Great international news from our friends at Stuff.co.nz!
Written by Abbie Napier; Photos by David Walker
Ana Ames-Durey started an organic tampon company to supply New Zealand women with a quality product.
Ana Ames-Durey was rushed into surgery having just signed a form giving doctors permission to remove both her ovaries.
At just 28-years-old, she was crippled with abdominal cramps and an ambulance had been called. Scans revealed two cysts, both about 7cm in diameter, were growing on her ovaries. One had twisted and split, leaking toxins into her body.
Fortunately, she survived the surgery with great strength and doctors were able to save her ovaries. It ended up being a life-changing experience.
Medical staff recommended she switch to organic tampons to reduce the stress on her system.
“Regular tampons are filled with chemicals, pesticides, fragrances, bleaches and dyes,” she says.
courtesy of The Washington Post & Sarah Larimer
The so-called “tampon tax,” the issue Cristina Garcia now finds herself championing, isn’t one she just stumbled upon; the California assemblywoman said she has been thinking about this “gender injustice” for awhile.
“I think a lot of women have at some point, thought about it, you know?” Garcia said this week.
Last year, Garcia kicked around the idea of introducing legislation that would make feminine hygiene products exempt from sales taxes in America’s most populous state.
She didn’t pull the trigger just then. But at a meeting in October, she heard from women in her district, and they talked a lot about their daily struggles and “how it all adds up,” she said.
On average, according to Garcia’s office, women in California pay about $7 per month for 40 years of tampons and sanitary napkins. Statewide, it adds up “over $20 million annually in taxes,” according to
Cotton. It’s Just A More Sustainable Fiber Solution.
It’s a well-known fact that cotton is the preferred choice for customers due to its perfect mix of softness, strength, and flexibility. But what also makes cotton popular is the fact that it’s a sustainable choice, too.
Cotton Processing — A Time-Tested Method
While synthetic fibers like rayon and polyester go through a long and complicated process before reaching the consumer, cotton goes through a fairly simple one: after being plucked from the field, the gin separates the plant from the seed, and then the Barnhardt purification process cleans and whitens the cotton, ultimately making it absorbent. Then the cotton’s ready for its wide array of uses.
Compare the cotton vs rayon process for yourself.
Cotton’s Unsophisticated–And Homegrown–Supply Chain
And when it comes to supply chain, cotton is born and raised (meaning, harvested and converted) right here in the USA. Once again, rayon can’t say that,
Of Mice and Men and The Hobbit is published.
FDR is sworn into office for the second time.
The Golden Gate Bridge is opened to the public.
Amelia Earhart disappears.
And before any of these events, the very first Cotton Bowl Classic took place in Dallas, Texas on January 1st. The endeavor was funded entirely by J. Curtis Sanford. Sanford had made his money in the oil business, but cotton was a booming business in Texas. The stadium and the game, located on the Texas State Fair grounds, was named in honor of the almighty cotton boll.
That first Cotton Bowl Classic hosted the Marquette Golden Avalanche and the TCU Horned Frogs. Just in case you forgot, here’s what a football team looked like in 1937.
Only slightly different than today…
courtesy of Bustle & Emma Cueto
You would think the fact that tampons and other menstrual supplies are in fact necessities would be self-evident, but alas government tax policies often don’t treat them as such. However, in France they have at last cut the tampon tax. Just a few months after blocking the proposal, the French National Assembly has approved a measure to cut the VAT, or sales tax, on tampons from 20 percent to 5.5 percent. Finally!
The proposal to reduce taxes on menstrual supplies, which originally came from from feminist group Georgette Sand, was first shot down in October when the government said they couldn’t afford to pay for it. According to estimates, lowering the tax would cost the government the equivalent of about $60 million in 2016, which is quite a bit of money to lose from a budget. Of course, it’s also quite a bit of money