Comment

Comment on First (I repeat, first) test of menstrual products using actual blood published last week (I repeat, last week)

gmtom@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Risk@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
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.

source
- Devion@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  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…
  
  source
  - OrnateLuna@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Sexism do be like that
    
    source
JoBo@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
They’re billion dollar companies, 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.

source
- gmtom@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Yeah, of course they could but im just saying there are reasons why they don’t
  
  source
  - JoBo@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Obviously. Equally obviously, the reason is profit. Tasty boots?
    
    source