There's always been a lot of creativity in menstrual advertising. In the 1970s, this was cause for concern. In 1977, a UK House of Commons commission on menstrual product prices warned against excessive advertising, stating it was bad for consumers.

The Commission was called to investigate Southalls Ltd., a Birmingham firm making menstrual pads, tampons, and diapers. They were investigating possible price fixing and the issue of monopolies for menstrual products.

Despite the initial focus on Southalls, the Commission took aim at the larger menstrual product market of 1970s Britain (and beyond). They were concerned about the entry of US brands, with their accompanying fancy and expensive advertising.

Here's the Commissions warning, stating 'Consumers in the sanitary protection market are particularly vulnerable to a lack of real competition' + ' advertising costs (...) do not represent direct benefits to the consumer'.

This marked an early governmental concern with what we now call 'Period Poverty'; - the problem of expensive and branded menstrual products.

But since the Commission was not tasked to figure out advertising issues, but rather investigate Southalls, - no action could be forced, only recommended. Companies did not listen, and advertising costs for menstrual product continued to increase.

In sum, the 1977 Commission remains an important, early & unusual case of government investigating menstrual products. Looking back, does its warnings still stand? Are consumers still vulnerable to lack of competition? And should marketing costs be explored again?

For more on menstrual products and costs, see Elizabeth Kissling 'Capitalizing on the Curse', and Ann Treneman's 'Cashing in on the curse'. For analysis of current menstrual product market, some details are available free here: https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/feminine-hygiene-product-market-69114569.html (full report paywalled).