Menstrual Product Prices Surge From Inflation and Tariff Policies

The average price of menstrual products in the United States — including tampons, pads, and liners — has risen nearly 40% since 2020, climbing from roughly $5.37 per unit to $7.43 per unit as of February 2026, according to data from market research firm Circana [1]. Since 2019, the average price of a pack of sanitary pads has increased 41%, with tampons rising 36% [1]. These increases outpace the overall Consumer Price Index, which rose approximately 22% over the same period [2].

The price surge has been driven by what analysts call a "triple whammy": rising raw material costs, broader inflation across energy and supply chains, and tariff-induced friction on cross-border trade [1].

Source: FRED / Bureau of Labor Statistics

Data as of Mar 22, 2026CSV

The Tariff Factor

The United States imports the majority of its menstrual products from Canada, China, and Mexico [1]. President Donald Trump has imposed tariffs on all three countries at varying levels since 2025, and the costs have been substantial. The U.S. collected $115 million in tariffs on menstrual products containing cotton in 2025, compared with $42 million in 2020 — a 174% increase in five years [1].

Kimberly-Clark, the manufacturer of the Kotex brand, reported on an April 2025 earnings call that it incurred $300 million in gross tariff costs, with more than half related to tariffs on Chinese imports [1][3]. Those tariffs on Chinese goods reached as high as 145% at their peak, layered on top of reciprocal tariffs of 10% on other supplier countries and retaliatory tariffs of 25% from trading partners [3].

The tariff landscape has been volatile. A baseline 10% tariff applies to all apparel and textile imports, with additional "fentanyl-related" duties of 20% and Section 301 duties ranging from 0% to 20% from Trump's first administration, pushing total duties on Chinese goods to between 30% and 70% [4]. The Supreme Court later found that Trump had exceeded his authority in implementing sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, striking down the 10% "fentanyl" tariff and the 10% reciprocal tariff on Chinese goods [4]. But the remaining duties and the uncertainty they create continue to ripple through supply chains.

Matt Broyd, a partner at consulting firm Clarkston Consulting, told CNBC that menstrual products have been particularly exposed because they rely on imported raw materials — cotton, plastics, and absorbent polymers — sourced from countries directly targeted by U.S. trade policy [1].

What Companies Are Absorbing — and What They're Passing Along

The question of whether manufacturers are absorbing tariff costs or passing them to consumers has no simple answer.

Kimberly-Clark CEO Mike Hsu stated publicly that tariffs would not translate into direct price hikes because the company planned to "mitigate most of the cost by switching sourcing" [5]. The company's adjusted operating profit totaled $2.7 billion in 2025, in line with 2024, as efficiency gains offset pricing pressure, cost inflation, and tariff-related impacts [6]. Kimberly-Clark is targeting long-term gross margins of at least 40% and operating margins of 18-20% [6].

Procter & Gamble, which manufactures the Always and Tampax brands, implemented a 1% price increase across its portfolio in its most recent quarter [7]. P&G has maintained what analysts describe as "steel-clad margins" despite what the company itself characterized as "frigid" sales volumes [7].

Meanwhile, unit sales of menstrual products have declined roughly 6% since 2022, falling incrementally each year [1] — a signal that consumers are responding to higher prices by buying less.

The global feminine hygiene product market is projected to reach $34.1 billion in 2025, with a compound annual growth rate of 7.6% through 2032 [8]. That growth rate, exceeding inflation, raises questions about whether companies are using cost pressures as cover for margin expansion.

The Scale of Period Poverty

An estimated 16.9 million menstruating people in the United States live in poverty, two-thirds of whom are low-income and food-insecure [9]. The price surge lands hardest on those who can least absorb it.

One in four students now struggles to afford period products [10]. Among adults, 38% reported difficulty affording menstrual products in 2021, up from 30% in 2018 [11]. Over half of surveyed adults who menstruate — 59% — have experienced period product insecurity at some point in their lives [11].

The racial disparities are stark: 23% of Black respondents and 24% of Latino respondents reported struggling to afford menstrual products, compared with 8% of white respondents [11]. Nearly 50% of Black and Latino students reported difficulty concentrating at school because of inadequate access, compared with 28% of white students [11].

Geographic reach is broad. Period poverty affects urban areas, rural regions in the upper Midwest, rural Alabama, and every state studied [11].

Health Consequences of Going Without

When people cannot afford menstrual products, the health consequences are documented and serious.

Those without access resort to makeshift alternatives: toilet paper, paper towels, rags, and cut diapers [11]. Inadequate or improper use of menstrual hygiene products can result in urinary tract infections, vulvar contact dermatitis, yeast infections, bacterial vaginosis, and in rare cases, toxic shock syndrome [12]. Some people leave tampons in longer than recommended or use products past their expiration dates [12].

The mental health toll is significant. A study found that 68% of people who experienced period poverty monthly showed symptoms of moderate to severe depression, compared with 43% among those who had not experienced period poverty [12].

The economic effects compound. A Saint Louis University study found that 36% of full-time or part-time employed respondents missed one or more days of work per month because of a lack of menstrual products [9]. For teens, 39% reported feeling unable to do their best schoolwork because of inadequate access [10].

The "Pink Tax" on Top of It All

Beyond inflation and tariffs, 18 to 19 states still charge sales tax on menstrual products [13][14]. Tennessee, Mississippi, and Indiana impose the highest rates at 7% [1]. This means that in those states, a consumer paying $7.43 for a pack of tampons — already up 40% from 2020 — pays an additional $0.52 in tax on a biological necessity.

Over two dozen states plus Washington, D.C. have already eliminated their tampon tax, including California, New York, Florida, Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Ohio [13]. Alabama passed HB 152 in May 2025, creating a temporary sales and use tax exemption on menstrual products effective September 2025 through August 2028 [13].

Source: CNBC / U.S. Government Data

Data as of Mar 22, 2026CSV

How the U.S. Compares Internationally

The United States is an outlier among wealthy democracies in its approach to menstrual product access and taxation.

Scotland became the first country in the world to make free period products available to anyone who needs them under a law passed by the Scottish Parliament in 2020 [15]. More than 700 venues across Scotland provide free products through an app called "Pick Up My Period" [15].

The United Kingdom leads in affordability, with residents paying an estimated 0.12% of their average monthly income on period products — about $3.61 per month [16]. Australia, Canada, Kenya, India, Jamaica, Nigeria, and more than a dozen other countries have eliminated their "tampon tax" entirely [16]. In Australia, free menstrual products have been available to secondary school students since March 2023 [16].

In the United States, by contrast, menstrual products are not covered by Medicaid, SNAP benefits, or any federal assistance program. The lifetime cost of menstrual products for an American consumer is estimated at $6,000 to $12,000 for Canadians in rural areas — with U.S. costs now trending higher [16].

Legislative Responses

Federal legislators have introduced several bills to address menstrual product costs, though none have passed.

The most comprehensive is the Menstrual Equity for All Act of 2025 (H.R. 3644), reintroduced by Congresswoman Grace Meng in May 2025 [17]. The bill would provide free menstrual products in schools, federal buildings, prisons, and immigration detention centers. It would require Medicaid to cover menstrual products and direct employers with 100 or more workers to provide them free in the workplace [17].

A companion bill, the Period PROUD Act (H.R. 922), reintroduced by Congressman Sean Casten and Congresswoman Meng in February 2025, would fund menstrual product distribution for low-income individuals through Social Services Block Grants [17].

Neither bill has advanced out of committee.

The Case For and Against Tariff Protections

Tariff proponents argue that building domestic manufacturing capacity for essential goods — including menstrual products — serves national economic and security interests. The United States is a major cotton producer, and domestic yarn production accounts for more than 90% of domestic cotton use [18]. Advocates for reshoring argue that dependence on imports from geopolitical competitors like China creates supply chain vulnerabilities, as evidenced during the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, only about 3% of apparel sold in the U.S. is currently manufactured domestically [18]. Building sufficient production capacity for menstrual products to replace imports would require substantial capital investment in manufacturing infrastructure — facilities, equipment, and workforce training — with costs that would likely be passed to consumers during the transition period.

Opponents of tariff exemptions for menstrual products raise a separate set of concerns rooted in tax policy. The Tax Foundation has argued that exemptions for specific goods violate sound tax policy principles, since sales taxes should ideally apply to all final consumer purchases without distinguishing between necessities and luxuries [19]. Exemptions erode state revenue — California's elimination of sales tax on both diapers and tampons costs the state an estimated $55 million per year, while New York's tampon tax repeal reduced revenue by $14 million annually [19][20].

Research from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business suggests that repealing sales tax on sanitary products may not be the most efficient way to help low-income consumers, since evidence on whether tax cuts translate to lower retail prices is inconclusive, and direct cash transfers or subsidies could be better targeted [20].

Supporters of exemptions counter that menstrual products are biological necessities, not discretionary purchases, and that taxing them amounts to a gender-based penalty. They point to the fact that most states already exempt groceries and prescription medications from sales tax, establishing a precedent for exempting essential health products [14].

What Consumers Are Doing Now

Faced with rising costs, consumers are adapting. Unit sales have fallen 6% since 2022 [1], suggesting that some people are rationing, switching to cheaper brands, or exploring alternatives. The reusable menstrual product market — cups, discs, cloth pads, and period underwear — has grown, though these products are also subject to tariffs and carry higher upfront costs [21].

One in four women in North America reported struggling to afford pads and tampons as of recent surveys [1]. For people in poverty, the choices are grimmer: use makeshift materials, miss work or school, or endure health risks.

The convergence of inflation, tariff policy, and legislative inaction has turned a biological necessity into a growing financial burden. Whether the response comes through trade policy reform, tax elimination, public provision, or some combination, the 40% price increase since 2020 has made the status quo increasingly untenable for millions of Americans.