Apply with caution
Leonie Nimmo raises some burning issues about sunscreens.
As the temperature rises, the sensible thing to do is to reach for that trusty
bottle of sunscreen, isn’t it? Turn the bottle around, however, and you’re
likely to see a darker side: a list of unpronounceable chemical ingredients
that will make your eyes water if you look at it too long.
If you prefer to buy alternative brands, you may find that these products contain
nanoparticles which have raised serious safety and environmental concerns. Even
sunscreens marketed as ‘natural’ are likely to contain some chemicals
of concern, as it is very difficult to produce a sunscreen that is both green
and effective. New EU regulations mean that this will become even harder, which
has resulted in many natural product companies discontinuing their sunscreen
ranges altogether.
Changing the rules
In September 2006, the European Commission introduced new guidelines for the
labelling of sunscreens, as concern around potentially misleading claims about
the level of protection offered reached the point of controversy. A Which? report
in July 2006 found that sun creams claiming to have Sun Protection Factor (SPF)
15 were giving much lower protection, with the lowest measuring SPF 6.3.(1)
The health implications were clearly quite serious.
The EC responded by recommending a new labelling system, currently in the process
of being brought into effect. New safety margins will mean that products will
have to have a buffer zone of 33%, so those which currently offer SPF 15 will
have to test for protection at SPF 19.95. The SPF labelling system will also
be phased out in favour of something simpler. It will soon no longer be possible
for companies acting within the new guidelines to claim ‘complete protection’,
so products such as sun block will disappear from shop shelves. Furthermore,
sunscreens will have to provide protection against both types of damaging sun
rays, UVA and UVB, at a ratio of 1:3.(2)
Whilst regulation to curb the misleading claims of manufacturers is a welcome
move, the result of this new system is that many ‘natural’ product
companies are discontinuing their sunscreen ranges. Weleda, Urtekram, Dr. Hauskha
and Honesty are no longer producing sunscreens. The former three brands were
Best Buys the last time Ethical Consumer covered sunscreens in 2006. Weleda
told Ethical Consumer that the new guidelines had resulted in the company discontinuing
its sunscreen products.(3) Dr. Hauskha’s US website states: “New European
regulations for sunscreens will soon require levels of UVA protection that are
impossible to achieve with natural mineral sun filters... In order to meet the
requirements of these new regulations and maintain our products’ SPF ratings,
we would be forced to reformulate using synthetic filters... [Our guidelines]
prevent us from using synthetic sun filters in our preparations. As a result,
Dr.Hauschka Skin Care has made the difficult decision to discontinue our existing
sun care range”.(4)
The picture looks even cloudier if consideration is taken of the fact that
the guidelines were developed by the EC with Colipa, the European Cosmetics
Association, an unholy alliance of some of the biggest cosmetics companies in
the world, such as Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, Estée Lauder
and Beiersdorf. It is clearly of benefit to these companies that competitors
operating in the ‘natural’ products market are finding it harder to
produce sunscreens, particularly as this market expands.
Chemical Cocktails
Many of the ingredients found in sunscreens have raised questions over consumer
safety. We have analysed the ingredients list of the brands featured in this
report, and produced the table below for our readers to be able to see what
is in which brands.
The Environment Working Group, a US based not-for-profit organisation which
uses information to defend public health and the environment, publishes the
Skin Deep website.
This is a comprehensive database of the ingredients found in cosmetics products
which is founded on research collated from government, industry or academic
studies or assessments. It is possible to search for substances, and the results
are broken down into different types of risk, ranging from cancer to the ability
of substances to accumulate in organisms or the environment (bioaccumulation).
The results are summarised in a hazard rating of one to ten and a percentage
figure for the data gap, which is a measure of how much is unknown about an
ingredient. 0-2 represents a low hazard; 3-6 a moderate hazard and 7-10 a high
hazard.
The EWG’s hazard rating for the ingredients or a group of ingredients
is provided at the top of the ingredients table in this report. Some of the
potentially harmful ingredients are groups of substances; where the most hazardous
has been found, we have indicated it in brackets. For example, methylparaben
has a hazard rating of eight, and this substance is found in all of the seven
products analysed that were found to contain parabens (some of which have a
hazard rating of lower than eight). Where a single substance has a hazard range,
this is dependent on how it is used in different products.
Nanoparticles and Health
Nanoparticles are found in a wide range of cosmetics, and are most prevalent
in sunscreens,(5) where they appear as particles of titanium dioxide and/or
zinc oxide. The particles act as a UV filter, and most companies prefer them
to larger particles of the same substances because they are transparent and
don’t leave a whitish coating on the skin.
Nanoparticles of titanium dioxide have been present in sunscreens for a number
of years and were first approved for safety as a UV filter in 2000 by the the
EU’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Products (SCCP). No other products
require nanoparticles used as ingredients to be independently assessed for safety
and there is no independent assessment of the products themselves.(5)
A 2004 report commissioned by the British Government by the Royal Society and
Royal Academy of Engineering recommended that:
- All nanoparticle ingredients underwent a full safety assessment before
being permitted for use in cosmetics
- Manufacturers made public the methodologies they used to assess safety
- The ingredients list should specify where nanomaterials are used.(5)
None of this has happened. Research conducted by Which? in November 2008 found
that companies used a variety of methods to assess the safety of their products,
from conducting risk assessments themselves to relying on the safety data sheets
provided by their suppliers.(5) The Government is unaware of which products
contain nanoparticles. In 2006 it launched a voluntary reporting scheme, but
as of November 2008 only 12 companies had responded.(5) Furthermore, Which?
found that nano zinc oxide was in use in sunscreens before it had been fully
assessed.(5)
When particles are nano sized their properties change as a result of their
increased surface area, and typically they become more reactive. Titanium dioxide
has been found to increase its toxicity as the size of particles decreases,
so the smaller the particle the more toxic it becomes.(6) When it is known that
a company uses nanomaterials, details such as the particle size remain unknown.
Concerns around the risks to consumers of nanoparticles used in sunscreens
stem from whether or not the particles are able to penetrate the skin. Companies
assert that this does not happen, but big questions remain as to what happens
if the skin is damaged, for example, because of sunburn, skin complaints and
cuts. Early last year, the SCCP called for a re-evaluation of the safety of
nano UV sun filters, citing major data gaps in the assessment of exposure and
uptake of nano particles through the skin.(5) Flexing the skin may also increase
the probability of penetration.(7) Furthermore, a significant number of cosmetic
ingredients are penetration enhancers, which enhance the absorption of other
chemicals into the skin by modifying the skin's structure. These may allow nanoparticles
to reach deeper layers.(7)
A Friends of the Earth report published in 2007 stated that there was a growing
body of evidence that nanoparticles may penetrate intact skin.(8) Once in the
bloodstream, nanoparticles were said to have the ability to enter vital organs
including the brain, heart, and liver, where they may disrupt normal cell activity.(9)
Nanoparticles and the Environment
In addition to the safety risks for individual consumers, the environmental
risks of nanoparticles could be substantial. A study conducted in March 2009
by researchers at the University of Toledo found that nano-titanium dioxide
may damage beneficial microbes in water systems. Significant damage to the bacteria’s
cell walls, indicating a loss of functionality, was found to have occurred after
adding the nanosubstance. Sunscreens are particularly likely to enter municipal
water treatment works in significant doses due to the wideness of their use
and the regularity of their application and removal through washing. The researchers
noted that “though most of these particles stick to solids and might be
filtered out at wastewater plants, a small percentage probably escapes treatment,
and those particles would be discharged into lakes, streams, oceans and other
waterways”.(10) In the wastewater treatment systems themselves, the bacteria
perform important functions of breaking down sewage.
Similarly to the health implications for consumers, the key issue is that the
environmental impacts are unknown. According to Dawn Mellowship, “Worldwide,
corporations are introducing thousands of tons of nanomaterials into the environment
and into the bodies of millions of people, despite an absence of knowledge about
their safety and in the face of mounting evidence indicating the potential toxicity
of certain nanomaterials.”(7) Back in 2004, the Royal Society report noted
that “there is virtually no information about the effect of nanoparticles
on species other than humans or about how they behave in the air, water or soil,
or about their ability to accumulate in food chains”.(11) Little appears
to have changed other than the level of our exposure.
There are currently proposals for new European Cosmetic Regulations that would
cover the issue of nanomaterials. Which? asserts that these proposals are inadequate.
If they are adopted, a company would be required to notify the European Commission
if they are using nano materials. The report points to the fact that the UK
Government’s support for this measure, based on the fact that it would
facilitate prompt action should a material be found to be harmful, is back to
front: “We would like safety to be assured before products go on sale,
rather than leaving it for action to be taken after a problem has been identified
and consumers have been put at risk.”(5)
The complete absence of informed public debate about nanotechnology makes the
picture look quite sinister. Research conducted by Which? found that only 45%
of adults had heard of it and even fewer knew what it actually was. Only 5%
were aware that it was being used to develop cosmetic and skin-care products,
let alone that it is already prevalent in a number of products on our shelves.
67% said they would expect cosmetics or skincare products using nanotechnology
to be labelled. Around the same number of people thought that products would
have been independently assessed as being safe before going on the shelf.(5)
If only.
How Natural is Nano?
In January 2008 the UK’s Soil Association became the first organic certification
body to refuse to certify products that contained human-engineered nanoparticles
on the basis that the necessary checks had not been performed to confirm their
safety. Other organic certifying bodies have not chosen to follow this lead.
Only two of the alternative sunscreen companies on the table, Neal’s Yard
and Yaoh, told Ethical Consumer that they do not use nanotechnology. Neal’s
Yard stated that it does not use nanomaterials in line with the precautionary
principle12 (of not using it unless it is known to be safe). Its lavender sun
lotion contained zinc oxide. The titanium dioxide used by Yaoh was said to be
micro sized not nano sized, and therefore 1000 times bigger. The company told
Ethical Consumer that nanoparticles were unnecessary.(13) However, according
to the Skin Deep database, micronised particles of titanium dioxide can be almost
as hazardous as nano-sized particles, depending on how they are used. The website
states: “Sunscreens with micronized titanium dioxide may contain nanoparticles.
Micronized TiO2 offers greater sun protection than conventional (larger) particles.
These small particles do not penetrate skin but may be more toxic to living
cells and the environment.”(14)
Green People and Lavera responded to the questionnaire we sent them with some
details about why they considered nanoparticles to be acceptable. According
to Lavera, its titanium dioxide and zinc oxide are “coated with Stearic
Acid (from coconut oil) rendering the particles inactive i.e. they cannot penetrate
the skin”.(15) Green People claimed that nanosized titanium dioxide gives
the optimum protection against UVA and UVB radiation, and that “studies
have shown that when incorporated into a cream or lotion it does not penetrate
the skin, but remains on the surface of the skin”.(16)
In Australia a backlash against nanomaterials in sunscreens is happening, with
more companies advertising that they do not use nano. This is possibly because
there is more awareness of the issue amongst Australian consumers due to more
activity by NGOs. It is also likely that the regulatory demands in Australia
mean that it is easier to produce natural sunscreens there.
Many mainstream companies also use nanoparticles. Which? asked 67 cosmetics
companies about their use of nanotechnology in November 2008, but only 17 responded.
Of the companies that responded that are covered in this report and not mentioned
above, Beieresdorf (Nivea), Boots and L’Oréal stated that they use
nanoparticles in sunscreens but did not provide details. As a general rule,
advice from Which? is that if a product contains titanium dioxide and it is
clear, it will be nano.(5)
Frying Pan or Fire?
The upshot of all this is that we are left with the option of either recommending
products that contain nanoparticles as Best Buys, or of only recommending two
sunscreens, products that may not last very long when the new EC regulations
come fully into effect in 2010. After some debate, we have decided to opt for
the latter option, the Yaoh and Neal’s Yard products are the only Best
Buys in this buyer’s guide.
The other option, of advocating some synthetic sunscreens produced by (primarily)
multinational corporations was not attractive either. We considered giving a
Best Buy to Riemann P20, which appears to be a relatively small company that
has not accumulated stories of bad practice on our database. However, the company
did not have an animal testing policy, and due to the fact that it operates
in the cosmetics sector in which animal testing is prevalent, this was also
not felt to be appropriate.
We’d like to stress, however, that sunscreen is still an effective way
to protect the body from the harmful effects of the sun, which are proven to
cause skin cancer. Don’t avoid possible health risks by taking on known
health risks! Or risk getting burnt and/or causing long-term damage. However,
sunscreens can also lead to a false sense of security, encouraging people to
spend more time in the sun than is healthy. It’s still important to stay
out of the sun when it is at its hottest, and to opt for shady areas. Wearing
a hat and not exposing too much skin are also recommended safety precautions.
Titanium extraction
Serious concerns have also been raised about the social and environmental effects
of titanium mines in Africa and Asia. The fanfare accompanying Rio Tinto’s
mine in Madagascar, which was billed as a socially and environmentally responsible
project, was quickly dampened by Friends of the Earth. Research contracted by
the NGO found that the mine would have seriously negative environmental impacts
and that communities affected by it were not being properly compensated, notably
those that were forced to relocate.(17) In Vietnam, environmental pollution,
water shortages and deforestation of protected areas came quickly on the heels
of titanium mining. Reforestation could not be conducted due to the mining companies’
removal of top soil and the holes in the ground that they didn’t bother
to fill when they left. “The deep holes in the ground are a testament to
the depths of irresponsibility that titanium mining companies have plumbed.”(18)
Some countries have apparently banned titanium mining because of its environmental
impact.(18)
Company Profiles
Yaoh is a vegan company based in Bristol that makes products with certified
organic hemp seed oil sourced from China or Canada. They only trade with independent
retailers and organise the country’s biggest vegan fayres in Bristol and
Brighton.
In 2006 The Body Shop was bought by L’Oréal, which itself
is 24% owned by the world’s biggest food and drink company, Nestlé.
Since it was sold The Body Shop has, perhaps surprisingly, improved its animal
testing policy, now operating a fixed cut-off date, and signed up with the British
Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV). The animal testing mark on the
table reflects the activities of L’Oréal. Its low overall score
on the table likewise reflects its ownership, as it inherits the scores of its
parent companies. Nestlé’s hideously low score on Ethical Consumer’s
database (0.5) stems from its activities around the globe, from pushing formula
baby milk in Africa, to using child slave labour in its cocoa supply chain in
Côte d’Ivoire, to being linked to the death of trade unionists in
Colombia and the Philippines. It is named as one of the world’s Most Wanted
corporate human rights violators by Global Exchange.
Superdrug is owned by Hutchison Whampoa, which also owns Husky Energy
Inc, a company fully entrenched in the oil sands of Alberta, Canada. Ethical
Consumer is calling for a new
boycott of consumer-facing brands and companies owned by companies with
involvement in oil sand extraction. Superdrug’s ethiscore slips by 3 marks
as a result of this ownership link.
The Boycott Israeli Goods Campaign calls for a boycott of a number of companies
in the Buyer’s Guide as a result of their trading relationship with Israel:
Estée Lauder, Johnson & Johnson, L’Oréal, Sainsbury’s,
Tesco and ASDA. The Uncaged campaign also calls for a boycott of Estée
Lauder, Johnson & Johnson and L’Oréal because they either openly
use animal-tested chemicals, or fail to demonstrate that the finished products
and ingredients they use have not been tested on animals since a fixed cut-off
date.
Links
References
1 ‘Don’t get burnt by misleading sunscreens’ Which? 01 July
2006, http://www.which.co.uk/news/2006/07/dont-get-burnt-by-misleading-sun-screens-86243.jsp
[viewed 12/5/09]
2 Commission Recommendation of 22 September 2006 on the efficacy of sunscreen
products and the claims made relating thereto http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:265:0039:0043:EN:PDF
[viewed 14/5/09]
3 Conversation with company, April 2009
4 Dr Hauschka website, www.drhauschka.com/natural-skin-care-products/sun-care/
[viewed 15/5/09]
5 Small Wonder? Nanotechnology and Cosmetics, Which? November 2008
6 Titanium Dioxide: Toxic or Safe? /www.organicmakeup.ca/TitaniumDioxide.htm
[viewed 14/5/09]
7 ‘Toxic Beauty: How hidden chemicals in cosmetics can harm you’,
by Dawn Mellowship, 2009
8 Friends of the Earth ‘Nanotechnology & Sunscreens: a consumer guide
for avoiding nano-sunscreens (available from www.foe.org/pdf/Nano_Sunscreens.pdf)
9 Oberdörster G., Oberdörster E., and Oberdörster J. (2005).
Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles.
Environmental Health Perspectives 113:823-839, cited in ‘Nanotechnology
& Sunscreens: a consumer guide for avoiding nano-sunscreens
10 Nanoparticles in Sunscreen Damage Microbes www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nanoparticles-in-sunscreen
[viewed 14/5/09]
11 Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies: A Review of Government’s Progress
on Its Policy Commitments, Council for Science and Technology, London, March
2007, cited in ‘Toxic Beauty: How hidden chemicals in cosmetics can harm
you’, by Dawn Mellowship, 2009
12 Questionnaire from company, received 27/3/09
13 Conversation with employee, 17/4/09
14 www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/ingredient.php?ingred06=703958 [viewed 12/5/09]
15 Questionnaire from company, received 27/3/09
16 Questionnaire from company, received 12/3/09
17 http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/rio_tintos_madagascar_mini_22102007.html
[viewed 14/5/09]
18 Protected forests sacrificed for titanium profits, www.thanhniennews.com/features/?catid=10&newsid=47814
[viewed 12/5/09]