Business
The price of menstrual products is skyrocketing from inflation, tariffs
Always products are displayed on a shelf in a supermarket in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina October 29, 2024.
Dado Ruvic | Reuters
Rising inflation and ever-changing tariff policies have led to higher prices across store shelves over the past few years, squeezing consumers’ budgets.
An often overlooked example: menstrual products.
The average price of menstrual products, including sanitary pads and tampons, has risen nearly 40% since 2020, from roughly $5.37 per unit to $7.43 per unit, according to February data from Chicago-based market research firm Circana.
Dollar sales from menstrual products have grown by nearly 30% over that same period, according to Circana.
But at the same time, sales of menstrual products — which broadly includes pads, tampons, liners and more — have seen a roughly 6% decrease since 2022, falling incrementally each year, according to data from NielsenIQ.
The data analytics company noted that items across the store have seen average unit price increases, with the dollar volume of consumer packaged goods at large rising 2.7% year-to-date. Those price increases are in line with climbing inflation, with the latest consumer price index in February showing a 2.4% annual rise.
The latest CPI data found that inflation in personal care products in the U.S. has jumped dramatically, up 22.1% in February from January 2020.
But because menstrual products are a necessity for a large portion of the population, those costs may be hurting consumers.
“I do think that we’re at a point where consumers in general are having to choose whether they can buy food for their family, or buy prescriptions for their family. Some things that we do typically define as a necessity, people are finding alternatives for or going without,” said Sarah Broyd, a partner with consultancy firm Clarkston Consulting.
Broyd said the gap between higher prices and declining sales shows consumers may be searching for alternatives out of necessity.
Menstrual products haven’t just been hit by inflation, either. According to government data, the U.S. collected $115 million through tariffs on menstrual products containing cotton in 2025, compared with just $42 million in 2020.
The U.S. imported the majority of its menstrual products from Canada, China and Mexico in 2024, according to the World Bank. President Donald Trump has imposed tariffs on all three of those countries at varying levels over the past year.
Those added costs come on top of the so-called “pink tax,” where some states place a sales tax on menstrual products. According to 2025 data from Statista, Tennessee, Mississippi and Indiana have the highest sales tax on menstrual products at 7%. Products that are deemed “medical devices” are often excluded from sales taxes.
‘A subscription service to be a woman’
For 30-year-old Dafna Diamant, the rising price of menstrual products has become noticeable at the cash register and a drag on her monthly expenses.
The New York resident said she’s noticed her usual pack of roughly 18 tampons rise to somewhere around $25, especially over the past year.
“It’s crazy, and it just feels like as a woman, you have to pay sometimes $50 every couple months,” Diamant told CNBC. “And for some people, it takes a toll on the income.”
Diamant said she feels particularly frustrated because it’s not a monthly expense she can go without. She often buys store-brand period products at retailers like CVS and Walgreens, yet she said she’s still shocked by the sticker price.
“It still feels like a subscription service to be a woman,” Diamant told CNBC. “You have to pay every month to be fertile.”
Even larger companies have felt the effects. Procter & Gamble, the parent company of menstrual product brand Always, said in July that it was raising prices on 25% of its personal care and household products due to a $1 billion total annual tariff impact. It manufactures its Always products across facilities in Maine, Utah and Canada, according to the company.
P&G declined to comment for this story.
Kimberly-Clark, the maker of menstrual product brand Kotex, said on an earnings call in April that the company incurred a total of $300 million in gross costs from tariffs, with more than half of that related to tariffs on China. The company did not respond to CNBC’s requests for comment.
Broyd, the partner at Clarkston Consulting, said menstrual products have been hit with a “triple whammy” of rising raw material costs, inflation across energy and supply chains, and cross-border friction from tariffs.
“When you think about plastic and pulp and some of the main components of feminine care products, they’re largely probably coming from overseas and then getting hit with that much more of tariffs,” Broyd said.
She added that these tariffs are on top of already alleged higher levies on other women’s products, the subject of Congress’ Pink Tariffs Study Act introduced last year by Democrats to determine whether the U.S. tariff system is “regressive” or has a “gender bias.”
As prices continue to shoot up, Broyd said she believes companies will continue to reevaluate their portfolios and potentially sell off their feminine care segments to focus on businesses with higher margins. In November, Edgewell Personal Care sold its feminine care business to a company in Sweden for $340 million.
“You’re seeing these more niche, more startup type brands that are popping up in stores. … That’s the biggest growth,” Broyd said. “People that have the ability to flex up and buy more organic or products that they trust, they’ll spend that price premium. But for other consumers that don’t have the discretionary income to do that, they’re going to trade down and go private label, or go without.”
The rise of reusables
Diamant said she and her friends are now trying period underwear instead of single-use products to streamline their expenses.
A growing number of people have been trying reusable period products, primarily because they’re environmentally friendly and cheaper.
Major manufacturers have often relied on brand loyalty for their products, which could take a hit if consumers turn to alternatives.
“If you’re in fem care, you’re going to be using Kotex for 40 years. If you’re in Depend, you’re going to be using Depend for 40 years, right?” Kimberly-Clark CEO Michael Hsu said on a November earnings call. “There is long-duration frequency. There’s a lot of expenditure for consumers, and so because of that, they want to have an ongoing relation with us.”
Saalt, a reusable period products company offering cups, discs and underwear, said it estimates that 16% to 20% of U.S. consumers have tried or used reusable menstrual products, consisting of mostly younger consumers.
“Affordability is huge,” CEO Cherie Hoeger told CNBC. “When you look at our product, a cup or disc can last 10 years, and our product is only in the $30 price range. … They’re able to save up to $1,800 on the lifespan of that cup or disc, and that’s on the low end.”
Saalt, which launched in 2018, hit revenues of eight figures in its third year of business, Hoeger said. The company declined to disclose details of its financials, but she said demand has grown year-over-year since it launched.
Among Generation Z, Hoeger said the top reason for switching to reusables is pricing.
“They usually have some affinity toward sustainability and climate change, but it’s never their number one,” Hoeger said.
The rise of reusables may be contributing to the declining sales of single-use period products over the past few years. It also coincides with recent studies indicating that tampons could contain lead or other harmful ingredients. The Food and Drug Administration investigated the presence of metals and determined there was no risk.
Riding that momentum, other companies like Knix, MeLuna, Flex and more have entered the reusables space and garnered growing market share as consumers search for alternatives.
“Affordability is the crux; it’s the root problem,” Hoeger said. “Without affordability for these period products, you have real economic consequences for women to happen.”
Business
Delay in FSSAI finalising front of pack labelling rules unusual by its own norm – The Times of India
While the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has claimed in the Supreme Court that the framing of front-of-pack labelling (FOPL) regulations would take longer and sought more time, a look at several regulations framed by the authority in the last ten years shows that the average time taken to frame one or make amendments to existing ones has been about two years. In the case of the FOPL, the process has been dragging on for about a decade.After framing guidelines in 2014 which included front-of-pack labelling specifying how much fat, sugar or salt a packaged food contained, when the FSSAI put it in the public domain in 2015, it had stated that the guidelines would be “converted into regulation in due course after following the process of inviting suggestions and comments, suggestions etc. from various stakeholders”. FSSAI put out the draft Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2018 in public domain in April 2018. However, since then there have been half a dozen stakeholder consultations and more drafts put out, but no regulation in sight yet.In response to a public interest petition in the Supreme Court seeking directions to FSSAI to make FOPL regarding high fat, sugar and salt mandatory for packaged foods, the court has been monitoring the process even as the authority has been seeking repeated extensions. In its latest affidavit in court, the FSSAI laid out a long process before the Supreme Court.It told the court that it is “contemplating” a tabular or pictorial representation to reflect high fat sugar or salt on front of pack labelling. It stated that it is a complex matter “requiring further consultation and examination” and hence stakeholder consultation is proposed before deciding on the modalities of FOPL. The latest stakeholder consultation had over 60 food industry and industry association representatives and just two public health experts representing civil society or public health interest.There remain several steps:1. After stakeholder consultations a draft amendment will be prepared2. Draft amendment will be placed before scientific panel (consist of nine eminent food scientists from different government organizations/institutions). Scientific committee comprising of chairpersons of the 21 scientific panels and six independent members, FSSAI and Health ministry “for due consideration”3. To include amendment in the regulation a draft regulation including the proposed amendment/s is placed before the scientific panel concerned4.Recommendations of the scientific panel will be placed before the scientific committee5. On endorsement of the scientific committee it will be placed before FSSAI for approval and if there are substantial changes in the notified draft regulation, another draft regulation will have to be notified6. Once approved by FSSAI, the draft or final regulation is sent to health ministry7. After ministry approval, if it is a draft regulation, it has to be notified in the gazette for public comments giving 60 days’ time and the entire process spelt out above is repeated before it is finally notified.8. In case what the health ministry approves is the final regulation, it has to be sent to the legislative department of the law ministry for vetting followed by approval of the health ministry. The approved final regulation is published in the Gazette of India for implementation.In short, the FSSAI stated in court that the regulation is far from becoming a reality any time soon. However, the longest time FSSAI has taken for framing any of the existing regulations or amendments has been over three years. The only other regulation that the FSSAI has not framed even after seven years is the Food Safety and Standards (Genetically Modified and Engineered Foods) Regulations which have been in the works since 2019.Average time to bring in various regulations/amendments to regulations
| New regulations | Draft notified in the gazette | Put in public domain for feedback from stakeholders | Date of gazette notification | Gap between draft and final notification |
| Food Safety and Standards (Health Supplements, Nutraceuticals, Food for Special Dietary Use, Food for Special Medical Purpose, Functional Food and Novel Food) Regulations, 2016. | Jul 30, 2015 | Sep 11, 2015 | Dec 23, 2016 | 17 months |
| Food Safety and Standards (Alcoholic Beverages) Regulations, 2018 | Sep 5, 2016 | Sep 9, 2016 | Mar 19, 2018 | 18 months |
| Food Safety and Standards (Fortification of Foods) Regulations, 2018 | Dec 23, 2016 | Jan 3, 2017 | Aug 2, 2018 | 19 months |
| Food Safety and Standards (Organic Foods) Regulations, 2017 | Jun 19, 2017 | Jun 22, 2017 | Dec 29, 2017 | 6 months |
| Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018 | Mar 13, 2018 | Mar 23, 2018 | Nov 19, 2018 | 8 months |
| Food Safety and Standards (Packaging) Regulations, 2018 | Mar 19, 2018 | Apr 2, 2018 | Dec 24, 2018 | 9 months |
| Regulation amendments | ||||
| Food Safety and Standards (Contaminants, toxins and Residues) First Amendment Regulations, 2024 | Aug 20, 2020 | Aug 26, 2020 | Oct 17, 2024 | 26 months |
| Food Safety and Standards (Packaging) First Amendment Regulations, 2025. | May 17, 2022 | May 24, 2022 | Mar 28, 2025 | 34 months |
| Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) First Amendment Regulations, 2024. | May 25, 2022 | May 31, 2022 | Oct 21, 2024 | 29 months |
| Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) First Amendment Regulations, 2025 | Oct 31, 2022 | Nov 3, 2022 | Jul 10, 2025 | 32 months |
| Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) first Amendment Regulations, 2024 | Apr 27, 2023 | Apr 28, 2023 | Oct 17, 2024 | 18 months |
UK inflation held steady at 3% in February before the impact of an energy shock linked to war in the Middle East, official figures have revealed.
Economists have said data showing flatlining inflation highlights “the calm before the storm”, with inflation expected to accelerate again in the coming months.
The rate of Consumer Prices Index (CPI) inflation was unchanged from the level reported in January, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said.
It was in line with predictions from economists.
However, the steady picture for inflation does not yet reflect the impact of the conflict in the Middle East on the cost of living, with the first attacks taking place at the very end of February.
Oil and gas prices have jumped in recent weeks due to the conflict and other goods prices could also be affected by disruption to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
Economists said inflation could lift as high as 4% in the third quarter of 2026 due to the projected surge in energy costs.
ONS chief economist Grant Fitzner said: “After last month’s slowdown, annual inflation was unchanged in February as various price movements offset each other.
“The largest upwards driver was the price of clothing, which rose this month but fell a year ago.
“This was offset by falls in petrol costs, with prices collected before the start of the conflict in the Middle East and subsequent rise in crude oil prices.”
The February data showed clothing and footwear prices contributed to inflation, with prices up 0.9% for the month – its highest level since March 2025 – after previously staying flat in January.
However, this upward impact on inflation was cooling inflation in other areas.
Inflation across the services sector eased slightly to 4.3% for the month, dipping to its lowest level for almost four years.
Slower alcohol and tobacco price rises were also a drag on inflation, easing to 3.6% for the month – the lowest since February 2022.
The slowdown was driven by falling inflation for the prices of beers, wines and spirits over the month.
Elsewhere, motor fuel inflation also eased back, with the average price of petrol falling by 1.6p per litre between January and February.
However, petrol and diesel prices have risen significantly since the latest data after the price of crude oil jumped due to the conflict in the Middle East.
Economists said on Wednesday that inflation is now set to accelerate over the coming months as the impact of the conflict feeds into the price of goods.
Stuart Morrison, research manager at the British Chambers of Commerce, said: “For businesses across the UK, today’s inflation data represents the calm before the storm.
“UK firms are particularly exposed to the economic impact of the crisis in the Middle East as our electricity prices are tightly tethered to global gas prices.
“This will feed directly into higher costs and renewed inflationary pressure in the months to come.”
Luke Bartholomew, deputy chief economist at Aberdeen, said: “Today’s inflation report is little more than a relic of the world before the Iran conflict.
“While the February report was broadly in line with expectations, and confirms that inflation was on a path back to 2%, the outlook for inflation has radically changed.”
Experts also indicated previous expectations that interest rates would be cut further this year have been scuppered, with many predicting the Bank of England will continue to hold them at 3.75% in an effort to diminish further price rises.
Matt Swannell, chief economic adviser to the EY ITEM Club, said: “With the growth outlook weak, unemployment high and rising, and policy already restrictive, we think a prolonged hold for bank rate is the most likely outcome.”
Chancellor Rachel Reeves said: “In an uncertain world we have the right economic plan, taking a responsive and responsible approach to supporting working people in the national interest.
“We’re taking £150 off energy bills and providing targeted support for those facing higher heating oil costs.
“We’re also acting to protect people from unfair price rises if they occur, bring down food prices at the till, and cut red tape to boost long-term energy security – building a stronger, more secure economy.”
Prices of gold and silver witnessed a significant increase in both the global market and Pakistan’s local bullion market, reflecting continued volatility in precious metals.
According to market data, the price of one tola of gold surged by Rs15,200, reaching Rs479,262, while the rate for 10 grams of gold increased by Rs13,031 to settle at Rs410,889.
In the international market, gold prices also recorded a substantial rise, climbing by $152 to reach $4,565 per ounce, indicating strong global demand and investor interest in safe-haven assets.
Meanwhile, silver prices followed a similar upward trend, with one tola increasing by Rs370 to reach Rs7,824 in the local market.
Market analysts attribute the rise in prices to ongoing global economic uncertainties and increased demand for precious metals as a hedge against inflation and currency fluctuations.
Three bets and two Eliminator picks for the men’s tournament round of 16
Delay in FSSAI finalising front of pack labelling rules unusual by its own norm – The Times of India
Who’s next at UNC? Potential candidates to replace Hubert Davis, their priorities
-
Fashion1 week agoSales at US apparel, clothing accessories stores up 4% YoY in Jan 2026
-
Business1 week agoPeloton is launching bikes and treadmills for gyms, accelerating commercial strategy
-
Tech1 week agoJustice Department Says Anthropic Can’t Be Trusted With Warfighting Systems
-
Business1 week agoStocks and pound rise as US rate call approaches
-
Business1 week agoBrits cashing in jewellery as gold price hits record high
-
Entertainment7 days agoVal Kilmer revived 1 year after death through AI
-
Sports1 week agoPCB files complaint over allowing Bangladesh to take review on penultimate ball – SUCH TV
-
Sports1 week agoMarch Madness 2026 – How to watch in SA, start time, schedule, TV channel for NCAA championship basketball tournament