from the start, and tools built around real clinical pathways rather than bolted on afterwards, is not a brake on progress.
It is the only version of progress worth having.
I am optimistic, because a serious community is forming around exactly these questions and the appetite to get it right is real.
It is why, at MEGI, we are bringing clinicians, researchers, founders, regulators and investors together for our AI × Women’s Health summit on 25 June.
If we keep our focus on the conditions that matter most to women’s lives, and build the tools to meet them responsibly, the postnatal cliff edge could become something else entirely: the moment the system finally catches her and delivers preventative healthcare.
AI × Women’s Health: Innovation, Challenges and Opportunities summit is taking place on Thursday 25 June 2026 at the London Institute for Healthcare Engineering. The event is free and is fully booked and operating a waiting list. Join the waiting list here.
About Dr Fran Conti-Ramsden
Dr Fran Conti-Ramsden is a UK Obstetrics and Gynaecology registrar and Chadburn Clinical Lecturer at KCL passionate about transforming women’s health through technology and innovation.
Combining NHS clinical experience with an MRC-funded PhD, recent NHS Clinical AI fellowship and commercial role as Chief Medical Officer at Megi health, she works at the intersection of clinical medicine, data science, technology and AI.
Her current programme of research focuses on the intersection of healthcare and technology; leveraging advances such as smartphone based vital signs capture and large language models to drive forward scalable innovation in maternal cardiovascular care.
She has published over 20 peer-reviewed manuscripts (See gScholar, h-index 12), including award-winning work recognized by Hypertension Journal.
She was awarded an AI visionary award in 2025 by Health Innovation KSS was the recipient of the 2024 International Society for the Study of Hypertension in Pregnancy Zuspan prize.
pain conditions2 weeks agoTwo “gamechanger” tests set to speed up endometriosis diagnosis on the NHS
Insight2 weeks agoWomen with PMOS should have annual NHS checks, new guidance says
News3 days agoNew menopause drug approved for use by NHS in Scotland
Cancer1 week agoThousands of women could avoid painful cancer exam with new AI blood test
Entrepreneur1 week agoApplications open for the third W Accelerate with Merck KGaA and M Ventures
Fertility2 weeks agoOlder women face lower chance of fertility treatment working, even with donor eggs, study finds
Opinion1 week agoWe built Ema like a nurse: Here’s why that matters
News2 weeks agoExperts call for regulation of toxic period product chemicals











2 Comments