ABOUT
Enviroblog is a project of Environmental Working Group, covering public health, environmental policy, and better
consumer choices. (Meet our authors here.)
TIPS
Did we miss something? Email Amanda.
BLOGROLL
FEED
KEEP IN TOUCH
Sign up below for EWG's bimonthly email updates.
« Ask EWG: Do flame-retardant chemicals on furniture accumulate in breast milk? | Main | EPA proposes new smog standards; environmentalists wheeze their disapproval »
June 21, 2007
Sunscreen: what about nanoparticles?
Kate at Grist did a great write-up on EWG's sunscreen investigation -- if you haven't seen it yet, you should check it out.
Some concerns have been raised over our decision to recommend products that may contain nanoparticles. We certainly didn’t start off on this project thinking that a product with nanoparticles in it would be among our top recommendations. No one has looked at nano tech in cosmetics more expansively than EWG has to date, or pressed FDA harder or more consistently to do something about. We’ve made clear our view that the FDA's lack of regulation on nano is unacceptable, including for sunscreens. We haven’t changed our view.
But here’s the deal, as we see it: nano particles in eye shadow, blush, body glitter and other purely cosmetic products is beyond dumb. Suncreens? Different stakes. When moms and dads are asking what product they should put on their kids to protect them from the sun today, they need an answer, not campaign rhetoric. Our review of the science led us to the top choices you see on our site.
Yes, as FOE reminds us, Consumer Reports testing of eight products showed
that you can get sun protection without nano. We agree, but we took our
study two steps farther. We looked at which sunscreens break down in the
sun, and which products contain hazardous ingredients that absorb through
the skin and into the body to pose other risks. Our answers changed.
The science leads you to a different place than the knee-jerk anti-nano FOE
response when it comes to sunscreen. This isn't eye shadow or mascara we're
talking about - this is a product meant to help protect us from exposure to
a known human carcinogen, UV radiation, responsible for a huge fraction of
the more than one million cases of skin cancer diagnosed in this country
every year.
If you go zinc- and titanium-free when it comes to sunscreen, chances are,
you'll be left with more UV exposure and more hazardous ingredients. Is that
what we want in our sunscreens? Are you willing to take those risks? We're
not.
You can read all of the science behind our investigation in the report, or take a look at how some best-selling sunscreens rate in the database.
« Ask EWG: Do flame-retardant chemicals on furniture accumulate in breast milk? |
Comments
It is so important to be concerned about skin cancer and wearing sun protective clothing, especially on young sensitive skin.
I found a wonderful site that sells sun protective clothing for the whole family. www.shadysun.com
They also sells an aromatherapy sunscreen which is broad spectrum, and all organic.
Posted by: holly | June 22, 2007 9:13 AM
I think this is a great idea to help your skin and the environment at the same time. A colleague of mine who works at a non-profit sent this website to me:
www.svn.org/imaginewhatsnext I’m trying to start a non-profit myself and I can use all the help I can get! I thought I would pass it along if anyone was interested.
Posted by: Katie A. | June 24, 2007 6:23 AM
Sunscreen with nanoparticles has generated rashes this year on both my children, who are not particularly sensitive or allergic. Neither of them have ever reacted to sunscreen; the first new one I tried listed titanium dioxide as an ingredient and the second one listed aluminum starch octenylsuccinate, which is used as a coating for nanoparticles.
I think it's incredibly irresponsible of the sunscreen industry to release something that's obviously harmful. Both sunscreens were labeled for kids. We're not talking about long-term internal effects; we're talking about a rash of raised red dots appearing a few hours after the sunscreen is applied. Not hard to identify if you've done any scientific testing.
It's even hard to determine which sunscreens contain nanoparticles because they're not required to label them! I'm using last year's sunscreen until I can do research and get a full list of ingredients that I can identify as nanoparticles. Yes, we need to be protected from the sun; but we also need corporations to behave responsibly and test their products before putting them on the market. Unless we all want to walk around with red rashes instead of sunburns?
Posted by: Ann Marie | June 25, 2007 10:56 AM
EWG is right on the money about the nano-sunscreens. They are the best. Why would you want to use a synthetic that can be absorbed into the body degrade and effect the body when you have a perfect sunscreen that doesn't degrade, that protects against UVA and UVB, and doesn't get absorbed at all? Untested nano is really bad but being anti-nano sunscreens just to be contrary is like the Bush administration ignoring climate change science because it doesn't fit the agenda. EWG gains credibility and Friends of Earth loses a lot and frankly, non-profits can use all the sci cred they can get. Go where the facts lead you. Use a Zinc or Titanium sunscreen for you and your family. I know I do.
Posted by: Angrytoxicologist | June 27, 2007 1:46 PM
I was not impressed at all with that website.
Pretty suspicious that they sell bikini style tops and tout them as sun protective and then sell sunscreen too!
I buy my sun protective clothing at www.alexandme.com
they have clothing for the whole family.
Posted by: susan | July 31, 2007 5:03 AM