Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné, in a written answer on 29 June 2026, declined to announce new EU measures on lead in tampons, stating the Commission has not planned actions under the REACH regulation and was not aware of a Norwegian study that found lead in all tested tampon brands. The answer, responding to a question from S&D MEP Christel Schaldemose, signals the Commission will not initiate a restriction process on its own but leaves the door open for member states or industry to bring forward evidence.
Schaldemose had asked whether the Commission acknowledges that lead in tampons poses a health threat and whether legislation on hygiene products has shortcomings. Séjourné's reply acknowledged lead is a substance of very high concern under REACH and is already restricted in mixtures and several consumer products, but he did not concede that tampons specifically represent a regulatory gap. Instead, he pointed to the General Product Safety Regulation as the applicable framework and noted that national authorities can notify dangerous products via the Safety Gate rapid alert system.
it contains no numerical targets, no deadlines for a review, and no commitment to launch a formal assessment. The only concrete offer is that the Commission is "open to engaging with researchers, national authorities, and industry stakeholders to assess new evidence." Séjourné also reminded that member states and EEA states can propose restrictions under REACH if they consider a substance poses an unacceptable risk.
the Commission favours a reactive, evidence-based approach rather than proactive regulatory action. The answer places the burden of proof on external actors — researchers, member states, or industry — to demonstrate the need for a restriction. No institutional follow-up is scheduled; any future action would depend on a member state dossier or new scientific data.
for consumers, the answer offers no immediate reassurance of stricter safety standards for tampons. For the hygiene product industry, the absence of planned restrictions provides regulatory certainty in the short term, but the open invitation for evidence could lead to future constraints if studies confirm health risks. National authorities gain a clear signal that they are expected to use existing tools (Safety Gate, REACH restriction proposals) if they see a problem. Public health NGOs may view the answer as insufficiently precautionary, given the study's findings of lead leaching during use.