Bulletin of Science,

Technology & Society

http://bst.sagepub.com/

Narratives of Menstrual Product Consumption: Convenience, Culture, or Commoditization?

Anna Davidson
Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 2012 32: 56
DOI: 10.1177/0270467612444579
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://bst.sagepub.com/content/32/1/56

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
National Association for Science, Technology & Society

Additional services and information for Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://bst.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://bst.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://bst.sagepub.com/content/32/1/56.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jun 17, 2012

What is This?

Downloaded from bst.sagepub.com by Alejandra Ortega on October 23, 2013

XXX10.1177/0270467612444579Bulletin of Science, Technology & SocietyDavidson

Narratives of Menstrual Product

Consumption: Convenience, Culture, or
Commoditization?

Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society

32(1) 5670
2012 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0270467612444579
http://bsts.sagepub.com

Anna Davidson1

Abstract
The environmental and social costs of consumer societies have increasingly been recognized. Achieving sustainable household
consumption requires an understanding of the underlying roots of current consumption levels. Using the case study of
menstrual care practices, different theoretical frameworksor narrativesfor understanding household consumption
are evaluated. The author argues that theories of consumption that focus on individual choice based on assessments of
convenience or cleanliness, or only on cultural imperatives need to be expanded to take account of the wider political
economic context. Using commoditization theory helps explain not only why mass-produced, disposable menstrual products
are dominant in free market societies but also why certain theories of consumption are more prevalent.
Keywords
consumption, overconsumption, commoditization, sustainability, disposable, waste, menstrual products, narrative

Introduction
The most visible accounts of global environmental degradation have only recently included the role of consumption
(Cohen, Brown, & Vergragt, 2010). Discourses about
achieving sustainability have long followed a tale of good
and evil where poverty is associated with overpopulation,
pollution, and environmental destruction and wealth with
progress, development, modernization, cleanliness, and
efficiency. This story line is clearly reflected in documents
such as Our Common Future (1987), where the onus was
still on developing countries to reduce population and grow
economicallyostensibly translating economic growth
into green technology and environmental protection (World
Commission on Environment and Development, 1987,
chap. 2, p. 56). It appeared that all that was left for developed countries to do was share technology, provide aid
(Manno, 2010b), and consume ever more as their contribution to uplifting the poor (Korten, 1991, p. 265).
The turn toward sustainable consumption within scholarship in environmental sociology (Featherstone, 1983, as
cited in Spaargaren, 2009, p. 318), ecological economics
(see Ropke & Reisch, 2004), and increasingly within
national and international policy making (see European
Environmental Agency [EEA], 2010; Jackson, 2005; United
Nations Departments for Environmental and Social Affairs,
2011) challenges this view by recognizing the links between
increased wealth, consumption of resource-intensive goods
and services, and outcomes such as biodiversity loss,

climate change, and chemical pollution (Rockstrm et al.,

2009). It has increasingly been argued that we should foster
sustainable consumption defined as
Use of services and related products which respond to
basic needs and bring a better quality of life while
minimizing the use of natural resources and toxic
materials as well as the emissions of waste and pollutants over the life cycle of the service or product so as
not to jeopardize the needs of future generations.
(EEA, 2005)
The term consumption initially conjures up the image of
eating; something is whole, then it is consumed and turned into
waste. In order to maintain health, it is assumed that we need to
maintain sustainable levels of consumption. However, the definition given above shows, as argued by Wilk (2004), consumption related to environmental impacts is more complex.1 While
reducing consumption might be a useful slogan, it belies the
fact that consuming more durable products, more locally produced, more unprocessed products might have lower
1
State University of New York College of Environmental Science and
Forestry, Syracuse, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:
Anna Davidson, Department of Environmental Studies, State University
of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, 1 Forestry
Drive, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA
Email: acdavids@syr.edu

57

Davidson
environmental impacts than simply consuming less (p. 19). My
definition of consumption in this articlethe use of products
and serviceswill attempt to maintain this complexity while
focusing on a very specific part of household consumption: the
environmental and social impacts relating to the use of different methods in the care of the menstruating body.
The choice of pads, tampons, menstrual cups, or the
continuous use of hormonal contraceptives by those who
menstruate2 seems at first to be a very private and almost
banal choice. Surely, it is simply a matter of fulfilling individual needs of hygiene and convenience. However, my
focus on menstruation aims precisely to take something
seemingly so personal and everyday and to argue that the
most convincing explanations of consumption are those
that shift emphasis away from individual choice.
Sociologists who have argued for analyses of consumption
based on a social practices model (e.g., Shove, 2003;
Spaargaren, 2009) have shown the effectiveness of moving
away from analyzing why individuals choose certain products toward seeing consumption embedded in social practices and lifestyles. This allows us to see how certain
practicesthe use of personal vehicles or air-conditioning,
for exampleare governed by socially constructed concepts of normal. Focusing on menstruation allows me to
start from the basic level of a bodily function and to peel
back the layers of practices and technologies that manage,
contain, collect, suppress, experience, or hide menstruation. This focus allows me to view the different practices,
material technologies (e.g., a disposable tampon or a reusable pad), their environmental impacts and what these tell
us about narratives of sustainable consumption.
I first outline a biophysical perspective on consumption
related to menstruationthe use of a tampon and the environmental impacts associated with it. I then outline and justify the need to move beyond only biophysical life cycle
analyses toward social theories that attempt to understand
consumption. I argue that these social theory narratives often
parallel or intertwine with the everyday narratives that direct
and justify practices of menstrual care.
In some respects, I use the term narrative in a way similar to discourse, where discourse refers to a set of practices and linguistic representations that structure and
produce identities, social relations, and differing political
outcomes (Gregory, Johnston, Pratt, Watts, & Whatmore,
2009, p. 166). However, the way I use narrative in this
article refers to specific theories and practices rather than
the more institutional level at which the term discourse is
commonly applied. Furthermore, viewing the theories and
practices as representing a narrative allows them to be analyzed as one would a story-like narrative: the framing
what is and what is not included in the narrative, the chain
of explanation, the values assumed, and the truths claimed.
We are then ultimately in a better position to assess which
explanatory narratives of (un)sustainable consumption we

choose to believe in, speak about, and live by. Using this
framework, I evaluate three such narratives of consumption
and the menstrual practices that are manifestations of these;
what I call the behavioral narrative, the ecological modernization narrative, and the systemic critique.

The Menstrual Consumption Cycle:

A Biophysical Perspective
Following the environmental life cycle of a disposable tampon does not start at the point of sale and end when the
tampon is used up and discarded. Instead, it follows the
flows of material and energy right from raw materials
through to waste that, sometimes only very briefly, flow
through the consumer.
A rayon tampon with a polyester hull and a plastic
applicator might start its life as part of a tree, oil reserves,
and crude oil. Rayon is regenerated from cellulose fiber
that can be extracted from wood pulp of mature trees using
a process including harsh chemicals (Chen & Burns,
2006). This includes the use of carbon disulfide, a chemical that can have various neurological, cardiovascular,
immune system, and gastrointestinal effects in workers
who have prolonged exposure (Environmental Protection
Agency [EPA], 1994; Takebayashi, Omae, Ishizuka,
Nomiyama, & Sakurai., 1998). The polyester in the tampon hull and the plastic in the applicator are made from
nonrenewable petroleum products. A large quantity of
water is used in the cooling process associated with the
production of polyester. Energy and nonrenewable fuel are
used, and carbon emissions created, at each stage of the
production process and transport between sites. Once created, the tampon package is transported to a store, the consumer travels to the store, buys the box, and uses the
tampon for a matter of hours. While being worn, high
absorbency tampons have been linked to cases of toxic
shock syndrome (National Health Service [NHS], 2010),
and there are concerns about exposure to dioxins and
asbestos (although refuted by the Food and Drug
Administration3) and health concerns related to increased
incidence of yeast infections, endometriosis, and microlacerations (Bobel, 2010, p. 110). Once used, the tampon and
applicator are either disposed of through solid waste or
flushed down toilets. If flushed, it can cause blockages,
can enter into the sewage system, or can enter directly into
rivers or oceans if sewage treatment systems malfunction
or are simply not present (Williams & Simmons, 1999).
An article by Ashley et al. (2005) comparing the environmental, human, and cost implications for disposal of
sanitary waste through solid waste or flushed down toilets
concluded that there was considerable cost and environmental savings to disposal through solid waste routes. If
thrown away in a landfill, however, even a biodegradable
tampon is unlikely to degrade because of lack of oxygen.

58
The polyester lining would not degrade, nor would the
plastic applicator, and whether they ended up in landfills or
waterways, they would leach hormone-disrupting chemicals such as bisphenol A (Langston, 2010) into the
environment.

Consumption: Social Science

Perspectives
The brief tampon life cycle outlined above highlights only
a small fraction of the different stages and impacts of the
life cycle in terms of pollution, emissions, energy, material, and water use. Even if a biophysical life cycle could
be made more complete by, for example, including environmental impacts associated with research, marketing,
packaging, and design of the tampon, it still would not
provide us with an understanding of why the use of disposable products is so widespread in modern Western
societies. Some, such as Ashley et al. (2005) have simply
disregarded this question entirely: Reusable sanitary
waste items are not considered viable within developed
countries, as contemporary women have become accustomed to efficient, non-intrusive and discrete sanitary
protection (p. 207).
Statements like this clearly show the need for further
social and political examination of (un)sustainable consumption. We need to question the very perceptions of
convenience, discretion, and comfort we have become
accustomed to as integral parts of the problem of overconsumption. Menstruation itself, also needs to be viewed as
more than only a biophysical process that occurs approximately monthly in most females between menarche and
menopause. The heavily laden term natural belies the fact
that in some respects regular menstruation is itself a byproduct of more affluent living standards, as women who
are pregnant, breast-feeding, or malnourished will tend not
to menstruate.
Scholarly thought on sustainable consumption within
psychology, economics, and sociology has attempted to
offer insights into how (over)consumption comes to be.
Many of these efforts aimed to provide evidence and theoretical explanations to help reduce environmental impacts
of consumption. For example, Tim Jacksons (2005) review
of socialpsychological and sociological literature on sustainable behavior change in Motivating Sustainable
Consumption aims to contribute to evidence-based environmental policy making. Environmental policy making
involves normative visions of the way the world should be.
As Donnela Meadows puts it, Vision is the most vital step
in the policy process. If we dont know where we want to
go, it makes little difference (as cited in Stutz, 2010, p.
57). Clearly, policy making involves competing normative
perspectives on where we should go. However, the scholarly
data, evidences, and theories on consumption are less

Bulletin of Science,Technology & Society 32(1)

commonly recognized as inherently normative, partial
narratives.
I will employ the metaphor of the discursive construction of a story line or narrative (Hajer, 2009, p. 81) to illustrate how these scholarly theories on (un)sustainable
consumption consist of differing perspectives on the way
things are, could be, and should be. The metaphor of a narrative allows us to analyze the constitutive parts. First, the particular unit of analysis used in a narrative: either the
individual as a consumer, cultures, and the story lines they
contain or at the level of global economic systems. These
analytical frameworks, although necessary, can serve to limit
the proposed results and blinker them to potential connections, for instance, between individuals and wider society.
Second, the particular value assumptions of what a desirable
society or environment might look like: terms such as progress or societal evolution (Huber, 2009, p. 336) are often presumed to be self-evident but may have very different
interpretations. Third, the particular ontological assumptions
from which conjectures are drawn: an analysis that assumes
capitalism is inherently environmentally destructive, for
example, will not necessarily further the same solutions as a
perspective that sees green capitalism as a viable concept.
Breaking down theories of (un)sustainable consumption
in this way allows us to see how different theoretical narratives function as discourse, and just as any other produced
knowledge, these are inherently intertwined with other components of a power structure: state-society relations, class,
history . . . (Wainwright & Mercer, 2009, p. 347). Thus, the
particular narratives within science and policy need to be
understood as governed by webs of power. There are those
who gain by producing particular beliefs of truth and from
the furthering and enactment of these beliefs. Marx (1973)
in his Fragment on Machines comments on how this happens in capitalist economic structures when science can be
pressed into the service of capital which in turn determines and solicits it (p. 704).
Using the framework established above, I will explore
three different explanatory frameworksor narrativesof
unsustainable consumption, in each case exploring their
core assumptions. In order to highlight how these narratives are prevalent in both academic discourse and in daily
practice and technology, I introduce each section with an
example of its practical manifestation. It is important to
recognize how each practiceand technology associated
with it (be it a tampon, an organic or a homemade cloth
pad)shapes social relations and is itself constructed by
the social context in which it is developed. This is a core
assumption of a social constructivist approach to science
and technology studies (e.g., Bijker, Huges, & Pinch, 1987;
Hackett, Amsterdamska, Lynch, & Wajcman, 2008), where
objects are always both material and social or as Wajcman
(2010) puts ittechnology and society are mutually constituted (p. 149).

Davidson

At Your Personal Convenience:The

Behavioral Narrative

Sanitary items and other personal waste should be

disposed of responsibly in the household waste bin or
in the special bins in public toilets. This is to protect
our beaches, rivers and canals from unsightly products, avoid harm to the marine environment and our
wildlife and prevent blockages in the sewerage system. (Water UK, n.d.)
The Bag It & Bin It information campaign in the United
Kingdom is led by companies involved in the water industry.
Water and sewage companies throughout the United Kingdom
use the logo and text of the campaign to discourage customers
from flushing their disposable personal waste down toilets.
They are asked instead to use solid waste routes by bagging
and binning. Broadly, the information campaign aims to
modify behavior to avoid blockages in sewers or damage to
the environment by putting rubbish down the toilet (Water
UK, n.d.) and, presumably, to save water companies the costs
associated with blockages.
Importantly, the campaigns scope is limited to the enduser disposal of different disposable sanitary products. The
focus of analysis and action is the specific act that most
affects the water industry: the act of flushing a used product
down the toilet. There is little consideration of any other
environmental and social impacts of the products life
cycle. Rather, the use of disposable products is assumed
and condoned as a convenient and normal part of life. This
is reflected in the following quote from the Bag It & Bin
It campaign website: Disposable products are an everyday part of life. They are easy and convenient to use and
easy and convenient to dispose of. But you should not flush
them away (Water UK, n.d.).

59
This informational campaign works as a kind of metaphor for the social and psychological analyses of consumption that focus on informational campaigns to
influence individual environmental behaviors. This view,
what I will call the behavioral narrative, sees unsustainability largely resting in lack of knowledge, intrinsic motivation, or the wrong attitudes, it views individual
behaviors as mechanistically determined by internal factors. Studies on consumer behavior taking this view are
often based in psychology, economics (Spaargaren &
Cohen, 2009), or marketing studies and largely use quantitative methods to assess the correlation between different internal factors (attitudes, beliefs, or knowledge) and
environmental behavior.
The primary unit of analysis or target for interventions for change in these frameworks is the individual.
As Tim Jackson (2005) has highlighted, the specific
conception of the individual presumed is of an atomistic agent autonomous of social structure (p. 89).
Particularly in marketing studies and economics, the
individual is conceived of as a rational actor, who
makes consumption decision based on utility maximizing calculations. The need to create quantitative measures and show relationships through correlations also
requires concepts such as cognition, affect, and knowledge to be strictly defined as either absent or present and not fluid, or complexly interlinked with specific
social contexts.
The methods used and the assumptions of the individual cocreate particular narratives on consumption and
menstruation. Psychological studies of perceptions relating to menstruation, for example, consider menstruation
to be a biophysical occurrence that women have certain
objectively defined symptoms of, can learn about, and be
sufficiently or badly informed about (Mansfield &
Stubbs, 2004; Stubbs, 2008). These are often carried out
by asking predefined questions in a questionnaire in
order to aggregate responses (Bhatt & Bhatt, 2005;
Czerwinski, 1992; Stewart, Greer, & Powell, 2010).
Such studies provide insights into overall trendsthe
number of women in a sample using different menstrual
products and their correlations between standardized
measures of self-esteem or body image (Czerwinski,
1992), the number of women who would rather not menstruate at all (Bhatt & Bhatt, 2005), or scores on qualityof-life measures (self-confidence, stress management,
comfort going out in public) in relation to different menstrual products (Farage, Nusair, Hanseman, Sherman, &
Tsevat, 2010).
Unsurprisingly, the proposed outcomes of these behavioral studies tend to be individual behavior change either
toward different (greener) modes of consumption and
behavior, such as disposing of sanitary waste through solid
waste, or away from acts of consumption. The proposed

60
strategies tend to be information or (social) marketing campaigns that foster individual behavior change. Zavestoski
(2002), for example, argues that voluntary simplicity and
abstention from consumption is undertaken by individuals who
have been unable to otherwise satisfy their needs for authenticity through consumption. Zavestoski also alludes to one of the
ultimate aims of his study: investigating what marketing strategies appeal to this group of people (p. 162). Similarly, the
Farage et al. (2010) study ostensibly aims to improve womens
quality of life during menstruation. However, the article only
discusses disposable menstrual products, most likely because
of the fact that the article is cowritten by staff at Proctor &
Gamble (2010), the company that holds one of the leading market shares in disposable menstrual products.
A view of consumption that focuses only on analysis and
change of individual behaviors and attitudes related to specific products or parts of the life cycle (e.g., recycling or
disposal) leaves itself open to a number of critiques. First,
several theorists have shown that merely increasing public
knowledge or changing individual attitudes is not enough
(Jensen, 2008, p. 358; Rees, 2010). So often, individuals
are locked-into systemic and institutional infrastructures
where their individual choices are circumscribed by product availability and social expectations (Hertwich, 2005, p.
5; Jackson & Papathanasopoulou, 2008). As Huber (2009)
argues, the actual green influence end users have is limited in comparison to the up-stream decisions by manufacturers of products, where the resource and energy
intensiveness lies (p. 345). While this is true in part, it
clearly reflects the problems with taking a limited view on
consumption as tied to the use of particular products for
fulfilling needs. This perspective seems to limit menstruators as only able to choose between disposing of tampons in
different ways, but it views manufacturers as able to change
their whole production method. Clearly, this leaves out the
potential for consumers to choose alternative menstrual
products or to abstain from using any products at all. As
Huber (2009) himself states, According to the environmental paradox of consumer society, it may be true that
environmental effects are ultimately caused by attitudes
and the demand of final users . . . (p. 345).
A second criticism of behavioral approaches is that they
tend not to view the very needs, wants, and perceptions of
convenience as embedded within larger practices and social
norms. Perceptions of the security or comfort of different
menstrual products cannot be extracted from cultural
taboos surrounding menstruation and views on its proper
and hygienic management. We are thus pushed to turn to
an alternative narrative of sustainable consumption that
might be better able to view consumption as a cyclical process. One where end-user demand is influenced by producers, and producers are influenced by end-user demandand
both are embedded in wider social practices, institutions,
and the larger economic structure.

Bulletin of Science,Technology & Society 32(1)

Capitalist Culture of Innovation:

Ecological Modernization Narratives
At SHE, we believe that a girls life does not have to
stop every 28 days because of her menstrual cycle.
Missing up to 50 days of school or work is not only a
blood cost to women and girls, but to their families,
communities, and nations as a whole. We want to reach
1 million girls and women in Africa. Here is how it
works. For every women-led and operated business
that SHE invests in, approximately 100 jobs are created
and approximately 100,000 girls and women have
access to affordable sanitary pads. (Sustainable Health
Enterprises SHE28 Campaign [SHE28], 2010).
Sustainable Health Enterprises SHE28 campaign is the
initiative of Harvard MBA graduate, Elizabeth Scharpf. It
aims to bring proper sanitary products to girls and women
in the developing world (Popova, 2010). Currently, working mainly in Rwanda, SHE provides the initial capital and
training for local women to set up small-scale businesses to
manufacture and sell affordable, quality, and eco-friendly
sanitary pads (SHE28, 2010). The narrative employed by
the projects advertising is to use a market-based approach
to bring social returns in health, education, the economy,
and environment. SHE28 hope to decrease rates of pelvic
infections by providing disposable pads as opposed to rags
thatif not washed properlymay cause infection. They
further aim to tackle girls school absenteeism, create jobs
for women, and decrease the environmental footprint of
menstruation (SHE28, 2010). Currently, SHE28 is selling
locally made disposable pads made from imported materials, but they are working on using local raw materials
[such as banana fibers], instead of all imported materials
(SHE28, 2010). Apart from using local raw materials, it is
unclear whether the products aim to be eco-friendly in
other ways, such as being entirely plastic-free, biodegradable, or unbleached.
Companies such as Natracare set up in the United
Kingdom in 1989 produce sanitary pads and tampons that
they state are unbleached, are biodegradable, are certified
organic by the U.K. Soil Association, and use only natural
ingredients sourced from sound ecologically managed producers (Natracare, n.d.). As illustrated by their quote below,
their advertising uses concepts of modernity and innovation as well as sustainability and health.
We will never compromise on quality and reliability
and continue to apply modern [italics added] thinking
to the use of natural materials to find intelligent and
worthwhile solutions to keep Natracare the trusted and
proven name it has become. We are committed to
improving personal and environmental health and

Davidson
believe in a balanced ecologically driven lifestyle.
(Natracare, n.d.)
Both the SHE28 campaign and Natracare work well as
metaphors and in-practice examples of what has been
termed ecological modernization. The term describes both a
strand of environmental social theory and a policy approach
that has dominated environmental political practice since
the mid-1980s (Hajer, 2009, p. 82). Although the theorists
and policy practitioners working under the umbrella of ecological modernization are diverse, there are a few common
core assumptions. Typically, ecological modernization is
described as a third way between a deep-green radical
politics of voluntary simplicity, sufficiency, and localization; and a technocratic end-of-pipe, eco-technotopia
(Spaargaren & Cohen, 2009, p. 257) approach to environmental regulation. In the narrative of ecological modernization, it is possible to achieve sustainability within the given
capitalist structure (Hajer, 2009, p. 82; Mol, Sonnenfeld, &
Spaargaren, 2009, p. 7), and technological advances and
further industrialization are a part of the solution (Spaargaren
& Mol in Fisher & Freudenburg, 2001, p. 702). Ecological
modernizationists often position themselves as pragmatic,
reformist, practice-oriented, and in contrast to more radical,
deep-green, or neo-Marxist approaches (Mol & Jaenicke,
2009, p. 23).
With a strong link to environmental policy making, particularly in Western Europe, scholarly ecological modernization approaches can be both descriptive and analytical as well
as normative. The analytical scholarly work tends to take a
wider view on consumption than the behavioralists outlined
above. In contrast to focusing on individual consumption
behavior, ecological modernization approaches see how patterns of consumption are tied to networks of provision, the
social contexts, and meanings of daily practices (Spaargaren,
2009). Three main strands of this work, as highlighted by
Spaargaren and Cohen (2009) are (1) political consumerism,
(2) understanding systems of provision, and (3) household
consumption and everyday practices (pp. 262-264). Each of
these strands of work can be seen in practice within the case
study of menstrual products.
First, analysis of the role of the political consumer might
consider the relatively high profile of the SHE28 campaign
as tapping into a growing consumer and donor interest in
sustainable development, buying organic, and reusable
menstrual products as a push toward ecological modernization. The ethical values and political views of the consumers, translated through spending power could be considered
a powerful tool to change the production and regulation processes of products such as tampons and pads and to promote
the development and sale of alternatives such as silicone
menstrual cups. Menstrual cups seem like another fitting
metaphor for ecological modernization as they arguably
navigate between the dark green romantic dismissal of
modernity and the nave endorsement of market driven,

61
liberal eco-technotopias (Spaargaren & Cohen, 2009, p.
257): Where a dark green dismissal of modernity might
espouse the return to use of reusable menstrual pads, and an
eco-technotopia might be represented by use of the new
generation of hormonal birth control pills marketed for continual use in suppressing menstruation altogether.
Second, while the ecological modernization theorists
focusing on systems of provision tend to focus more on provisioning of household utilities and water, their focus on new
institutional forms (Spaargaren & Cohen, 2009) applies well
to analyzing how regulatory organizations such as the U.K.
Soil Association (http://www.soilassociation.org/) might
operate in the space between consumers, producers, and government. Such a framework may also help analyze the way
in which new forms of consumption have arisen out of technologies such as the Internet. It might be investigated, for
example, whether rising consumption, advertising, and
word-of-mouth over the Internet allows increasing mobilization of consumers of alternative menstrual products. While
these products might not make it into mainstream drugstores
and supermarkets, they may find a niche online.
Third, sociological approaches that have focused on the
sustainability of household practices (e.g., Gram Hanssen,
2007; Ropke, 1999; Shove, 2003; Hand, Shove, &
Southerton, 2005) offer insights into understanding menstrual product consumption. Instead of taking the individual as the central unit of analysis for consumption, their
focus is on social practices. As in Giddenss structuration
theory, this allows for consideration of individual agency
as well as the effects of social structure (Giddens, 1991, in
Spaargaren, 2009, p. 318). Rather than viewing consumption decisions as banal, individual choices, those who view
consumption within cultural theory, see these as deeply
intertwined with social meaning and values (Seyfang,
2004, p. 324). They go further than simply identifying and
correlating particular attitudes and beliefs to behaviors
as the behavioral narrative didto situate these within
wider cultural and even generational understandings of
normality (Shove, 2003). Therefore, decisions relating to
menstrual care need to be seen as part of wider societal
perceptions, ideals of womanhood, and of menstruation as
a taboo and a crisis of hygiene (Raftos, Jackson, &
Mannix, 1998).
While these additional perspectives are entirely necessary
in understanding and achieving sustainable consumption, ecological modernization approaches tend to miss some more
fundamental questions: Whose ideal of modernity are we
striving for and why? Who gains from certain ideals of modernity, cleanliness, and development? Is it enough to look at how
culture is produced and reproduced through practice without
looking at the underlying economic and power structures of
who gains? Proponents of ecological modernization theory
tend to neglect the role of power distributions (McCarthy &
Prudham, 2004). Its theories offer a more technocratic view of
how consumption might become more sustainable, without

62
deep consideration of how these processes are inherently
linked with the questions of who loses and who gains.
Following this line of argumentation, the initiatives and
approaches associated with a weaker version of ecological
modernization have been critiqued for being an expression of
neoliberal environmental governance (Guthman, 2007;
McCarthy & Prudham, 2004). Where neoliberalism is an ideology that fosters privatization, individual consumer autonomy, and free marketbased solutions to environmental and
social problems, it could be argued that organic certification
labels on tampons, for example, delegate the responsibility of
regulation of environmental ills to the individual consumer
(Guthman, 2007). Rather than societies as a whole deciding
to regulate against environmental ills, individual households
privileged with knowledge and economic resources will be
more likely afford options thatat leastpurport to be safer
and more ethical.
The greater worry is that these measures, by offering ostensibly sustainable solutions, such as organic tampons, or disposable pads made of banana leaves, may serve to clear
consumer and producer consciences leading to a kind of complacency that slows work toward more substantive and systemic social and environmental change. It also needs to be
questioned whether ecological modernization, by leaving
aside critiques of the economic system, is missing some of the
key reasons for ever-increasing drives toward consumption.
Cultural changes alone will not provide incentives for people
to consume differently if they are locked in by the need to
survive within a given economic system. In an economic crisis, would many menstruators choose organic tampons if they
cost considerably more? Would companies reduce their environmental impacts without regulations unless it somehow
became more profitable to? Why would the state put in strict
regulations if it was perceived as standing in the way of economic growth and competitiveness?
Furthermore, as highlighted by Fisher and Freudenburg
(2001, p. 706), there is still uncertainty about whether ecological modernization will prove to be correct. The worry
is that particularly the weaker versions of ecological modernization will simply not achieve sustainability. Is it enough
to foster the development of a distinct group of citizenconsumers that makes green choices (Spaargaren, 2009)
such as using eco-friendly disposable menstrual pads?
Could the earth sustain a whole world of citizen-consumers
making the kinds of green choices made by citizens in
countries such as Germany and the Netherlands, often cited
as the forerunners of ecological modernization. Would the
technologies and lifestyles be sustainable enough to slow,
halt, or reverse climate change, toxicity levels, species loss,
and soil degradation?
While the innovations and theories espoused by ecological modernization are necessary parts to the puzzle of sustainable consumption, I would argue with Langhelle (2009,
chap. 25) that they are not sufficient (p. 412). We need to
look for narratives of consumption that offer a deeper

Bulletin of Science,Technology & Society 32(1)

critique of the causes of consumption with an understanding of how these tie to social inequality and injustice.

Narrative III: Decommodify! The

Systemic Critiques

Bleed With Pride: Make-it-Yourself Menstrual Pads Treehugger.com

article (Mok, 2007).

These images come from a TreeHugger article that outlines

the creative, environmental, and activist nature of making
reusable menstrual pads. It provides links to patterns for
sewing ones own pads using reused or organic cotton and
advises on caring for pads: Just use them, soak them in
cold water, and cold water wash them with your regular
laundry (Mok, 2007). It highlights a number of ways in
which readers can enact menstrual activism, not only by
creating their own pads but by contacting their political
representatives, menstrual product companies, and talking
about menstruation: Dont hide it, talk about it. Menstrual
activism, also termed menarchy (Kelleher, 2009), often ties
together feminist, anticapitalist,4 and anticonsumerist ideologies and pushes for menstrual attitudes and products that
they consider healthier for women and the environment
(Bobel, 2010, p. 195).
Not all those who buy or make their own reusable pads do
so for the same reasons, and certainly not all would call
themselves menstrual activists. However, the back-to-basics
and do-it-yourself ethic often associated with reusable menstrual pads works as an appropriate metaphor for solutions
espoused by more deeply critical takes on consumption. The
contrast between what I will call the systemic critique and
ecological modernization can be illustrated by an analysis of
the following quote from the SHE28 promotional video:
What does a woman do when she cant afford pads?
She uses rags [italics added], bark, and mud. Thats
not enough protection! Each year she misses up to 50
days of school or work. (SHE28, 2010)
This quote epitomizes a view of reusable padsor rags
as unhygienic, underdeveloped, or premodern, which restricts
women from full participation in their communities and
economies. Systemic critiques might counter this and state
that it is not menstrual rags themselves that are necessarily
unhygienic but the lack of clean water, private spaces, and
menstrual taboos that leave women unable to hygienically

Davidson
wash and dry their pads (Ahmed & Yesmin, 2008). These
critiques would tend to ask who is promoting the use of certain menstrual products and why, and why do women need to
be protected from menstruation. They would interrogate
the very concepts of modernity, hygiene, and development used in campaigns like SHE28.
The narratives that could fall under the heading of systemic critiques come from diverse scholarly backgrounds of
neo-Marxism, political ecology, political economy, ecofeminist perspectives, and deep-green philosophy. While it
is, again, unfair to bring these various strains together within
one narrative, there are key themes that justify such rough
classification. First, systemic critiques tend to see problems
of overconsumption as inherent in the given (patriarchal,
capitalist, postcolonial) economic and social system. Thus,
as suggested by the article in the TreeHugger forum, it is not
enough to merely buy or make menstrual products purported
to be more environmentally sound, it is important to also
challenge the economic and social structures that create the
environmental problem in the first place. Depending on the
particular feminist, neo-Marxist, or postcolonial emphasis
of the critique, the explanatory and critical narrative of
overconsumption will have a different primary focus.
Second, systemic critiques tend to view overconsumption
not merely as an empirical and technical problem requiring
the power of better science, more appropriate management
systems, or greener technology, rather, they view environmental problems as deeply political, related to landscapes of
power, and the power to create meanings.5 Their narratives
of overconsumption highlight the organisms, individuals,
social strata, organizations, and parts of the globe that gain
more from consumption of disposable products and those
that lose. This means that analyses of overconsumption is
paired with analyses of oppression (e.g., Manno, 2010a) or
environmental justice in access to resources and exposure to
risks (e.g., Bru-Bistuer, 1996). They also tend to view how
histories of domination, structures of patriarchy, colonialism, and capitalism led to the dominance of certain meanings
and norms related to the environment, development, and
identities. A systemic critique also allows us to see how technologies themselves are inherently political. They are
inscribedat the stage of design, advertising, or by the end
userwith particular narratives (Gorenstein, 2010, p. 206).
As Gorenstein (2010) puts it in her discussion of feminist
technologies, No matter how they are created, technologies
as material objects are themselves forces of action because
they carry ideas (p. 212).
A feminist critique might claim that disposable pads and
tampons are inscribed with patriarchal ideas of menstruation
as taboo and a crisis of hygiene (Raftos et al., 1998) that
needs to be hidden at all costs. Increased consumption of
disposable menstrual products might be explained, as
Berkeley (1981) has, by womens increasing entry into maledominated workplaces requiring a disciplining of womens
bodies to masculine routines and norms. Menstruation had to

63
be concealed, masked, and managed in a way that made
women acceptable in a patriarchal system. In contrast, it
might be argued that disposable products are feminist technologies that liberate women from manual tasks of making,
washing, or mending menstrual rags. This is a limited view
on the empowerment of some women over others. It does
not take into account the health and empowerment of women
involved in other stages of a disposable products life cycle
women exposed to carbon disulfide in the manufacture of
rayon, for example. Nor does this view take into account that
disposable menstrual products are primarily developed and
sold by companies in order to make a profit and not, in the
first instance, to benefit women.
Theorists and activists taking an (ecological) Marxist
stance argue that sustainable capitalism, as advocated by the
ecological modernization narrative, is a paradox (OConnor,
1994, in Fisher & Freudenburg, 2001). OConnor (1998), for
example, argues that capitalism is inherently crisis prone and
tends toward undermining the very natural and social basis
of production, labor, and natural resources. According to this
narrative,6 capitalrepresented in our specific example by
large transnational companies such as Proctor & Gamble
selling disposable menstrual productswill continuously
seek to colonize and create new markets in order to extract
profits. By producing and expanding needsfor scented
menstrual pads, for brightly colored pads, pads for sleeping,
and panty linerscapital produces and benefits from negative perceptions of menstruation as a taboo and ideals of a
clean womanhood, unmarred and unscented by periods. It
ultimately also pays for them to produce a lot of garbage, as
disposability of products increases the rate of capital circulation. As Strasser (1999) writes in her social history of trash,
. . . the growth of markets for new products came to depend
in part on the continuous disposal of old things (p. 15).
Postcolonial critiques might view the construction of the
problem of lack of sanitary pads in developing countries as
a discourse that seeks to legitimate the colonization of
emergent markets by large transnational companies such as
Proctor & Gamble. Their Protecting Futures: Keeping
Girls in School program, for example, provides imported
Tampax and Always products to women in developing
countries. However, these imported products are often far
more expensive to buy and add more waste to already overloaded solid waste systems. Furthermore, research conducted by Oster and Thornton (2010) questions the extent
to which girls absenteeism is truly because of lack of menstrual products.
For feminist, anticapitalist menstrual activists, one way to
undermine a capitalist, patriarchal system and improve the
sustainability of menstruation is through the do-it-yourself,
collaborative practice of sharing pad patterns and making
your own (Bobel, 2010, p. 195). Another is to eschew all
menstrual containment and free-bleed into clothing or
bedding. Similarly, reusable silicone or latex menstrual cups,
that can be washed and reused for up to 10 years, are often

64
sold on the Internet by small, women-owned companies.7
These technologies require women to navigate their own
anatomies and confront their menstrual blood, a necessity
some women may find promotes body acceptance, awareness, and personal health maintenance.
There are, however, a few critical questions that need to
be asked of the narratives outlined above. How accessible
are these (theoretical) narratives and practices? How likely
are they to gain widespread acceptance? The use of socalled alternative menstrual products might itself be
somewhat of a class-based movement. In Bobels (2010)
qualitative study of menstrual activists, 60% of those
interviewed were middle or upper class. Reusable products, while costing less in the long run, tend to involve
more of an up-front cost that may lower access by poorer
sections of society (Wilk, 2004, p. 21). Furthermore, are
these reusable products truly always more sustainable?
There is nothing inherently unsustainable about producing
waste; what is more important is what is disposed of, how
much, where, and how. Similarly, reusable products are
not inherently green. While using reusable products
reduces the number of disposable pads and tampons produced, transported, and thrown away, this needs to be
weighed out against the environmental impacts of production, ongoing care (e.g., washing, boiling, or disinfecting)
and eventual disposal of reusables. As highlighted by a
study comparing the sustainability of disposable and reusable nappies, cloth reusable nappies win the sustainability
race only if they are laundered at lower temperatures and
line-dried (Aumonier, Collins, & Garrett, 2008).

Commoditization as a MetaNarrative
We can take a step back from the narratives presented above
and apply some of the same questioning tactics employed by
the radical critique to ask some critical questions. Why are
some of these narratives of overconsumption more dominant
in policy and academia than others, and why are some of the
menstrual practices more dominant in Western modern
societies? Although up-to-date statistics of menstrual product use are hard to come by,8 the dominant practice seems to
be an enactment of the first narrative: using regular disposable pads and tampons, with a proportion of these disposed
of through toilets. Why are biodegradable, certified organic
tampons and pads and reusable menstrual products far less
commonly used?
Each of the three ideal-type narratives I outlined in the
sections above might have their own answers to both these
questions. Behavioralists might say menstrual product
choice is a matter of individual attitudes relating to comfort
and convenience, weighed up against knowledge and attitudes relating to health concerns and environmental commitments. Similarly, prevalence of theoretical explanations in
academia and policy is a matter of supply and demand. The

Bulletin of Science,Technology & Society 32(1)

ecological modernization stance might view those buying
greener menstrual products as a small and hopeful act of
political consumerism and blame lack of political will, failure of environmental regulatory systems, or unwieldy cultural constructs of convenience and protection for lack of
more widespread use. A more critical and systemic narrative
is offered here by looking at the theory of commoditization
(Manno, 2000, 2010a).
Using the metaphor of Darwinian evolution, Manno
(2010a) describes commoditization as a kind of systemic
selection process inherent in self-regulating market economies. The drive for investment, profit, and efficiency systematically selects for the goods and services with high
commodity potential at the cost of those with low commodity
potential. Commodity potential is understood as the likelihood of a service to be bought and sold in the marketplace.
Key characteristics associated with high commodity potential
are suitability for expansion of production and distribution at
lower labor costs (e.g., highly portable, reproducible goods)
and thus high returns on investment (Manno, 2000, p. 220).
Low commodity potential goods and services tend to be those
that are not easily reproduced, marketed, and shippedthose
tied to specific knowledge, places, and ecosystems based on
interpersonal relationships and cooperation. Free market
based competition and a path dependency toward commodity
options serve to systematically privilege the allocation of
societies resources and attention toward the fulfillment of
needs and wants through commodities.
This framework applies exceptionally well for understanding the tendency for Western free marketbased societies to gravitate toward disposable menstrual products and
behavioral theories. Menstrual care product options can be
lined up on a trajectory from low to high commodity potential as in Figure 1 below.
Lower commodity potential approaches also tend to be
those with lower environmental impacts. This can be shown by
overlaying the commonly used waste minimization mantra:
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Recover and Manage. These line
up in order of effectiveness but, as pointed out by Manno
(2000, p. 101), also in order of commodity potential (Figure 2).
Menstrual suppression is increasingly advertised by companies promoting hormonal contraceptive pills such as
Seasonale (Association of Reproductive Health Professionals,
2008). They offer the highest commodity potential menstrual management option. Pills are highly transportable,
reproducible by machinery, and subject to patent. By regulating or suppressing periods altogether, the hormonal pills literally resist and/or alter natural flows and cycles (Manno,
2000, p. 33) and are convenient in reducing or eliminating
time spent on menstrual care. Women no longer need to chart
their cycles or predict their period or flow, thus reducing the
knowledge women need to have about their own bodies.
Instead the pill embodies the knowledge (Manno, 2000, p.
45) of the clinical research and development. The regular production, prescription, and sale of the pill for daily use

65

Davidson

Locally specific
practices, changing
attitudes, use of
moss, sea sponge

Home made
reusable pads

Bought reusable
pads

L o w co m m o d ity p ote ntia l

Silicone or
latex cup

Disposable pads and

tampons

Menstrual
suppression through
hormones

H ig h co m m o d ity p o te n tia l

Figure 1. Menstrual care options by commodity potential

contributes to the economy (as measured by gross domestic

product), but unfortunately, the pills synthetic estrogens also
contribute to the synthetic hormone load in our waterways
with potentially detrimental effects on human and ecosystem
health.9 The potential side effects to the user also necessitate
regular medical checkups, with health costs incurred by
national health services or individuals.
Disposable pads and tampons offer a medium commodity
potential option. Rather than requiring daily consumption,
these products need to be restocked during each menstrual
cycle and are clearly short-term purchases as they are destined to be discarded. They require more knowledge of the
body than the pill (think of inserting a tampon) but are still
geared toward convenience.
Silicone and rubber menstrual cups offer a lower commodity potential option as they are far more durable products,
lasting for approximately 10 years. They require more comfort and knowledge of womens own bodies in order to use,
and more care of the product (washing, boiling/disinfecting,
drying). However, they are still mass produced, highly replicable, and transportable. This is in contrast to many of the
reusable menstrual pads available on the market through artisan websites, such as www.etsy.com, and women-run companies, such as www.gladrags.com. They represent a kind of
artisan, cottage industry production of menstrual pads, with
more diversity in design, lower labor productivity, and lower
capital intensity (a sewing machine).
Finally, menstrual care approaches that involve attempting to create different, more positive views of menstruation
make-your-own menstrual pad parties, talking about
menstruation, using menstrual blood to feed plants, celebrating menarche, or even shifting toward using applicator-less
tampons, which requires a change in womens perceptions
represent menstrual care practices with lower commodity
potential. Communal, meditative menstrual seclusion as
practiced in some indigenous cultures (Rojas, 2003) as well
as the use of local natural materials, such as moss or sea

sponges, are other examples. They are tied to physical and

biological constraints (Manno, 2000, p. 33), are based on
cooperative relationships and specific knowledge of culture,
and are more systemic in their approach.
Commoditization pressures also apply to the economies
of science and academia and will tend to privilege those
theories and methods that focus on the level of a product or
component rather than a systemic level (Manno, 2000, p.
107). Therefore the narratives of consumption I have introduced abovethe behavioral, ecological modernization,
and systemic critiquescan be shown to follow a similar
trajectory of commodity potential. Behavioral theories that
break down and study quantifiable attitudes and behaviors
relating to consumption will tend to be more easily replicated, employed by industry, and more easily turned into
informational campaigns. As an example of this, the Bag
it & Bin it campaign with its reproducible logo and text is
replicated and employed by different water companies
throughout the United Kingdom.
Ecological modernization narratives offer a kind of
medium commodity potential theory. While ecological
modernization does focus far more on the level of processes
(governance, industrial processes, management systems,
culture), it can still be seen as relatively commoditizable.
The general program of espousing industrial modernization,
greener technologies, and more sustainable management
and regulatory systems can be seen as replicable beyond the
European context in which it first gained ascendancy. This
can be seen by the increasing attempts to apply ecological
modernization policy and research to non-European contexts (see Mol et al., 2009). Similarly, the SHE28 approach
of building sustainable menstrual product businesses aims
to apply a relatively standard model of production and distribution to different African contexts. Characteristic of a
higher commodity potential science (Manno, 2000, p. 107),
however, they are finding a product-based solution to the
problems of school absenteeism or womens health, rather

66

Bulletin of Science,Technology & Society 32(1)

Reduce:

e.g. practices that do not

require energy intensive
manufacturing sea
sponges, moss, freeflowing (practice of
bleeding into
clothing/bedsheets),
making tampons
applicator-free

Manage:

Reuse:

e.g. reusable pads, cups

Recycle:

e.g. pads and tampons

packaged in recycled
cardboard

Recover:

e.g. Bag it and Bin It

campaign, water treatment
removing hormones from
waterways

Figure 2. Waste reduction in order of effectiveness

Source. Adapted from Manno (2000, p. 101).

than looking to systemic causes of poverty and womens

disadvantage.
In contrast, the systemic critiques, which I argue have the
lowest commodity potential, tend to be marginalized and
denounced as radical (Mol & Jaenicke, 2009, p. 23). Feminists,
political ecologists, and political economists have increasingly
argued for the use of qualitative, case-study approaches to understanding specific histories of human-environment relationships.10 These analyses rarely result in a new product to be
created or even a specific management plan. Frustratingly for
some, they tend to offer more intangible outputs, such as changing consciousness and creating new and empowering narratives
and meanings in order to, perhaps, build meanings and bodies
that have a chance for life (Haraway, 1988, p. 580). As Jackson
(2005) points out, there is often a trade-off in terms of empirical
testability and explanatory completeness and efficacy (p. 23).
Unfortunately policy approaches tend to favor the former
high commodity potential science that can claim to prove links
between attitudes and consumption behaviorthan theories
offering complex webs of explanation.

Conclusions:Toward Narratives and

Practices That Work
Menstrual products may only make up a small proportion of
the total waste, toxicity, resource, and energy use contributing
to environmental degradation. A choice between a disposable
tampon or a reusable silicone cup, in some ways is a minor
choice that only affects one aspect of a menstruating persons
life. However, through focusing on one bodily process, and
the myriad ways in which it is cared for, we can view and
assess some of the current narratives and practices of (over-)
consumption. The narratives I presented by no means epitomize or entirely accurately represent bodies of theory, rather
they are meant as heuristic devices, showing how different
narratives explain consumption and aim for sustainability
while employing different solutions, analytical frameworks,
and assumptions of truth.

The bottom line questions remain: Which narrative will

work in practice? How can we encourage narratives and
practices of consumption that provide the best chances of
planetary survival and human well-being? My discussion
of the three narrativesbehavioral, ecological modernization, and systemic critiqueshas highlighted the choices
facing individuals and policy makers. More behavioral
analyses of consumptive practices might fit most readily
into quantitative, market-oriented policy making, but they
will tend to put the onus on individual choices and perceptions of cost, cleanliness, or convenience. By following
these narratives, we fail to investigate how these perceptions are culturally and economically structured and risk
end-of-pipe solutions to waste management epitomized
by the Bag it & Bin it campaign. By following an ecological modernization narrative of consumption, we risk
being satisfied by technological fixes or goods labeled as
green, without seeing the underlying economic rationality that structures consumption. Although both behavioral
and ecological modernization analyses of consumption
illuminate a part of the puzzle of sustainable consumption,
I have argued that a systemic critical approachand in
particular an understanding of commoditizationoffers a
more comprehensive explanation of current consumption
practices. It also offers a meta-analysis to explain the dominance of certain theories over others.
Perhaps the question that we need to ask most urgently
is, Which narrative do we need to follow? Evidence points
toward anthropogenic global environmental changefrom
climate change, to biodiversity loss, changed land use, and
disruptions in the nitrogen cyclethat are transgressing
the safe operating boundaries for continued human life on
earth (Rockstrm et al., 2009). It is clear that our current
consumptive lifestyles need to change, and for the most
part, it is clear what concrete actions need to be taken. The
most problematic to shift appear to be the individual and
societal narratives we tell ourselves to justify behaviors
and prioritization we make. More highly commodified

67

Davidson
ways of fulfilling needs and wants tend to be those associated with higher energy and resource throughput and, thus,
worse environmental impacts. The underlying logic underpinning ongoing commodification is a prioritization of a
market rationality, where only products count, and the
driver is toward growth. This means growth in the range
and number of products available for consumers (e.g.,
scented pads, shaped pads, colorful pads, panty liners for
everyday use), and their turnaround (i.e., disposability) to
promote growth in profits for companies. This amounts to
growing garbage, toxicity, greenhouse gases, and reduced
natural resources.
If we choose to value the benefits brought by lower
commodity solutions: practices and theories that are more
ecologically sound, holistic, rooted in time and place, cooperative, durable, and complex (Manno, 2000, p. 31)we
will need to adopt policies that counteract commoditization. As the systemic critique has highlighted, this also
requires a close look at how these commoditization pressures in the current economic system create and exacerbate
inequality and disadvantage along gender, class, and ethnic
lines. Pairing the discussion of narratives with specific
menstrual technologies provides a glimpse of insight
offered by science and technology studies: How the materiality of technology itself can foster or inhibit the enactment
of social relationsgendered power dynamics (Wajcman,
2010, p. 15)and can be site[s] of imaginative engagement and shifting consciousness (Moran, 2008). By interrogating a set ofoften taken-for-grantedeveryday
practices related to caring for the body during menstruation, I have tried to analyze what kind of narratives we are
enacting with our everyday technologies and practices.
This is the first step in deciding which narratives and practices we choose to live in order to create the kind of planet and
society we want to live in.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes
1. Manno (2000, p. 10), for example, uses the term mobilization
rather than consumption to better reflect the circulation of matter and energy into goods and services and waste products.
2. Although at times I will use women when talking about
those who menstruate, this is not to simply equate womanhood with menstruation. It is important to note that there are
women who do not menstruate, and also those who menstruate who do not identify themselves as women (e.g., transmen
preoperation; Bobel, 2010, p. 11).

3. Stating, FDAs risk assessment indicates that this exposure is

many times less than normally present in the body from other
environmental sources, so small that any risk of adverse health
effects is considered negligible (Food and Drug Administration, 2009).
4. See, for example, the Edinburgh Anarcha Feminist Kollective's Femstruation week http://edinburghanarchafeminist.
blogspot.com.
5.
For examples relating to consumption see DuPuis (2000a,
2000b), Guthman and DuPuis (2006), McCarthy (2002), and
Robbins (2007).
6.For versions of this core ecological Marxist narrative, each
based on different case studies, see, for example, Boyd (2001)
and Langston (2010).
7.Such as www.divacup.com, www.gladrags.com, and www.
mooncup.co.uk.
8. For example, a study on U.S. menstrual product use by ethnicity (Finkelstein & von Eye, 1990) discussed disposable pads
and tampons as the only menstrual product options.
9.see Langston (2010) for an environmental history of synthetic
hormones in the United States.
10. OConnor (1998), for example, has argued for the need for
concrete historical and natural analyses of concrete situations (p. 7). For examples of such qualitative, case-study
based work in political ecology, see Agrawal (1992) and Peet
and Watts (2004).

References
Agrawal, B. (1992). The gender and environment debate: Lessons
from India. Feminist Studies, 18, 119-158.
Ahmed, R., & Yesmin, K. (2008). Menstrual hygiene: Breaking the
silence. In Beyond construction: Use by all (a collection of case
studies from sanitation and hygiene promotion practitioners in
South Asia). London, England: WaterAid and Delft. Retrieved
from http://www.irc.nl/page/40450 ch-21.pdf
Ashley, R., Blackwood, D., Souter, N., Hendry, S., Moir, J., Dunkerley, J.,
. . . Goldie, P. (2005). Sustainable disposal of domestic sanitary
waste. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 131, 206-215.
Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. (2008). Clinical fact sheet: Menstrual suppression. Retrieved from http://
www.arhp.org/publications-and-resources/clinical-fact-sheets/
menstrual-suppression
Aumonier, S., Collins, M., & Garrett, P. (2008). An updated lifecycle assessment study for disposable and reusable nappies.
Bristol, England: UK Environment Agency. Retrieved from
http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/SCHO0808BOIR-e-e.pdf
Berkeley, K. (1981). The intimacy of commodities: Social control,
subjectivity and feminine hygiene (Unpublished masters thesis). McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Bhatt, R., & Bhatt, M. (2005). Perceptions of Indian women regarding menstruation. International Journal of Gynecology and
Obstetrics, 88, 164-167.
Bijker, W., Huges, T., & Pinch, T. (1987). The social construction of
technological systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.

68
Bobel, C. (2010). New blood: Third-wave feminism and the politics
of menstruation. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Boyd, W. (2001). Making meat: Science, technology, and American
poultry production. Technology and Culture, 42, 631-664.
Bru-Bistuer, J. (1996). Spanish women against industrial waste. In
D. Rocheleau, B. Thomas-Slayter, & E. Wangari (Eds.), Feminist political ecology: Global Issues and local experiences.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Chen, H. L., & Burns, L. D. (2006). Environmental analysis of textile
products. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 24, 248-261.
Cohen, M. J., Brown, H. S., & Vergragt, P. J. (2010). Individual
consumption and systemic societal transformation: Introduction to the special issue. Sustainability: Science, Practice, &
Policy, 6(2), 6-12.
Czerwinski, B. S. (1992). Relationship between feminine hygiene
practices, body image and self esteem. Dissertation Abstracts
International: Section B. Sciences and Engineering, 54(3), 1330.
DuPuis, E. M. (2000a). The body and the country: A political ecology of consumption. In M. Gottdiener (Ed.), New forms of consumption (pp. 131-152). Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield.
DuPuis, E. M. (2000b). Not in my body: rBGH and the rise of
organic milk. Agriculture and Human Values, 17, 285-295.
European Environmental Agency. (2010). The European environment, state and outlook: Consumption and the environment.
Copenhagen, Denmark: Author. Retrieved from http://www.
eea.europa.eu/soer/europe/consumption-and-environment
Farage, M., Nusair, T., Hanseman, D., Sherman, S., & Tsevat, J.
(2010). The Farage quality of life measure for consumer
products: Development and initial implementation. Applied
Research in Quality of Life, 5, 1-25.
Finkelstein, J. W., & von Eye, A. (1990). Sanitary product use by
white, black and Mexican American women. Public Health
Reports, 105, 491-496.
Fisher, D., & Freudenburg, W. R. (2001). Ecological modernization
and its critics: Assessing the past and looking toward the future.
Society and Natural Resources, 14, 701-709.
Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Patient alert: Tampons
and asbestos, dioxin and toxic shock syndrome. Retrieved from
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/
PatientAlerts/ucm070003.htm
Gorenstein, S. (2010). What we now know about feminist technologies. In L. L. Layne, S. L. Vostral, & K. Boyer (Eds.),
Feminist technology (pp. 203-214). Urbana: University of
Illinois Press.
Gram-Hanssen, K. (2007). Teenage consumption of cleanliness:
How to make it sustainable? Sustainability: Science, Practice,
& Policy, 3(2), 15-23.
Gregory, D., Johnston, R., Pratt, G., Watts, M., & Whatmore, S.
(2009). The dictionary of human geography (5th ed.). Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Guthman, J. (2007). The Polanyian way? Voluntary food labels as
neoliberal governance. Antipode, 39, 456-478.
Guthman,J., & DuPuis, M. (2006). Embodying neoliberalism:
Economy, culture, and the politics of fat. Environment and
Planning D: Society and Space, 24, 427-448.

Bulletin of Science,Technology & Society 32(1)

Hackett, E., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M., & Wajcman, J. (2008).
The handbook of science and technology studies. Cambridge:
MIT Press.
Hajer, M. A. (2009). Ecological modernisation as cultural politics.
In A. P. J. Mol, D. A. Sonnenfeld, & G. Spaargaren (Eds.), The
ecological modernization reader (pp. 80-100). Oxon, England:
Routledge.
Hand, M., Shove, E., & Southerton, D. (2005). Explaining
showering: A discussion of the material, conventional, and
temporal dimensions of practice. Sociological Research
Online, 10(2).
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in
feminism as a site of discourse on the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14, 575-599.
Hertwich, E. G. (2005). Consumption and industrial ecology. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9, 1-6.
Huber, J. (2009). Upstreaming environmental action. In A. P. J.
Mol, D. A. Sonnenfeld, & G. Spaargaren (Eds.), The ecological modernization reader (pp. 42-55). Oxon, England:
Routledge.
Jackson, T. (2005). Motivating sustainable consumption: A review
of evidence on consumer behaviour and behavioural change
(Report to the Sustainable Development Research Network).
Guildford, England: University of Surrey.
Jackson, T., & Papathanasopoulou, E. (2008). Luxury or lock-in?
An exploration of unsustainable consumption in the UK: 1968
to 2000. Ecological Economics, 68, 80-95.
Jensen, J. O. (2008). Measuring consumption in households: Interpretations and strategies. Ecological Economics, 68, 353-361.
Kelleher, K. (2009). Bloody hell: Menstrual activists make periods public. Retrieved from http://jezebel.com/5372984/bloodyhell-menstrual-activists-make-periods-public
Korten, D. C. (1991). Sustainable development in cooperation for
international development. World Policy Journal, 9, 1.
Langhelle, O. (2009). Why ecological modernisation and sustainable development should not be conflated. In P. J. A. Mol, D.
A. Sonnenfeld, & G. Spaargaren (Eds.), The ecological modernization reader: Environmental reform in theory and practice
(pp. 391-417). Oxon, England: Routledge.
Langston, N. (2010). Toxic bodies: Hormone disruptors and the
legacy of DES. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Manno, J. (2000). Privileged goods: Commoditization and its
impact on environment and society. New York, NY: Lewis.
Manno, J. (2010a). Commoditization and oppression: A systems
approach to understanding the economic dynamics of modes
of oppression. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
1185, 164-178.
Manno, J. (2010b). Sustainability/sufficiency. In R. Denemark
(Ed.), The international studies compendium project and encyclopedia (Vol. 3, pp. 1598-1618). Oxford, England: WileyBlackwell.
Mansfield, P. K., & Stubbs, M. L. (2004). Tracking the course of
menstrual life: Contributions from the society for menstrual
cycle research. Womens Health Issues, 14, 174-176.
Marx, K. (1973). Grundrisse. New York, NY: Vintage.

Davidson
McCarthy, J. (2002). First world political ecology: Lessons from
the Wise Use movement. Environment and Planning A, 34,
1281-1302.
McCarthy, J., & Prudham, S. (2004). Neoliberal nature and the
nature of neoliberalism. Geoforum, 35, 275-283.
Mok, K. (2007). Bleed with pride: Make-it-yourself menstrual pads
(Fashion and Beauty Section). Tree Hugger. Retrieved from http://
www.treehugger.com/files/2007/11/make_your_own_pad.php
Mol, A. P. J., & Jaenicke, M. (2009). The origins and theoretical
foundations of ecological modernization theory. In A. P. J. Mol,
D. A. Sonnenfeld, & G. Spaargaren. The ecological modernization reader (pp. 17-27). Oxon, England: Routledge.
Mol, A. P. J., Sonnenfeld, D. A., & Spaargaren, G. (2009). The ecological modernization reader. Oxon, England: Routledge.
Moran, S. (2008). Under the lawn: Engaging the water cycle. Ethics, Place & Environment, 11, 129-145.
National Health Service. (2010). Health A-Z: Toxic-ShockSyndrome. Retrieved from http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/
Toxic-shock-syndrome/Pages/Introduction.aspx
Natracare. (n.d.). Natracare: Healthier by nature. Retrieved from
http://www.natracare.com/test/products/the_natural_choice.htm
OConnor, J. (1998). Natural causes: Essays in ecological Marxism. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Oster, E., & Thornton, R. (2010). Menstruation, sanitary products
and school attendance: Evidence from a randomized evaluation.
American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3, 91-100.
Peet, R., & Watts, M. (Eds.). (2004). Liberation ecologies: Environment, development and social movements (2nd ed.). London,
England: Routledge.
Popova, M. (2010). She28: Sustainable sanitary products empower
women in the developing world at Big Think. Retrieved from
http://bigthink.com/ideas/24941
Proctor & Gamble. (2010). Protecting futures. Always and Tampax: Protecting the futures of girls. Retrieved from http://www.
pg.com/en_US/sustainability/social_responsibility/protecting_futures.shtml
Raftos, M., Jackson, D., & Mannix, J. (1998). Idealised versus
tainted femininity: discourses of the menstrual experience
in Australian magazines that target young women. Nursing
Inquiry, 5, 174-186.
Rees, W. (2010). Whats blocking sustainability? Human nature,
cognition and denial. Sustainability: Science, Practice and
Policy, 6(2), 13-25.
Robbins, P. (2007). Lawn people: How grasses, weeds and chemicals make us who we are. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University
Press.
Rockstrm, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S.,
Lambin, E. F., . . . Foley, J. A. (2009). Planetary boundaries:
Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and
Society, 14(2), 32. Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32
Rojas, M. V. (2003). She bathes in a sacred place: Rites of reciprocity, power, and prestige in Alta California. Wicazo Sa Review,
18, 129-156.

69
Ropke, I. (1999). The dynamics of willingness to consume. Ecological Economics, 28, 399-420.
Ropke, I., & Reisch L. A. (2004). The place of consumption in
ecological economics. In L. A. Reisch & I. Ropke (Eds.), The
ecological economics of consumption (pp. 1-15). Northampton,
England: Edward Elgar.
Seyfang, G. (2004). Consuming values and contested cultures: A
critical analysis of the UK strategy for sustainable consumption
and production. Review of Social Economy, 62, 323-338.
Shove, E. (2003). Converging conventions of comfort, cleanliness
and convenience. Journal of Consumer Policy, 26, 395-418.
Spaargaren, G. (2009). Sustainable consumption: A theoretical and
environmental policy perspective. In A. P. J. Mol, D. A. Sonnenfeld, & G. Spaargaren (Eds.), The ecological modernisation
reader (pp. 318-333). Oxon, England: Routledge.
Spaargaren, G., & Cohen, M. (2009). Greening lifecycles and
lifestyles. In A. P. J. Mol, D. A. Sonnenfeld, & G. Spaargaren
(Eds.), The ecological modernisation reader (pp. 257-274).
Oxon, England: Routledge.
Stewart, K., Greer, R., & Powell, M. (2010). Womens experience
of using the Mooncup. Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology,
30, 285-287.
Strasser, S. (1999). Waste and want: A social history of trash. New
York, NY: Henry & Holt.
Stubbs, M. L. (2008). Cultural perceptions and practices around
menarche and adolescent menstruation in the United States.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1135, 58-66.
Stutz, J. (2010). The three-front war: pursuing sustainability in a
world shaped by explosive growth. Sustainability: Science,
Practice, & Policy, 6, 49-59.
Sustainable Health Enterprises SHE28 Campaign. (2010). Frequently asked questions about sustainable health enterprises.
Retrieved from http://she28.sheinnovates.com/sheSpeaksFAQS2010.pdf
Takebayashi, T., Omae, K., Ishizuka, C., Nomiyama, T., & Sakurai, H.
(1998). Cross sectional observation of the effects of carbon
disulphide on the nervous system, endocrine system, and subjective symptoms in rayon manufacturing workers. Occupational Environmental Medicine, 55, 473-479.
United Nations Departments for Environmental and Social Affairs.
(2011). Consumption and production patterns. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/climate-change/consumption.shtml
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1994). Chemical summary
for carbon disulfide. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/chemfact/s_carbds.txt
Wainwright, J. D., & Mercer, K. L. (2009). The dilemma of decontamination: A Gramscian analysis of the transgenic maize dispute. Geoforum, 40, 345-354.
Wajcman, J. (2010). Feminist Theories of Technology. Cambridge
Journal of Economics, 34, 143-152.
Water UK. (n.d.) The Bag It & Bin It campaign. Retrieved
from http://www.water.org.uk/home/resources-and-links/
bagandbin

70
Wilk, R. (2004). Questionable assumptions about sustainable consumption. In L. A. Reisch & I. Ropke (Eds.), The ecological
economics of consumption (pp. 17-31). Northampton, England:
Edward Elgar.
Williams, A. T., & Simmons, S. L. (1999). Sources of riverine litter:
The river Taff, South Wales, UK. Water, Air and Soil Pollution,
112, 197-216.
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987).
Towards sustainable development. In Our common future (pp.
43-66). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bulletin of Science,Technology & Society 32(1)

Zavestoski, S. (2002). The social-psychological bases of anticonsumption attitudes. Psychology & Marketing, 19, 149-165.

Bio
Anna Davidson is a graduate student in environmental studies at
the State University of New York College of Environmental
Science and Forestry, Syracuse, New York. Her research interests
lie in environmental social and political theory, political ecology,
and qualitative methods. Her current focus is on sustainability of
body care and household practices.