Home
Why Use The Keeper?
FAQ/Instructions
Testimonials
Articles &
Information
Menstrual Musings
Wholesale Info
Secure Order Form
GladRags
 |
The History of the Menstrual Cupfrom the Museum of Menstruation and Women's HealthIntroduction to a History of the Menstrual Cup The commercial menstrual cup, a device inserted into the vagina to collect, but not absorb, menstrual blood, has been around at least since the 1930s, when the American Leona W. Chalmers patented it. An earlier patent also exists for the Daintette cup - its history is less clear. Women didn't buy many of the Chalmers cups when the company sold the hard rubber cup right before World War ll, and it failed. It wasn't until 1959 that Tassette, Inc., began marketing a softer version, in collaboration with Leona Chalmers. It also failed, in the early 1960s. Women today can buy the reusable The Keeper, sold since the late 1980s; and the one-time use Instead, which Ultrafem started selling in the fall of 1996 in the western part of the U.S.A. Leona Chalmers possibly produced the first commercial menstrual cup, around 1937. Two important innovations in menstrual hygiene occurred in the 1930s: the commercial tampon and the menstrual cup (although a strange predecessor was patented in 1867, as were others later). But because of certain characteristics of these devices, neither threatened the reign of the sanitary napkin, essentially meaning Kotex. This remains true (although Kotex is no longer the top-selling pad). Chalmers suggested in the patent that it be made of vulcanized rubber. (She discusses its use and shows a drawing in her book from 1937.) According to Robert Oreck, the founder and president of Tassette, Inc., a later company started in the late 1950s, this first cup started production just as World War ll began, and stalled because of the shortage of rubber. Women did not like the cup because it was hard, too heavy and, I suspect, simply because they did not want to put things into their vaginas with their fingers. The Tampax tampon, first sold in 1936, met similar resistance from the public and also from doctors, who had some medical objections. This raises the issue of femininity. Advertisers for menstrual hygiene products use the word to mean daintiness and delicacy and avoidance of unseemly words, actions and things, including those related to sex and the body's secretions. Ladylike and modest might mean the same thing. Especially American women wanted, and many still want, to avoid the reality of menstruation, with its messiness, unpredictability and its undertones of the unclean, sex, and sexual avoidance.
It was the late 1950s before the cup reappeared on a large scale, and this time Mrs. Chalmers was working with Robert Oreck, but America had hardly changed in its attitudes towards the cup. It still has not. Robert P. Oreck and the Second Attempt to Sell The Cup: Tassette Educating the public was the main task facing Robert P. Oreck, who bought the rights to a second Chalmers patent (from 1950) and started a new company, Tassette, Inc., in May 1959, to sell the new Tassette menstrual cup, which looked very much like the Chalmers cup, and would meet similar objections from the public. It was a family affair: his wife Shirley was vice president for education, and his brother David was a director of the company. Brother Marshall, general manager of a company which distributed vacuum cleaners (an eerily similar enterprise!), was later involved with the successor to Tassette, Tassaway. Robert Oreck himself was the president of Lincoln Institute, a Spanish language correspondence school. Aware of the difficulties Tampax had had with the medical community, Oreck mailed discounted offers of the $4.95 cup (which was reusable and had a money-back guarantee) to thousands of registered nurses, many of whom he said preferred it to pads and tampons. And like Tampax, he hired nurses to give advice to women at drug and department stores in the northeastern and east-central part of the U.S.A., where the campaign started (and ended) with direct mailings. (The campaign for the Instead cup in 1996 started in the northwestern part of the U.S.A., which the Ultrafem company, maker of Instead, determined had the greatest percentage of users of non-applicator tampons, women who seemed not to object to inserting their fingers into their vaginas. Perhaps the fate of Tassette would have been different if it had started there.) By adding an anti-bacterial treatment to the surface of the cup he hoped to increase its acceptance in the medical community and with the public. The Seamless Rubber Company of New Haven, Conn., a division of Rexall, manufactured Tassette. Oreck placed newspaper ads through cooperating department stores and drugstores, although women's page editors seldom mentioned Tassette, because of its function. One ad was headed (hold your breath), "New - Monthly Protection as Dainty as a Dew-Kissed Flower," which referred to the use of a tulip to illustrate the cup. The cup was "impossible to illustrate in consumer advertising for obvious reasons," he said, and the choice of a flower is an interesting, and probably unconscious, reference to the word flowers, synonymous with menstruation for centuries.
Oreck also sold a menstrual pain reliever called Tachine and a "menstrual skin preparation," which he hoped to market with the cup. Tassette never made a profit and the cup disappeared in 1963. Oreck said the reasons it failed were the reluctance of the public to clean and reuse the cup; and its reusability of three to five years, so satisfied customers would not buy it again soon. But Tassette, Inc., did not die, and the Tassaway cup appeared in 1970, which Oreck hoped would solve Tassette's two basic problems. Read what happened... Women Tossed Away the Tassaway It's a short story. In 1970, Tassette, Inc., the maker of the now-defunct Tassette menstrual cup, launched its first promotion since the early 1960s, this time for its new disposable cup, Tassaway, which was made of a non-absorbent elastomeric polymer. Robert Oreck, the president of the company, hoped the new cup would generate more money than the old one by solving the two problems Oreck thought were at the heart of the failure of Tassette: women did not want to wash and re-use the cup, and satisfied customers would not quickly buy another one because they could use them for several years. Eduardo F. Peņa, M.D., Fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, tested the Tassette at the company's request in 1961 (the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology published his report "Advantages of the Menstrual Cup" - Tassette, Inc. funded the study - in the May 1962 issue), and talked with a Barron's reporter in 1970 before a talk he gave about Tassette (not the new Tassaway) at the Sixth World Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Peņa's judgment was positive, including "[u]se of the cup is hygienic in that it avoids the infections commonly associated with sanitary napkins and tampons."
Barron's reporter Alan Abelson, who wrote the column "Up and Down Wall Street," criticized the doctor's statement that the cup was "an economically viable product." He said it was a judgment for the consumer to make. He was only partly right. Suspicions of fraud involving shares in the company surfaced. Tassette, Inc., reported selling thousands of Tassaways, but not nearly enough to justify the high value of each share. On July 17, 1972, a federal judge in Los Angeles issued an order permanently enjoining Robert Oreck and Tassette, Inc., from violating the registration provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Tassette, Inc., was essentially dead, but it had hardly lived. Just as with Tassette, the company never made a profit. The company owed J. Walter Thompson, the advertising agency, a little over $1 million, while having assets of only $228,829; a Tassette lawyer lowered that value to $30,000, partly because the unusual nature of the equipment reduced its attractiveness. Not until the late 1980s did The Cup reappear. This time it has succeeded modestly. I'm talking about The Keeper. The Keeper of the Tradition The direct descendent of the Tassette and Tassaway is the reusable The Keeper, which Lou Crawford of Cincinnati, Ohio, has made since 1987. A smaller version, called B, for women who have not had children, appeared in 1989. (The cup end of A is about one-eighth inch - about three millimeters - wider than B. The two varieties are otherwise the same.) Because The Keeper is an ongoing business, Lou was reluctant to reveal much about her company in an interview (1998), including sales. She did say that she has not heard of any serious medical problems associated with its use, a positive aspect reported by most cup manufacturers. Lou has asked that Dr. Philip Tierno, Jr., a member of the board of this museum and probably the most prominent investigator of the safety of menstrual hygiene products, to test the cup for safety. Dr. Tierno's comments appear below. The cup is made of natural gum rubber. Early on, in searching for a name for the cup, one group of women suggested Liberty Bell, because of its shape. Over the advertised life of the cup, ten years, it also liberates its users from debt, costing around $4 a year - pretty cheap. Lou mentioned that the cup and the bag that carries it are made in America. Women in neighboring states make the bags by hand. Dr. Philip Tierno - MUM board member and expert on menstrual products safety Dr. Philip Tierno, Jr., chief of clinical microbiology and immunology at the New York University Medical Center - on the new Keeper menstrual cup and a test for toxic shock susceptibility. A new Keeper user writes: Hi, I just discovered your Web site as I searched for info on the Keeper. I ordered one recently but haven't received it yet, so I was looking for info on 1) ease of insertion, since I have had problems inserting non-applicator tampons in the past; and 2) TSS [toxic shock syndrome] risks associated with it, if any. The reviews are so mixed on #1 that I'll have to reserve judgment until I've tried it, I guess! But on the second issue, the TSS risks, I saw your page on the new vs. the old Keeper. From that I assume that I'll probably receive the old version, since the new one doesn't appear to be on the market yet. Assuming that's the case, have any tests been done to determine the TSS risks associated with the old Keeper? I didn't see any info on your pages regarding TSS and the old Keeper, only the newer one. I did see the note on the comments page saying that no TSS cases have been associated with the Keeper (by which I assume you mean either old or new), but are there any scientific studies to back that up? Here is Dr. Tierno's reply: "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Therefore not hearing about any case associated with The Keeper doesn't mean much. Since the USAGE of the Keeper pales in comparison to tampons you are not likely to discover cases (because of statistics), if any, for a long time. However I would say that only the NEWER version of the rubber Keeper (which is not yet marketed and also needs some improvement), which allows for less adherence of staphylococcus aureus, is safer than most rayon tampons but not as safe as all-cotton products. The elastomeric polymer of the old Tassaway cups were better than the newer Keeper also. Best regards, Phil [22 November 1998] Dear Harry, As a happy Keeper user of more than three years standing, I was intrigued to read the e-mail from Stanford University discussing menstrual cups. Whilst being fascinated by the wide-ranging responses to The Keeper, I was also rather horrified and concerned by some comments, especially from a woman who talks about "blood borne pathogens" being so much more dangerous than tampons and "the incidence of toxic shock syndrome skyrocketed in women who used those things." I would be extremely interested to know who this woman is and where she gets her information from. If such statements are going to be made please back them up with some researched corroborative evidence! I am extremely worried and concerned that certain items on your site misrepresenting health and safety aspects of The Keeper by printing unsubstantiated information. According to tests performed in 1998 on numerous Keepers by Philip M. Tierno Jr. and Bruce A. Hanna (Departments of Microbiology and Pathology, New York University School of Medicine, New York University Medical Centre, New York. NY): Propensity of Tampons and Barrier contraceptives to amplify Staphylococcus aureus Toxic Shock Syndrome Toxin -1: The newly processed Keepers produced the lowest quantity of TSST -1 as compared to all available products except for all-cotton tampons. If anyone has any more scientific information I would be very happy to receive it. Best Wishes Here is Dr. Tierno's reply: Firstly, there is no published work on the new Keepers. Secondly, I did test the new, treated Keepers and they amplify TSST-1 [Toxic Shock Syndrome Toxin-1] less than the original Keepers. The reason is because some of the porous rubber is sealed off to a degree by a new treatment process. This provides less of a nidus for bacterial proliferation and toxin production. Hence these appear to be better than the non-treated Keepers. Only 25% of the new Keepers allowed TSST-1 toxin to be produced compared with 66% of the older devices. The new Keepers don't allow for adherence of Staphylococcus aureus [which can cause TSS] on their surface as much as occurs with the older device or with diaphragms. You might recall that the latex diaphragms, although non-absorbent, allow for adherence of Staphylococcus aureus, and as such can act as a nidus for growth of Staphylococcus as well as for toxin production. Hence, it is wise for any manufacturer to test prior to marketing a product. Best regards, Phil (8 November 1998) Asbestos and Tampons: An Expert Answers Our Questions In the past two weeks [early October 1998] I received three widely disseminated e-mails alleging that tampons contained asbestos, among other claims. I asked MUM board member and expert on menstrual products safety Dr. Philip Tierno, Jr., chief of clinical microbiology and immunology at the New York University Medical Center, to tell us what he thinks about these assertions. (Dr.Tierno appeared in the film Under Wraps, discussed here, and receives no funding from menstrual products companies for his research.) Here are Dr. Tierno's replies; I have formulated questions to raise points in the e-mail: Dear Harry, Let me answer your question after I build a little foundation so that one can more easily assess the asbestos problem. Asbestos is a ubiquitous fibrous mineral silicate (including chrysotite, amosite, anthophyllite, and crocilite). This material was widely used, particularly during the 1930s through the 60s, in construction because of its strength and ability to insulate. Although it was recognized as a health hazard by the Romans more than 2000 years ago the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] didn't regulate it until 1974. In 1989 the EPA ordered a phase out of its use. Unfortunately an appeals court overturned them in 1991. There is no doubt that asbestos fibers cause cancer, especially lung cancers (including mesothelioma), as well as cancers of the mouth, the stomach, intestines, rectum, kidney, etc. The usual route of exposure to humans is by inhalation. You can be exposed to the risk of asbestos by inhaling any airborne fibers of this material. That is critical to an understanding of risk of asbestos from tampon use. It is entirely possible for there to be trace quantities of asbestos in wood pulp or paper products, including tampons. In my opinion it's possible (I know of no scientific studies on asbestos in tampons [That is why Rep. Carolyn Maloney's Tampon Safety and Research Act is so important.]) that trace quantities of asbestos may be found in tampons but I do not believe that it would be of significant quantity to be delivered into the lungs of a user of tampons or even to the vaginal mucosa. Keep in mind asbestos is even in water supplies, in the air and elsewhere in the environment. Ideally it would be nice to have a product that is free of asbestos. The OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the U.S. government] standard for fibers greater than 0.005 mm in length is two million fibers/meter cubed per cubic centimeter of air. Question: Do companies put asbestos in tampons so that women will bleed more and buy more tampons? [T]hat is absurd. I have been privy to every major manufacturer's secret documents because of my role in TSS [toxic shock syndrome] litigation and I can say that that supposition is not true! Question: What about dioxin, which causes cancer, in menstrual products? In my opinion, our goal should be NO dioxin in tampons. I am not aware of any scientific study that measures and compares dioxin levels of different tampon brands. Re: Tampax's deductively arrived-at statement that their tampons contain no dioxin because of their bleaching process [I sent Dr. Tierno an e-mail message, allegedly from the manufacturer of Tampax, which said Tampax contains no dioxin]. While in all fairness that is a possibility, the proof is in the testing! Testing of all tampons for dioxin should be done. [Again, that is why Rep. Carolyn Maloney's Tampon Safety and Research Act is so important.] Some dioxins may be present for reasons other than from the bleaching process, e.g., from pesticides or fertilizers, etc. Nothing beats actual testing. Question: What about viscose rayon, which has probably been in most tampons since the beginning of commercial tampons? There is no question, in my opinion, that an all-cotton tampon is superior to viscose rayon because of viscous rayon's ability to amplify TSST-1 [toxic shock syndrome toxin-1] while cotton does not amplify such to any significant amount. (25 October 1998) And the rumor has been around over 20 years: In 1981, Nancy Friedman wrote in Everything You Must Know About Tampons (Berkley Books, New York), p. 118: In 1977, Well Being, a "new age" health and nutrition magazine, published an article advising readers not to use tampons because they contained anticoagulants, fiberglass, talc and asbestos. Similar information had already appeared in feminist publications. This time [the] Tampax [company] quickly responded, calling the magazine's claims unfounded, and Well Being retracted the article in a 1978 issue. But the damage had already been done: Dozens of other publications, including many women's newsletters, had picked up the information and circulated it. She adds in a footnote: Also in 1977, the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration tested five tampons and found no evidence of asbestos in any of them. (November 26, 2000)  Copyright © 1997 - 2006 Keepers! Inc. PO Box 12648 Portland, Oregon 97212 Toll Free 1-800-799-4523 |
|||