The link between CS gas exposure and menstrual cycle issues among female Yellow Vest protesters in France

1. INTRODUCTION

A surge in mass protests has been observed throughout the world over the past two years. From the Yellow Vest in France (Jetten, Mols, & Selvanathan, 2020) to the Hong-Kong anti-extradition bill and the more recent ‘George Floyd’ protests in the US, a common thread has been the level of police response deployed by governments. More specifically, these responses made use of crowd control techniques relying on various weapons, which can have tremendous effects on protesters’ health. For instance, kinetic weapons (i.e. rubber pellet ammunition launchers) were found to cause severe ocular injuries, sometimes leading to permanent loss of eyesight (Chauvin et al., 2019). Stun grenades and other explosive devices used to disperse crowds have caused mutilation and loss of hands among protesters (Jetten et al., 2020; Paye, 2019). Likewise, it has recently been acknowledged that police use of force and less-lethal weapons could have deleterious effects on participants’ mental health (Celebi, Adam-Troian, & Mahfud, 2020)

Among the different tools available to law enforcement the most widely used remains Ortho-Chlorobenzylidene Malononitrile, also simply known as CS teargas or teargas. As an example, more than 16,000 rounds of teargas were fired during the 2019 Hong Kong protests (Standard, 2019). In Paris, France, 7940 teargas grenades have been used in a single day of December 1^st 2018 during the Yellow Vest protests (Rocher, 2020). Despite its widespread use by law enforcement, tear gas comprises many known health hazards, with scientists calling for restriction of its use (Haar, Iacopino, Ranadive, Weiser, & Dandu, 2017; Kaszeta, 2019; Rothenberg, Achanta, Svendsen, & Jordt, 2016). Cutaneous effects vary from transient rash and erythema to severe allergic dermatitis (Varma & Holt, 2001) with second to third degree burns (Zekri, King, Yeung, & Taylor, 1995). Eye damage includes corneal edema, keratitis, glaucoma and even cataract (Gray & Murray, 1995; Hout, White, Stubner, Stevens, & Knapik, 2014). On the respiratory tract, effects vary from cough to airway obstruction with hemoptysis (Dagli, Uslu, Ozkan, Torlak, & Arbak, 2014) and damage induces higher susceptibility to acute respiratory inflammations (Hout et al., 2014), which is of high concern during COVID-19 pandemic.

Besides these general consequences of teargas on the organism, there are reasons to suspect that gender specific effects may occur - which remain understudied. More specifically, recent concerns have been raised about teargas’ potential effect on the female menstrual cycle. Reports from recent press releases indicate that these concerns are more than simple public rumor (Anizon, 2019) and a survey study run by Planned Parenthood North Central States and the University of Minnesota was started this year (Hassan, 2020) to assess whether teargas may affect female protesters’ menstrual cycle in particular (longer or shorter cycles). Indeed, clinical observations of increases in miscarriages and stillbirths after tear gas exposure have been reported in Gaza (Hu et al., 1989) and in Bahrain (Atkinson & Sollom, 2012). Concerns over potential miscarriages have led some countries to suspend the use of teargas, like Chile in 2011 (Rothenberg et al., 2016; also see Hayman, 2011).

Still, the current level of evidence for a link between CS teargas and menstrual/reproductive perturbations is low, although the hypothesis remains physiological plausible. In fact, a pathway leading to these symptoms based on CS metabolism into cyanide (Frankenberg & Sorbo, 1973) after absorption (Leadbeater, 1973) or direct cyanide exposure after thermal degradation (Johnson-Kanapathy, 2013) was recently proposed (Samuel et al., 2020). Although this hypothesis has not yet been tested, teargas could affect women’s menstrual cycle through a molecular dysfunction due to decreased blood level oxygen (a consequence of increased cyanide blood levels). This would be consistent with studies showing that hypoxia leads to impaired menstrual cycle among humans (Maybin et al., 2018).

In addition, injection of CS in rodents was found to increase blood thiocyanate (the final product of cyanide in the metabolism (Ballantyne, 1983). Thiocyanate being a perturbator of the thyroid function (Dohan, De la Vieja, & Carrasco, 2000), and thyroid dysfunction being related to menstrual disorders (Ajmani et al., 2016), this could be another pathway through which teargas may affect women’s menstrual cycle. Converging evidence also suggests that other teargas affected molecular mechanisms could trigger menstrual cycle impairment, either due to byproducts or to a potential endocrine disruptive effect of teargas (Nelson, Wang, Sakwari, & Ding, 2020). In sum, various physiological mechanisms triggered by teargas could-theoretically - act or interact to produce perturbations on the female menstrual cycle.

Despite growing concerns, mounting clinical evidence and biological plausibility, the potential effect of CS teargas on female menstrual cycle has - to the best of our knowledge - not been investigated yet. We therefore decided to test whether teargas exposure could be associated with menstrual cycle perturbations among female protesters. To do so, we took advantage of data collected from a study on protester health and social behavior just before the beginning of the covid-19 crisis. We hypothesized that levels of teargas exposure among female protesters would be positively associated with prevalence of menstrual cycle perturbation symptoms.

2. METHODS

3. RESULTS

4. DISCUSSION

Could CS teargas exposure trigger menstrual perturbations among female protesters? This very first analysis suggests that teargas could be linked with menstrual cycle perturbations up to a few days after exposure. It is important to note that the present research is the first to attempt a thorough investigation of the teargas-menstrual perturbations hypothesis. However, this first study cannot account for processes and or mechanisms, so the issue of knowing whether this association may be due to the psychological or physiological effects of teargas, as described in the introduction, remains completely open. In fact, stress is known to be related to menstrual cycle disturbance (Huhmann, 2020; Xiao & Ferin, 1997). Protests, in which tear gas is used, are a very stressful event which can even lead to depression or posttraumatic stress disorder (Adam-Troian, Çelebi, & Mahfud, 2020; Celebi et al., 2020). Thus, it is possible that psychological effects cause menstrual disorders in protesters exposed to tear gas.

Another possibility would be that both psychological and physiological effects work together in causing observed symptoms. It is therefore important to better characterize more accurately when the female menstrual cycle is actually affected after exposure to tear gas, and to what extent these effects are related to physiological or psychological mechanisms. Of note, symptoms related to acute panic disorder include respiratory gasp and dizziness, therefore it is difficult to distinguishing them from lesser cyanide intoxications (Borden Institute, 2009) which can occur after exposure to CS teargas (Johnson-Kanapathy, 2013). Further studies should include more detailed measures of both exposure and symptoms (e.g. not only menstrual cycle anomalies in terms of duration but also painfulness, aspect, quantity…) which may help clarify the mechanisms at play.

Despite these theoretical limitations, the statistical associations detected by our models seemed robust, which is encouraging. Still, these were sensitive to the introduction of supplementary variables in the models, which we believe is due to various methodological reasons. First and foremost, our study was limited by sample size, due to data collection issues and this seriously limited our power and thus ability to detect small to medium effects such as the ones we found here (Baker et al., 2020). The ‘rare’ nature of our target population (very active Yellow Vests protesters) made it difficult to access participants. Moreover, we believe that our measures for both teargas exposure and menstrual cycle-related perturbations were limited (only four categories for the former, only one item for both). This probably explains the variability observed on sample average responses, and made it more difficult to detect our effects.

In addition to this detection problem, we would like to invite caution when interpreting the present findings. If these results are encouraging, they constitute preliminary and pioneer evidence in need of confirmatory studies. In fact, we do not claim the statistical association we found to have causal implication, especially due to the cross-sectional nature of our study. In addition, our sample is specific (Female Yellow Vests protesters in France), which means that generalizability beyond French protesters may not be guaranteed (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010). Finally, we cannot exclude that our results may be biased due to traditional limitations of self-report methods, although this may be truer for prevalence numbers (i.e. averages) than for associations between our constructs.

Within the boundaries of the above-mentioned limitations, we argue that this study provided first evidence to warrant further investigation of the potentially detrimental effect of teargas on women’s menstrual cycle and reproductive functions. We call for urgent epidemiological research to confirm or infirm whether these gender specific effects of teargas may occur, and to quantify them using larger samples of female protesters and more robust (i.e. longitudinal) designs.