Tampons are expensive. In 2015, women spent $3.1 billion on feminine hygiene products, including tampons. Women spend an estimated $150 million a year just on the sales tax for menstrual products. Most women spend around 30 years menstruating and spend an average of $144 a year just on tampons or pads. And did we mention that tampons are expensive? According to nonprofit PERIOD, one in four women have a hard time affording menstrual products. But if you don’t get a period, you might not be aware of how much of a burden periods really are.
British grocery store chain Tesco recently put up signs asking customers to report shoplifters in a London location. Twitter user @oonskie posted a photo of one sign reading, “Help us build safer communities–report shoplifting to a member of the staff.” The only problem was, it was placed above the tampons.
The sign quickly opened up a discussion about the accessibility of menstrual products.
Shoplifting isn't the problem. It's the fact that sanitary products aren't free and accessible to those who menstruate. https://t.co/eCg3YUsNCu— Puebl-Hoe Revolt (@TaylorEenaHoe) January 30, 2020
For me, a "safer" society is one where people wouldn't need to steal things like sanitary products.— Jess Plant (@IAmJessPlant) January 29, 2020
the most embarressing moment in my life was when i had only $5 on me& got my period even the cheaply made pads were $8. i had to over draw on my card for a small pack of badly made pads.I'll be helping a sis out if i can, the prices are too expensive for somethin i didnt ask for.— shawna ?? (@raindanceshawna) January 30, 2020
Some people said they would turn a blind eye if they saw someone shoplifting tampons.
if i see someone stealing feminine hygiene products of all things from a huge chain supermarket, i’m minding my business…. and you should too. https://t.co/1vcSMMBTmU— Eleanor Neale (@ELEANORXNEALE) January 29, 2020
noah fence but if i see someone shoplifting pads or tampons im helping them like we in this together now fam https://t.co/LNSODV9Rtq— indie (@INDIEWASHERE) January 29, 2020
Menstrual products are a necessity, however many states don’t treat them as such by subjecting them to the “tampon tax.” While some states have done away with the “tampon tax,” 33 states consider menstrual products a luxury item and don’t exempt them from higher sales taxes the same way food, medicine, and even Viagra is. The tampon tax creates an unfair burden, especially since the cost of menstrual products ads up. Tampons are only really considered a luxury to the people who don’t actually have to use them.
Tesco has since apologized for the sign, saying it was placed there “in error.” “We know that the cost of buying essential sanitary products can be a real struggle for some, which is why we were the first retailer to cover the cost of the ‘tampon tax’ to make these items more affordable,” a spokesperson told BuzzFeed News. “We want everyone to feel welcome in our stores and are very sorry for any offense caused.”
When you hit puberty, you don’t say, “I would like one period please,” and opt in to menstruation. It’s time we stop treating periods as something women do because they just want to be fancy.
California’s Department of Housing and Community Development established this pilot program in 2019. Its goals were straightforward: to make homeless shelters more accommodating to people with pets – mostly dogs – so that people living on the streets don’t have to choose between staying in shelters or abandoning their pets.
The program disbursed US$15.75 million between 2020 and 2024 to 37 organizations across the state. The funding allowed shelters to build kennels or other pet-friendly spaces, provide pet food and supplies, and offer basic veterinary care. It also covered the costs of staffing and maintaining insurance required to operate pet-friendly shelters.
We found that the program helped 4,407 people experiencing homelessness keep their pets while getting support. Many were able to enter shelters, and their animals received needed veterinary care. A total of 886 people ultimately moved into permanent housing with their pets – a higher success rate than the statewide average for homeless people in California.
Theoretically, this funding should have reduced the number of pet owners living on the streets. Yet since 2019, the year the program began, the number of homeless people in Los Angeles with dogs and other pets has increased.
Since 2017, I’ve led the USC research team that produces the annual homeless count estimates for Los Angeles. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires this exercise for any city seeking federal funding for homelessness services.
Before the pandemic, we generally found that roughly 1 in 8 people did. We also found that nearly half of homeless pet owners had been turned away from a homeless shelter because it couldn’t accommodate their animal.
Despite programs like California’s Pet Assistance and Support program, my research team has found that the share of people living on the streets of Los Angeles who say they have a pet increased to roughly 1 in 5 by 2025.
Need for more pet-friendly programs
We still don’t know why the share of homeless people with pets has gotten so much larger.
The Weingart Tower, where some of Los Angeles’ formerly homeless people reside and receive social services, has a small dog park. Grace Hie Yoon/Anadolu via Getty Images
The number of homeless people in Los Angeles has fallen by more than 4% since 2023 to just over 72,000 people in 2025. But based on my research findings, I would expect the number of people living on the city’s streets – with and without pets – to rise over time unless more affordable housing becomes available.
And growth in the homeless population may be hard to avoid without more efforts like California’s Pet Assistance and Support Program – on a larger scale than the pilot we studied.
What if you were stuck in a time loop of doing the same thing over and over again for eternity? What would you want that thing you’re doing to be? This idea was posed by @jaredraygilmore on his Instagram. Jared Ray Gilmore suggests this question is a quick and easy way to get to know a person on a date, in work relationships, and even with friends.
He believes the answer provides a lot of information about both a person’s value system and the things they don’t like. As thousands of people shared their responses, what flooded back suggests a seemingly harmless question quickly shifts once you actually imagine living it.
Frederick Nietzsche’s philosophical thought experiment
The premise offered by Gilmore holds deep and powerful roots in historical philosophy. Friedrich Nietzsche was a 19th-century German philosopher who shared profound critiques about morality, individualism, God, and conventional values.
In his book The Gay Science, Nietzsche proposed the idea that a person’s entire life could repeat infinitely, playing out the same way each time. This thought experiment, called “eternal recurrence,” he considered a metaphysical fact and one of his most important philosophical discoveries.
People ponder positive memories versus living an undeniable nightmare
As people began to share their own thoughts about Gilmore’s proposed topic, many comments reflected pleasant nostalgia and appreciation for life’s simple loves.
“First thing that came to mind was having breakfast with my husband in our breakfast nook, the side window open for the cat, and the dog resting at our feet.”
“Garden, I’d be in the garden. Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter, repeat.”
“Going to the beach and enjoying the waves, laughing with my fiance and friends”
“Have deep conversation with people that are making groundbreaking advancement in their field of passion.”
Yet, others rejected the premise immediately and found the whole idea somewhat horrifying.
“Whatever you’re choosing, even if that’s THE thing you’re absolutely fan of, is gonna be an absolute nightmare to do at one point.”
“pushing a rock up a hill”
“I’m legitimately at a loss for what would be my ideal loop because everything that comes to mind scares me a bit.”
“This would be just hell to me as a person with ADHD. I love my hobbies but I could never do one on a loop for eternity.”
People rely heavily on routines because they offer stability. A 2025 study in Springer Nature Link found that individuals use routines to gain more than pleasure. The small sense of control over their lives creates a comforting predictability for what to expect during the course of a day. Repetitive behavior reduces cognitive workload.
A 2024 article in WebMD revealed that routines create structure, reduce stress, and improve mood. A lack of routine generates more behavioral and emotional difficulties. Giving the brain predictable patterns reduces fatigue from daily decision-making.
However, people find the idea of living even a perfect day over and over, difficult. A 2025 study in Sage Journals showed that repeating the same day yields feelings of boredom and a lack of meaning. An eternal loop doesn’t feel infinite. A repeated experience will eventually collapse into a dull distortion of time.
The value of thought experiments like the “eternal loop”
Hypothetical questions can be interesting to explore. Especially when they’re big, existential questions about life and the universe. A 2025 study in Frontiers showed people like to think about meaning in life and feeling influential. However, it was difficult to measure whether a person felt their life was actually significant.
A 2024 study in the National Library of Medicine found existential questions about life, purpose, and death are considered important. This was consistent whether people found them uncomfortable or helpful.
Gilmore’s “eternal loop” question rapidly split responses. While some imagined it comforting, others found it unsettling. Science demonstrates that routines are beneficial, but people adapt quickly to repeated experiences. Something that feels great at first can eventually lose its meaning. At the same time, studies show that existential questions like this can help people identify what matters most to them.
Photo credit: Garrett Aitken/iStock/Getty Images Plus via Getty Images –
A ‘triangle test’ involves mixing up two of the original products with one of the new reformulation – or vice versa – to see whether taste testers notice the difference.
Springtime in Pennsylvania is peanut butter egg season. This year some consumers may taste the eggs a bit more critically and scrutinize the ingredients and label more carefully.
Reese’s, a Hershey brand, is known for combining chocolate and peanut butter in delicious and iconic ways. Reese’s products come in a variety of formats, called “line extensions.” These include everything from peanut butter chips for baking and chocolate peanut butter popcorn for snacking to limited-time offers for holidays – such as the popular Reese’s Peanut Butter Eggs for Easter.
Hershey responded in a statement: “As we’ve grown and expanded the Reese’s product line, we make product recipe adjustments that allow us to make new shapes, sizes and innovations that Reese’s fans have come to love and ask for, while always protecting the essence of what makes Reese’s unique and special: the perfect combination of chocolate and peanut butter.”
I am a certified research chef and food and hospitality professor in Philadelphia, where I founded the Drexel Food Lab, a culinary innovation and food product development lab. I am also a huge fan of Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups. When my older daughter was a toddler, learning her colors and shapes, I trained her to organize her trick-or-treat loot by separating the orange squares for dad.
As someone with decades of experience in product formulation, I am not surprised that the ingredients for some Reese’s products have changed over the years. One of my first jobs as an intern in corporate R&D was formulating cost reductions for existing products and later developing cost-effective line extensions building on the brand equity of the original product. What Hershey is doing with the Reese’s brand is Consumer Packaged Goods Marketing 101.
Reese’s recently introduced some variations of its classic peanut butter cups that use ‘chocolate candy’ compound coatings and ‘peanut butter creme’ instead of real chocolate and peanut butter. AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar
How food manufacturers deal with rising costs
Much has changed in the marketplace since Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups were developed by H.B. Reese in 1928 in Hershey, Pennsylvania, about two hours northwest of Philadelphia.
Inflation, tariffs, labor costs, fuel costs, employee benefits, competition and the vulnerability of climate-threatened crops, such as cacao, vanillaand sugar – none of which are produced anywhere near Pennsylvania – have made the confectionery business increasingly challenging.
When faced with rising costs, food manufacturers have three options:
1. Shrink the product. Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups have gradually shrunk from 0.9 ounce in the 1980s to 0.75 ounce today. That’s a 17% reduction. This phenomenon has been dubbed “shrinkflation.”
2. Raise prices. There is certainly a market for premium peanut butter cups, but how much will a consumer pay for the Reese’s brand? $5? $10? I suspect most consumers expect a single serving to be a couple of bucks at most.
3. Lower costs. While the company can improve operational efficiencies, changing the formula to reduce or eliminate high-cost ingredients is a standard industry practice to keep prices consistent for consumers in the midst of a dynamic supply chain. This phenomenon has been dubbed “skimpflation” and is Brad Reese’s main complaint.
Sensory and food science tools that we teach in our Drexel culinary and food science programs help ensure little market disruption and a consumer mostly unaware of the changes.
For example, a consumer discrimination test that food product developers love is a called the triangle test. Two samples from the original formula and one sample from the new formula – or vice versa – are presented to the consumer. If the consumer can identify the different one, the product developer did a poor job in preserving the beloved brand through the reformulation. But if consumers can’t tell the difference, the reformulation may be able to move forward.
In 1998, Frito-Lay reformulated some of its signature products using a synthetic fat called olestra – with the brand name Olean – that could cause unpleasant side effects, including anal oil leakage. John T. Barr/Hulton Archive via Getty Images
Sometimes product developers get it wrong in introducing a new formulation. Some of us are old enough to remember Crystal Pepsi, the McLean Deluxe burger or Doritos made with olestra. These products failed, respectively, due to lack of defined consumer benefit, misalignment with the brand, and bad press due to digestive side effects.
But most reformulations go unnoticed – the good work of food technologists who strive to keep food safe, affordable and delicious for consumers.
So, are these new Reese’s products inferior to the original? Maybe. Like with taste in art or wine, if it tastes good to you, it’s good. If not, vote with your wallet, or send the company a note like Brad Reese did.
