L. pads have not been linked to specific safety incidents, and no published study has singled them out as unusually harmful. But “safe” is a relative term when it comes to menstrual products. Peer-reviewed research consistently finds measurable levels of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, volatile organic compounds, and other contaminants across nearly every brand of pad tested, including those marketed as organic or natural. Whether L. pads deserve special concern, or special trust, depends on understanding what the science actually says about menstrual pads in general and where the brand’s claims fit into that picture.
What L. Pads Are Made Of
L. (sometimes styled “L.”) markets its pads as made with an organic cotton topsheet, the layer that sits against your skin. The brand emphasizes that its products are free of fragrances, chlorine bleaching, dyes, and certain other additives that appear in many conventional pads. That positioning puts L. in a growing category of “clean period” brands that lean on ingredient transparency as a selling point.
A standard disposable pad, regardless of brand, has several layers: an absorbent core (often wood pulp, sometimes mixed with a superabsorbent polymer like sodium polyacrylate), a topsheet, and a waterproof back layer typically made of polyethylene or polypropylene. L. uses organic cotton for the topsheet and a plant-based wrapper, but the inner absorbent layers and the leak-proof backing still involve synthetic materials. That matters because many of the chemicals researchers find in pads originate from the synthetic components, adhesives, and manufacturing processes rather than from the cotton itself.
Chemicals Researchers Find in Menstrual Pads
A systematic review of the chemical literature on menstrual products found measurable levels of phthalates, volatile organic compounds, parabens, environmental phenols, fragrance chemicals, and dioxin-like compounds across the product category.1PubMed. Chemicals in menstrual products: A systematic review These are not exotic industrial pollutants. They are chemicals that show up in packaging, adhesives, inks, and polymer processing across consumer goods. Menstrual pads simply happen to deliver them to a part of the body with high permeability.
A U.S. market survey measured 24 endocrine-disrupting chemicals in pads, panty liners, tampons, and other feminine hygiene products. Several phthalates and parabens turned up in every single pad, panty liner, and tampon sample tested. Panty liners had the highest concentrations of certain phthalates, while tampons had the highest levels of DEHP, one of the more widely studied hormone disruptors. The researchers noted that the estimated dermal exposure doses from these products were meaningful compared to other known sources of the same chemicals.2PubMed. Phthalates, bisphenols, parabens, and triclocarban in feminine hygiene products from the United States and their implications for human exposure
A separate study of pads and liners sold in South Africa found that every product tested contained at least two endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Phthalates showed up in all liners tested and half of pads, while bisphenols appeared in all pads and three-quarters of liners.3PubMed. The presence of endocrine disrupting chemicals in sanitary pads: A study done in South Africa The consistency of these findings across geographies is striking: wherever researchers look, they find the same families of chemicals.
Volatile Organic Compounds in Pads
Volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, are chemicals that evaporate easily at room temperature. In menstrual pads, they can originate from adhesives, polymer processing, printing inks, or packaging. A survey of feminine hygiene products sold in the U.S. detected benzene in about 83% of the products tested and 1,4-dioxane in half of them. Products labeled “organic,” “natural,” or “for sensitive skin” did not consistently have lower VOC concentrations. For most products, the calculated health risks were low, but menstrual pads stood out with higher hazard ratios than other product types in the survey.4PubMed Central. Volatile organic compounds in feminine hygiene products sold in the US market: A survey of products and health risks
A more recent study testing 29 commercial pads found toluene in 97% of them, though at levels well below occupational safety limits. The same study detected polypropylene microplastics in every pad tested and found that pad extracts caused a moderate reduction in cell viability in laboratory tests, suggesting that bioactive substances were leaching from the materials.5PubMed. Safety assessment of commercial sanitary pads: Cytotoxicity, volatile organic compounds, and microplastics release Pads whose cotton topsheets carried an “organic” label were the exception: all four organic-labeled pads in the study did not suppress cellular metabolism in the cytotoxicity tests. That finding gives some credibility to the organic-cotton positioning that L. and similar brands use, at least for the topsheet layer.
A longitudinal study of reproductive-aged women found that higher estimated exposure to certain VOCs from menstrual products was associated with higher concentrations of those chemicals in urine, confirming that these compounds do cross from the product into the body.6PubMed Central. Feminine Hygiene Products and Volatile Organic Compounds in Reproductive-Aged Women Across the Menstrual Cycle: A Longitudinal Pilot Study
The PFAS Question
PFAS, sometimes called “forever chemicals,” are a class of synthetic compounds prized for their ability to repel water, oil, and stains. They are persistent in the environment and in the human body, and some have been linked to thyroid disruption, immune effects, and certain cancers at higher exposure levels. The question of whether they belong anywhere near a menstrual pad is legitimate.
Most of the published PFAS research on period products has focused on reusable menstrual underwear and cloth pads rather than disposable pads like L.’s. A study analyzing reusable feminine hygiene products found that targeted testing for 42 specific PFAS compounds picked up only a tiny fraction of the total fluorine present in the products. The gap between total fluorine and identified PFAS was two to five orders of magnitude, suggesting the presence of other fluorinated compounds like fluoropolymers that standard targeted testing doesn’t capture.7Environmental Science & Technology Letters. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Reusable Feminine Hygiene Products – Section: Results and Discussion The researchers noted that PFAS might be added intentionally to prevent leakage or to resist staining.8Environmental Science & Technology Letters. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Reusable Feminine Hygiene Products – Section: Implications and Limitations
For disposable pads specifically, PFAS data is thinner. Disposable pads use polyethylene or polypropylene for their waterproof backing rather than the treated textiles found in reusable underwear, so the rationale for adding PFAS-based water repellency is different. L. has publicly stated that its pads are PFAS-free, though independent third-party verification of such claims varies across brands and is not standardized by any regulatory body in the U.S. The honest answer is that we don’t have extensive published testing of L. pads specifically for PFAS. What we do know is that the PFAS concern is currently more evidence-based for reusable period underwear and cloth products than for disposable pads.
Do “Organic” and “Natural” Labels Actually Help?
This is where the evidence gets genuinely mixed, and it matters for anyone choosing L. partly because of its organic-cotton positioning. The VOC survey mentioned earlier found that labels like “organic,” “natural,” or “for sensitive skin” did not reliably predict lower chemical contamination.4PubMed Central. Volatile organic compounds in feminine hygiene products sold in the US market: A survey of products and health risks Some organic-labeled products had chemical levels comparable to conventional ones.
On the other hand, the cytotoxicity study of 29 pads found that the four products with organic-labeled cotton topsheets were the only ones whose extracts did not reduce cell viability in the lab.5PubMed. Safety assessment of commercial sanitary pads: Cytotoxicity, volatile organic compounds, and microplastics release That distinction is worth paying attention to, because the topsheet is the layer in direct contact with skin and mucous membranes. Even if the inner layers still harbor trace chemicals, having a cleaner contact surface may reduce the most direct route of absorption.
The takeaway isn’t that organic labels are meaningless or that they’re a guarantee. The organic-cotton designation applies to the cotton itself, meaning it was grown without certain pesticides and processed without chlorine bleaching. It says nothing about the adhesives, the superabsorbent polymer in the core, the dyes on the wrapper, or the polymer backing. A pad can have an organic topsheet and still contain trace VOCs from other layers. For L. pads, the organic claim is credible for the cotton component but doesn’t cover the entire product.
How Chemicals in Pads Reach the Body
The vulvar and perineal skin that comes into contact with a pad is not the same as the skin on your arm. It is thinner, more permeable, and sits in a warm, moist environment that can increase the absorption of chemicals. Unlike substances you swallow, which pass through the liver before reaching general circulation, chemicals absorbed through vaginal and vulvar tissue largely bypass that first-pass metabolism. That makes even low concentrations of endocrine-disrupting chemicals potentially more bioavailable through this route than through, say, food packaging.
A review of the epidemiological evidence noted that only three human studies had actually investigated the link between menstrual product use and environmental chemical concentrations in the body, and all three observed associations between product use and chemical levels.9PubMed Central. Menstrual Products as a Source of Environmental Chemical Exposure: A Review from the Epidemiologic Perspective That’s a vanishingly small evidence base for a product used by billions of people. It’s enough to confirm that chemicals do transfer from products to bodies, but nowhere near enough to quantify health outcomes with confidence.
The exposure pattern also differs from many other chemical sources. You might eat food from plastic packaging three times a day, but a pad sits against absorbent tissue for hours at a stretch, sometimes overnight, during a biological window when hormone-sensitive tissues are already in flux. Researchers in the field have pointed out that this combination of factors, a permeable exposure site, prolonged contact time, and hormonally active chemicals, makes menstrual products worth scrutinizing even if the chemical concentrations per gram of product are relatively low.
Skin Reactions and Contact Dermatitis
Setting aside the long-term chemical exposure question, some people experience immediate skin reactions to pads. A documented case series found that 28 women developed vulvar itching, burning, and eruptions consistent with contact dermatitis after using a particular brand of pad. Twenty-six of them saw their symptoms disappear when they switched brands, and seven who tried the same brand again had symptoms return.10PubMed Central. Contact dermatitis associated with the use of Always sanitary napkins
Contact dermatitis from pads can be triggered by fragrances, adhesive chemicals, dyes, or other additives. L. pads, by omitting fragrance and chlorine processing, eliminate two of the more common triggers. That doesn’t make them immune from causing reactions in sensitive individuals, since the adhesive and polymer components remain, but it does reduce the number of potential irritants in the product. If you’ve experienced vulvar irritation with conventional pads and it resolved after switching to a fragrance-free or organic brand, the irritant was likely one of the chemicals those brands leave out.
Dioxins and the Bleaching Question
Dioxins in menstrual products became a public concern in the 1990s, when advocacy groups raised alarms about chlorine-bleached cotton and wood pulp. The concern was legitimate at the time: chlorine gas bleaching could leave dioxin residues, and dioxins are among the most toxic persistent pollutants known. Since then, the industry has largely shifted to chlorine-free or elemental chlorine-free bleaching processes.
A study directly assessing dioxin exposure from tampons and diapers concluded that while trace dioxins were detectable in both cotton and pulp products, the exposure from menstrual products did not meaningfully add to overall dioxin exposure in the U.S.11PubMed Central. Exposure assessment to dioxins from the use of tampons and diapers L.’s use of non-chlorine bleaching further reduces this already-small risk, but the dioxin concern in modern pads is less pressing than the phthalate and VOC concerns, which are more consistently documented at measurable levels.
Microplastics in Disposable Pads
A newer dimension of concern is microplastic release. Disposable pads contain synthetic polymer layers, and those polymers can shed tiny plastic fragments. In the study that tested 29 commercial pads, polypropylene microplastics were detected in every single product, with counts ranging from 6 to 115 particles per pad.5PubMed. Safety assessment of commercial sanitary pads: Cytotoxicity, volatile organic compounds, and microplastics release Whether microplastics absorbed through vulvar skin pose health risks is an open question. The broader microplastics-and-health field is moving fast but hasn’t produced clear answers on low-level dermal exposure yet.
For L. pads, the organic cotton topsheet could reduce direct microplastic contact with skin, since the cotton layer sits between you and the synthetic core. But the synthetic backing and absorbent polymers are still present, and whether microplastics migrate through layers during use isn’t well studied. This is a concern that applies to essentially all disposable pads on the market, not one specific to L. or its competitors.
What Menstrual Pad Use Means for the Vaginal Microbiome
A small study tracking vaginal microbial communities over time found that in three of seven women, microbial diversity during pad use was significantly different from at least one tampon-use cycle.12PubMed. Effects of tampons and menses on the composition and diversity of vaginal microbial communities over time The sample is too small to draw firm conclusions, but it raises the possibility that external products like pads could influence the local microbial environment through warmth, moisture trapping, or chemical off-gassing. A pad holds menstrual fluid against the body in a warm, enclosed space, which could promote bacterial shifts independently of any chemical content. This is an area where researchers have barely scratched the surface.
The Regulatory Gap
In the United States, menstrual pads are classified as medical devices by the FDA, which sounds reassuring until you learn what that classification actually requires. Pads fall under Class I, the lowest-risk category, and are generally exempt from premarket review. Manufacturers do not have to disclose a full ingredient list on packaging the way food or cosmetic companies do. There is no FDA requirement to test for PFAS, phthalates, VOCs, or endocrine disruptors before a pad goes to market.
This regulatory landscape means that claims like “PFAS-free” or “chemical-free” are largely self-reported by brands and not independently verified through a standardized testing protocol. L. has been more transparent than many brands about its materials, and it participates in some third-party certifications, but the broader system doesn’t require this of anyone. The result is that consumers are essentially trusting brands to self-police, which is a reasonable choice for some brands and a gamble for others.
Several states have begun passing legislation requiring PFAS disclosure or outright banning intentionally added PFAS in menstrual products. These laws are a step, but they typically address only intentionally added PFAS, not trace contamination from manufacturing or supply chains. The gap between what’s regulated and what researchers find in products remains wide.
What the Superabsorbent Polymer Actually Is
The gel-like material in the absorbent core of most disposable pads is sodium polyacrylate, a superabsorbent polymer that can hold many times its weight in liquid. It is widely used in diapers and medical absorbents. These polymers are generally classified as nontoxic, with very high lethal doses in animal studies.13PubMed Central. Toxicity associated with ingestion of a polyacrylic acid hydrogel dog pad The concern with superabsorbent polymers in pads is not acute poisoning but rather the possibility that residual monomers (unreacted acrylic acid) or processing chemicals could leach out during use. The research on this is sparse. For most users, the polymer stays sealed inside the pad’s inner layers and doesn’t contact skin directly, but gel beads occasionally escape through the topsheet during heavy use, which is a complaint you’ll find in reviews across many pad brands.
Practical Choices If You’re Concerned
If you’re using L. pads and wondering whether to switch, the evidence doesn’t point to L. being worse than alternatives in its category. Its organic-cotton topsheet may offer a marginally cleaner contact surface based on the cytotoxicity data, and the absence of fragrance and chlorine bleaching removes two common irritant sources. But no disposable pad on the market has been shown to be entirely free of trace chemical contamination, because the synthetic layers, adhesives, and manufacturing processes that all brands share introduce low-level VOCs, phthalates, and microplastics.
If reducing chemical exposure is your priority, a few strategies have more evidence behind them than brand-switching alone:
- Change pads frequently: Shorter contact time means less opportunity for chemical transfer across the skin barrier.
- Avoid scented products: Fragrance in pads is a common source of both skin irritation and additional VOC exposure.
- Consider cotton-only products: Pads made entirely of cotton, without a synthetic absorbent core, eliminate the polymer and plastic layers that contribute most chemicals. They absorb less and need changing more often, but they reduce the number of synthetic materials touching your body.
- Try reusable options with caution: Reusable cloth pads and menstrual cups reduce exposure to disposable-pad chemicals, but reusable textiles can contain PFAS in their water-resistant treatments, so the trade-off isn’t straightforward.
The cumulative nature of the exposure is worth keeping in mind. A single pad worn for a few hours contributes a minuscule dose of any given chemical. But a person who menstruates might use pads for roughly 40 years. Across thousands of hours of contact, even very low per-pad exposures add up, and that cumulative picture is exactly what researchers have not yet been able to study in large human populations. The three epidemiological studies that exist are a starting point, not a conclusion.9PubMed Central. Menstrual Products as a Source of Environmental Chemical Exposure: A Review from the Epidemiologic Perspective