Scholarlink

Background <p>Terminology used to describe products applied to the vulva and vagina is inconsistent and poorly standardized, limiting clarity in research, clinical practice, and regulation. Products marketed under the umbrella of “feminine hygiene” or “intimate care” include both menstrual management items and products intended primarily for aesthetic purposes, such as douches, sprays, wipes, and scented tampons. The use of health-oriented language such as “hygiene” and “care” may imply medical necessity or health benefit despite limited evidence of therapeutic value and growing concern regarding chemical exposures associated with some of these products. Ambiguous terminology may obscure product function, hinder risk communication, and contribute to regulatory and research gaps.</p> Main body <p>We propose the term <i>intimate cosmetics</i> to describe vulvovaginal products intended for aesthetic purposes rather than for menstrual management. This terminology aligns with established regulatory definitions of cosmetics as products applied to the body for cleansing, beautifying, or altering appearance, without implying disease prevention or treatment. Reframing these products as cosmetics more accurately reflects their intended use and clarifies distinctions between aesthetic and health-promoting interventions. Many intimate cosmetics contain fragrances and other chemicals associated with endocrine disruption, reproductive toxicity, or carcinogenicity, yet marketing claims such as “gynecologist tested” or “pH balanced” may confer an impression of clinical legitimacy. Clear, function-based terminology can improve research categorization, enhance post-market safety monitoring, and support more transparent regulatory oversight. Importantly, imprecise and gendered language may also reinforce stigma and obscure patterns of disproportionate exposure among populations already overburdened by environmental toxicants.</p> Conclusion <p>Adopting the term intimate cosmetics represents a practical public health strategy to improve precision in scientific discourse, strengthen risk communication, and promote more equitable regulatory attention. Intentional, function-based nomenclature can better align product labeling, research, and policy with exposure realities and consumer protection goals.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

From feminine hygiene to intimate cosmetics: why language matters for vulvovaginal product exposures and regulation

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月7日

查看全文
  • Elissia T. Franklin,
  • Shanique K. E. Edwards,
  • Devon M. Price,
  • Adana A. M. Llanos

摘要

Background

Terminology used to describe products applied to the vulva and vagina is inconsistent and poorly standardized, limiting clarity in research, clinical practice, and regulation. Products marketed under the umbrella of “feminine hygiene” or “intimate care” include both menstrual management items and products intended primarily for aesthetic purposes, such as douches, sprays, wipes, and scented tampons. The use of health-oriented language such as “hygiene” and “care” may imply medical necessity or health benefit despite limited evidence of therapeutic value and growing concern regarding chemical exposures associated with some of these products. Ambiguous terminology may obscure product function, hinder risk communication, and contribute to regulatory and research gaps.

Main body

We propose the term intimate cosmetics to describe vulvovaginal products intended for aesthetic purposes rather than for menstrual management. This terminology aligns with established regulatory definitions of cosmetics as products applied to the body for cleansing, beautifying, or altering appearance, without implying disease prevention or treatment. Reframing these products as cosmetics more accurately reflects their intended use and clarifies distinctions between aesthetic and health-promoting interventions. Many intimate cosmetics contain fragrances and other chemicals associated with endocrine disruption, reproductive toxicity, or carcinogenicity, yet marketing claims such as “gynecologist tested” or “pH balanced” may confer an impression of clinical legitimacy. Clear, function-based terminology can improve research categorization, enhance post-market safety monitoring, and support more transparent regulatory oversight. Importantly, imprecise and gendered language may also reinforce stigma and obscure patterns of disproportionate exposure among populations already overburdened by environmental toxicants.

Conclusion

Adopting the term intimate cosmetics represents a practical public health strategy to improve precision in scientific discourse, strengthen risk communication, and promote more equitable regulatory attention. Intentional, function-based nomenclature can better align product labeling, research, and policy with exposure realities and consumer protection goals.