Toxic Trust: What the UFS Study Reveals About Hidden Endocrine Disruptors in Everyday Sanitary Products — Join Prof. Deon Visser Live…

Dear readers,

A recent University of the Free State (UFS) investigation into commonly used personal‑care products has lifted a corner of the curtain on a widespread, under‑recognized public‑health risk: the routine presence of endocrine‑disrupting chemicals (EDCs) — phthalates, bisphenols, parabens and related agents — in items we apply to our bodies every day. The preliminary findings reported by UFS demand rigorous public scrutiny, immediate public education, and urgent regulatory attention. Tomorrow evening we will host Professor Deon Visser to take us through the study’s methods, findings and implications. This editorial expands on the core issues and explains why you should listen, act, and demand answers.

Why this matters — beyond alarmism

- Ubiquity and invisibility: EDCs are used across product categories — cosmetics, lotions, hair products, fragrances, and some packaging — and many exposures are invisible because infections are not the issue here; they are chronic, low‑level chemical exposures that can interfere with hormone systems.

- Long latency, serious outcomes: Even low‑level, repeated exposure may contribute over time to reproductive disorders, developmental problems in children, metabolic disease, and certain cancers. Effects accumulate and can be most severe during critical windows: fetal development, infancy, adolescence and pregnancy.

- Vulnerable populations: Pregnant people, developing fetuses, infants, adolescents, and occupationally exposed workers face disproportionate risks. Communities with limited access to safer alternatives may carry higher burdens.

What the public needs to know about the UFS study (and what we will press Prof. Visser to explain)

- Scope and representativeness: Which brands and product types were tested? How many samples were analysed, and were samples purchased randomly, targeted by market share, or chosen because of specific risk concerns? Representative sampling matters when interpreting population‑level risk.

- Methods and rigour: What laboratory techniques (GC‑MS, LC‑MS/MS, targeted screening) and validation steps were used? What were the limits of detection and quantification, and how reproducible are the measures across runs and labs? Analytical quality determines whether detected traces are meaningful.

- Specific contaminants and concentrations: Which exact chemical species were present (e.g., DEHP, DBP, BPA, BPS, methylparaben), and at what levels? Crucially, how do those concentrations compare to established safety benchmarks (ADI, reference doses, tolerable daily intakes) and to levels measured in biomonitoring studies?

- Exposure relevance: Detection in a product does not equate to systemic harm unless there is meaningful absorption. We will examine estimates of dermal or mucosal uptake, typical usage patterns (frequency, amount, product area), and cumulative exposures from multiple products.

- Health interpretation: Are the levels indicative of acute risk, or do they primarily raise concerns for chronic, cumulative harm? Which groups should be most worried now, and where is evidence strongest for adverse outcomes?

- Regulatory and industry transparency: Did the authors notify manufacturers or regulators prior to public release? If so, what explanations, reformulations, or remedial actions were proposed or undertaken? If not, why not? We will ask about lab‑to‑policy pathways and the timeline for official responses.

- Limitations and next steps: Small, exploratory studies are essential early warnings but require follow‑up. We will discuss what larger surveillance, product‑market audits, biomonitoring and toxicokinetic studies are needed and how UFS plans to proceed.

Systemic implications — regulators, industry and the public interest

- Regulatory gaps exposed: Current safety assessments often consider single chemicals in isolation, not real‑world mixtures or lifetime cumulative exposures. Label ambiguity and uneven ingredient disclosure can leave consumers blind to risk. We will press for concrete policy solutions: stricter disclosure rules, hazard‑based restrictions (not just concentration caps), mandatory post‑market surveillance, and alignment of local standards with best international practice.

- Industry responsibility: Brands must proactively test, reformulate, and clearly label. Where safer alternatives exist, manufacturers should transition and make those options visible and affordable. Voluntary action should be supplemented by enforceable standards.

- Equity and access: Low‑income consumers often face the highest exposure because cheaper products may rely on hazardous additives; policy responses must ensure safer choices are affordable and widely available.

Clear, practical guidance for consumers — what you can do now

- Reduce product load: Use fewer products daily and avoid applying multiple leave‑on products to the same body area.

- Prefer fragrance‑free and “phthalate‑free/bisphenol‑free” verified formulations — but read beyond marketing: seek full ingredient lists.

- Choose products with transparent sourcing and third‑party safety verification where possible.

- Prioritise vaccination, prenatal care and professional advice for pregnant people and parents of young children if concerned.

- Advocate: Ask retailers and manufacturers for ingredient lists and safer alternatives; support policies that require disclosure and restrict hazardous EDCs.

- Consult health professionals before making drastic changes; panicked product dumping can itself cause harms and confusion.

How we will structure tomorrow’s simulcast with Prof. Deon Visser

- When: 24 February 2026, 18:00–20:00

- Where: Simulcast on Radio Bop Africa and Radio Mmabatho Africa (on air and online)

- Format: In‑depth interview with live audience Q&A. We will pose the 10 high‑impact questions prepared (listed below) and follow the Professor through study rationale, methods, findings, policy implications and consumer guidance. Listeners will be invited to submit questions in real time.

The 10 questions we will ask Prof. Deon Visser

1. Can you summarise the UFS study’s scope — which brands/products were tested, how many samples, and why those were chosen?

2. What analytical methods and detection limits did your team use, and how confident are you in the accuracy and reproducibility of the results?

3. Which specific endocrine‑disrupting chemicals were detected (e.g., particular phthalates, bisphenols, parabens), and at what concentrations relative to established safety thresholds?

4. Do the detected levels pose an acute or chronic health risk to typical users, and which populations (e.g., adolescents, pregnant people) are most vulnerable?

5. How do you interpret risk given exposure route (dermal/mucosal) and frequency of use — is there evidence of meaningful systemic absorption?

6. Did your team communicate findings to manufacturers or regulators before publication, and what responses or explanations (if any) did you receive?

7. What regulatory gaps or labelling standards do your findings indicate, and what specific policy changes would you recommend now?

8. For consumers listening today: what practical steps can individuals take to reduce risk while we wait for regulatory or industry action?

9. What further research — e.g., larger surveillance studies, biomonitoring, or toxicokinetic work — is most urgently needed and are you seeking partnerships or funding?

10. How should media and public‑health bodies communicate these findings responsibly to avoid undue alarm while ensuring informed decision‑making?

A direct request to Professor Visser and UFS communications

Professor, to assist with promotion and public engagement, we request two high‑resolution half‑portrait images (one formal portrait; one lab‑in‑action) in JPEG/PNG format. Please confirm availability for the full two‑hour slot and receipt of the questions. If UFS has any press materials or a technical brief summarising the analytical report, please forward those to our newsroom in advance.

Why attendance matters — civic, scientific and personal stakes

This is not merely a scientific curiosity. The UFS study, if corroborated, speaks to chemical exposures that intersect with reproductive health, childhood development and chronic disease risk across our communities. It raises questions about transparency, corporate practices and regulatory adequacy. Tomorrow’s conversation is a rare chance to hear directly from the investigators, ask tough questions, and learn what actions are warranted now — as consumers, as voters, and as advocates for safer environments.

Join us, ask your questions, and help turn preliminary findings into accountable, protective policy and consumer practice.

Simulcast reminder: 24 February 2026, 18:00–20:00 on Radio Bop Africa and Radio Mmabatho Africa. Bring your questions; bring your attention.

In public health and accountability,