Page 60 Daily Mail, Thursday, March 5, 2020
Sorry, but the phrase ‘period
p o v e r t y ’ l e a v e s m e s l i g h t l y(^) baffled. Is it just me — or do the
numbers simply not add up?
Last week, I bought pads and
tampons at Aldi for my two
daughters. A box of 20 Lunex
tampons cost 69p, while 28 panty
liners was 42p, or 1.5p each.
Prices are roughly the same at
Tesco or any other value super-
market. And it takes about 22
pads and tampons to get through
a five-day period. That means for
about £1 you can buy all the
monthly protection you need for
the cost of a big bag of crisps.
Despite this, the Scottish
Government plans to make
sanitary products free ‘for anyone
w h o n e e d s t h e m’. D a n i e l l e
rowley, the former Labour MP
who led the way on this, claims
periods cost the average woman
£500 a year. I’m not sure how.
(others cite a more sensible £100
— but it still sounds high.)
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for
girls’ empowerment. But free
sanitary protection for all, regard-
less of need, age or income, is not
the best way to achieve this.
Fo r o n e t h i n g, p a d s a n d
ap p l i c a t o r t a m p o n s a r e a n
environmental disaster. Plastic
applicators, often flushed even
though they should not be, are
clogging up the oceans. Pads,
which end up in landfill, can be
up to 90 per cent plastic.
If there is any spare cash, it
should be spent on menstrual
cups, which are re-useable and
better for the environment.
But then I suspect political
virtue signalling is at play here. If
girls are stuffing loo paper down
their pants, as campaigners
claim, can it really be because
they can’t afford pads? Isn’t it
more likely they just don’t have
any tampons with them?
But no, it plays better to paint
these girls as ‘victims’.
It’s often conveniently left
out of the debate that the
Government is supplying free
sanitary products to all state
schools and colleges. It has
wanted to scrap VAT on the
products for years, but the EU
blocked this.
If campaigners really mean that
some British girls are still too
ashamed to talk about their
periods, and don’t ask their
parents for what they need, that’s
a different issue. It’s one I suspect
is at the root of the problem.
If so, wouldn’t the cash about
to be spent on free pads for all,
be better spent on training more
teachers and counsellors to talk
to girls about their periods, so
that our young women can
take charge of this basic necessity
for themselves?
by Tanith
Carey
auThor
The
Femail
Face-off
no
Should tampons
be given to all
women for free?
As the Scots fast-track
a controversial new idea...
‘
Spend the
cash on girls’
education
instead
’
‘
The State
pays for free
condoms, so
why not?
’
oF coUrSE we should make
tampons free. The Scottish
Parliament is right. Women
and girls cannot avoid periods,
so why should they pay for
sanitary products?
The Government provides free
condoms, nicotine patches, and
countless other services, yet
products needed by more than
half the population are seen as a
luxury, and taxed as such.
Periods are expensive, too. The
a v e r a g e a n n u a l s p e n d o n
products is £77, so it’s no surprise
one in four women and girls is hit
by period poverty.
We see period poverty as a lack
of access to products, education
or facilities when a woman is
menstruating — and it is the
poorest who are affected.
This includes single mums who
struggle to feed their children,
women who rely on foodbanks,
are homeless, or who are on
universal credit — even girls who
can’t go to school as they have
no period products.
These girls are being hopelessly
compromised. If a girl misses out
on a proper education thanks to
period poverty, she is less likely
to overcome poverty in later life.
But because the haves aren’t in
dire need, they ignore it — leaving
the have-nots to suffer.
Women and girls cannot live in
o u r s o c i e t y w i t h o u t p e r i o d
products. They are not a choice.
Without them, periods become
u n m a n a g e a b l e , p o t e n t i a l l y
embarrassing and ultimately
isolating, with numerous nega-
tive knock-on effects.
In my work for the Women’s
resource centre charity, which
campaigns for gender equality, I
visited a school where the girls
talked about how glad they were
that period poverty is finally
being addressed. Not only did
they no longer have to worry
about the cost or availability of
products during the school day,
but they also spoke of their relief
that the discussion is out in the
open. Normalising the fact they
have periods rather than treating
the subject as taboo was vital,
they said.
In 2020, it is unacceptable that
male policymakers are still leav-
i n g w o m e n f a c i n g s h a m e ,
(^) discomfort and isolation by deny-
ing us free access to a necessity.
critics argue that only the
poorest should get free tampons
or towels — but how on earth
could you means test this? This
must be a benefit for all women,
although not all will choose to
take it up. rich or poor, we did
not sign up to have periods, and
therefore we should not be forced
to pay to manage them.
The Government provides
standard-issue condoms free,
although using these is a matter
of choice. Why aren’t period
products available in the same
way for those who need them?
yeS
by Vivienne
hayes MBE
CEo woMEn’s rEsourCE CEnTrE
M
ANy of us worry
that our fashion
ha b i t s c o u l d b e
harming the planet.
But with all the
conflicting advice on offer it can
be hard to tell how bad — or
good — we’re being.
Is avoiding fast fashion enough, or
should we be wearing secondhand? Is a
dress made of sustainable fabric but
shipped from overseas better than a bog-
standard one made locally? Is it really
worth spending more on clothes built to
last — and if so, how much more?
Luckily an online tool, backed by Harry
Potter star and eco -warrior Emma
Watson, can help with all of these
questions through a quiz that calculates
your fashion carbon footprint.
From unpicking your shopping habits
to examining how you wash your clothes,
it works out how much carbon dioxide
your fashion habits are pumping into the
atmosphere annually. It has found that
the average consumer produces 1,620lb
of co2 via their fashion choices.
Six writers with vastly different shopping
habits took the test...
THE SERIAL RETURNER
EsthEr WalkEr, a
39-year-old author and
mother of two
FASHION FOOTPRINT: 588lb of
co2 — nearly equivalent to
one person taking a flight
from London to rome.
THErE must be people who shop
sensibly, who sit down once a year with a
list and buy a couple of quality items to
update their wardrobe. They will not be
found, as I am, scrolling like a zombie
through Asos, Net-A-Porter or Zara
whenever I feel even remotely bored
or unhappy.
It’s an illness; you don’t have to tell
me — I am always chasing that thrill
like any addict seeking a fix.
So when I tried Emma Watson’s
calculator I lied, of course. I estimated
down and got a fairly respectable
result. Then I felt guilty and thought
harder about what I’d really bought
in 2019.
I’d admitted buying five new
dresses and seven tops. But the
truth is it was far more.
Probably double. Triple.
But here’s the thing: I
s e n d a l m o s t a l l o f
them back. Sometimes I
find a gem like my grey Sessun
cropped sweater or long black
Sezane coat, but usually I am
disappointed.
So I took the test again, leaving
nothing out.
In other areas I like to think my
green-cred is solid: I donate or re-
sell everything I get rid of. I always
c o o l - w a s h a n d d o n’ t u s e a
tumbledrier, which saves lots of
co2. I also buy some sustainable
brands, like my Allbirds wool
trainers.
So even telling the truth, I don’t
feel that bad about my result. The
terrible news is I now feel I can go
mad and buy even more.
THE VINTAGE FAN
lara Johnson
WhEElEr, a
26-year-old writer
FASHION FOOTPRINT:
4 9 5 l b o f c o2 —
almost equivalent to
one person taking a
plane from London to Barcelona.
AccorDING to the quiz, my
fashion footprint is 69 per cent
lower than the average. Not that
I’m boasting. oK, just a little. But
I am surprised. I’d be the first to
by Fionn
hargreaves
admit some of my fashion habits
are, well, questionable.
I love clothes and shopping.
Although my wardrobe is made up
of secondhand finds, mostly from
designer vintage shops such as
Vestiaire collective, Depop and
eBay. This means a lot of packaging,
which boosts my co2 total.
Maybe I’m buying less than the
average Brit because Topshop,
Missguided and Zara cannot
match my desire for secondhand
Prada mules or the perfect Ganni
dress. Still, I tend to buy clothes
six or seven times a month.
Also, I lost points because I wash
my clothes just after wearing
them. This means I average about
four or five washes per item a
month. But I don’t tumble-dry.
I also get pieces dry- cleaned
every month, and try to handwash
delicates. I sell or donate clothes
rather than binning them, too.
I’m also very specific about
footwear. I like Maison Margiela’s
split-toe Tabi boots. But these
don’t come cheap, so I get them
resoled at a cobblers.
I’m an imperfect sustainable
shopper, but I’m trying. And isn’t
that what counts?
Figure
out your
fashion
footprint