Natural Radiance鈥?/FONT>
Which Sunscreens may be more foe than friend
By James Keough
With the summer sun near its zenith, the need for sunscreen would never seem greater, especially with the steady rise in the prevalence of skin cancer. According to a report in 2005 from the World Health Organization, the annual incidence for melanoma has more than doubled in the last 30 years in the US. Yet in our rush to cover up, we may actually be choosing products that could do more harm than good. The fly in the ointment, so to speak, is nanotechnology, the science of engineering materials at the sub-molecular level. It holds great promise in medicine and many other areas, but some say eager companies have rushed to use nano before they鈥檝e thoroughly tested it鈥攄espite copious red flags about its potential for harm.
While it鈥檚 probably unfair to single out any one segment of industry, cosmetic companies have incorporated nanotechnology into their products with gusto, with anti-aging potions and sunscreens receiving the highest priority. The big push so far for nanotechnology in sunscreens stems from its ability to make two metal oxides鈥攝inc and titanium鈥攕eemingly disappear. In bulk form (nano-speak for the way we鈥檙e used to seeing materials), these two ingredients block both UVA and UVB rays incredibly well. But they also scatter visible light rays and thus sit on the user鈥檚 skin like an unsightly white paste鈥攁 look that might be suitable for the lifeguard鈥檚 nose but is hardly en vogue for full body coverage. After all, who wants to look like Frosty the Snowman while catching some rays at the beach?
The jury鈥檚 still out
Nano-versions of these same metal oxides continue to block harmful rays, but they let visible light shine through鈥攚hich means you can鈥檛 see them when you spread them on your skin. Dave Rejeski, director of The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) and an advocate for more research into nano鈥檚 safety issues, sees this as a valid use of the new technology. 鈥淗ere鈥檚 an example where there could be some really significant benefits, because [nano sunscreens] go on easy and they鈥檙e transparent, and so if you actually can get more people to use them, it could have a significant impact.鈥?/FONT>
And getting people to use sunscreen more often seems laudable, especially since only about a third of Americans bother to use sunscreens regularly. But not everyone shares this enthusiastic view of nano-ized sunscreens. Jim Thomas, a researcher with the ETC Group鈥攁n organization that has called for a moratorium on the introduction of nanoproducts until more is known about their safety鈥攚orries that the consumer faces an element of risk. 鈥淵ou have got some pretty good evidence that says when you introduce [metal oxide particles] into living cells, you get free-radical production, which disrupts the DNA of the cell.鈥?/FONT>
Peter Dobson, engineering professor at the University of Oxford, confirmed this fear on ABC Radio鈥檚 The Science Show in October 2005: 鈥淭he free radicals that are produced will damage the skin, damage the molecules in the skin, possibly cleave DNA in unwanted ways, and it鈥檚 best to not have that happen in your sunscreen if you can help it.鈥?/FONT>
Label confusion
So how do you know when a sunscreen contains nano-ized zinc or titanium? 鈥淚 tell people if it鈥檚 a transparent sunscreen and it鈥檚 got either of those products, then it鈥檚 nano,鈥?says Thomas. Of course, zinc and titanium oxide particles have degrees of transparency, depending on their size, and to qualify as a nano, they have to measure less than 100 nanometers. So sunscreens that list 鈥渕icronized鈥?zinc or titanium as ingredients may or may not contain nano particles of those metals. But any products that list Z-COTE or ZinClear as an ingredient clearly contain nano-ized zinc oxide, and products that list Optisol contain nano-sized titanium dioxide particles that have been coated with tiny amounts of manganese. According to Dobson, who invented Optisol, tests show this coating eliminates the formation of free radicals.
Safe or sorry?
So if the nano-ized metal oxides no longer produce free radicals, then we shouldn鈥檛 have to worry about them, right? Not necessarily. Quite a bit of research indicates that nanoparticles can find their way into the lymphatic system, breach the blood-brain barrier, and pass between the placenta and a developing fetus. Given that information, who wouldn鈥檛 think twice before rubbing a nano sunscreen on their skin? But ongoing studies in the European NANOderm project indicate that we may not need to fret much about that, at least when it comes to titanium. According to a report by project coordinator Tilman Butz, titanium dioxide particles stay blocked in the outer layer of the epidermis 鈥渁nd almost never penetrate to the dermis.鈥?/FONT>
That discovery meshes with what the cosmetic industry has continually said about nano materials in general, and they claim they have research that proves it. Unfortunately, according to Thomas, that data remains proprietary and not in the public domain鈥攁nd thus, he stresses, free of independent, third-party review.
Nor must the manufacturers tell consumers when a sunscreen contains nanoparticles. 鈥淭here鈥檚 no requirement of labeling, no requirement of disclosure,鈥?says Lisa Archer, program director for Friends of the Earth鈥檚 Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. 鈥淯ntil there鈥檚 some sort of regulation to clearly label whether something鈥檚 nano or not, it鈥檚 sort of a crapshoot.鈥?/FONT>
So what to do?
Alternatives do exist, however. Quite a few sunscreens use chemicals to absorb both UVB and UVA rays. The brand Hawaiian Tropic decided not to use metal oxides for a couple of reasons, says Dennis Lott, vice president of Technology Affairs at Tanning Research, the parent company. 鈥淭he fact is there鈥檚 an argument that they鈥檙e not safe,鈥?he says, and that they鈥檙e not as effective at screening out UVA when they鈥檙e brought down to nano scale. Hawaiian Tropic, like a great many other sunscreens, uses avobenzone (Parsol 1789) to absorb UVA and a blend of other chemicals to absorb UVB. Companies outside the US use Mexoryl, but the FDA has yet to allow its use here.
So what to do? Steer clear of the metal oxides that go on transparently if you can, says Thomas. If you worry about the safety of the various chemicals in sunscreens and other cosmetics鈥攁s well you might since Archer says only 11 percent of them have been tested by an independent organization鈥攃heck out the Skin Deep project developed by the Environmental Working Group (www.ewg.org/ reports/skindeep2/index.php). It lets you search products by category, by name, or by brand name, and gives you detailed information about each ingredient.
Sorting Out the Rays
鈥?Sun protection products need to screen out two types of ultraviolet rays, UVB, which produce sunburns, and UVA, which damage deeper levels of skin and cause aging and wrinkles. Both types of rays can cause skin cancer. The ability to stop sunburn earns a sunscreen a sun protection factor (SPF), which represents a multiple of the time you can spend in the sun without burning compared to the amount of time it would take you to burn without the sunscreen. Thus if you burn in 10 minutes without sunscreen, a product with an SPF of 15 would allow you to stay out for two and a half hours. The US currently has no equivalent rating for UVA protection, although the FDA promised in 1999 to establish one.
鈥?To receive the full benefit of a sunscreen, you must apply the amount specified on the label鈥攇enerally an ounce of sunscreen for your entire body鈥攁nd you must reapply it as suggested. Swimming and perspiration reduce a product鈥檚 efficiency. Note too that no sunscreen blocks out all of the sun鈥檚 rays. Nor will SPF 30 block out twice as many rays as 15. SPF 15 sunscreen blocks 93 percent of UVB rays; and SPF 30 only 4 percent more at 97 percent. Jump to SPF 50 and you gain just another 1 percent.
Courtesy of Alternative Medicine
http://www.alternativemedicine.com
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
First 