Picture a white sand beach in Southern California on a typical summer weekend. Thousands of sun worshippers of all ages lounge on the beach or wade and swim in the ocean water, their bodies glistening and lathered with sunscreens or sunblocks. While this may seem like a benign scene, something subtle but dangerous is happening just below the surface of both their awareness and their skin.

During the last few decades, we’ve been told over and over again about the dangers of sun exposure. The consequences of ignoring the risks include not just the telltale pink flush, tender skin, and eventual peeling of sunburn, but longer-term effects: accelerated aging, premature wrinkles, and skin cancer. To protect ourselves, we’ve been encouraged to apply sunscreen daily, or even more frequently if going out in the sun for extended periods of time. What we haven’t been told is that sunscreens can be dangerous, to our health and to the environment.

How could this be? How could sunscreen, a product that so many people rely upon, a product that has been championed by health agencies the world over as essential to protecting the skin, harbor silent threats to our health and well-being?

Let’s first look at the history of the product. Being tan was not always in vogue. Prior to the twentieth century, if you were of European origin, having tanned skin associated you with manual laborers, who spent time in the sun because they had to, while a pale complexion was admired as a sign of wealth, health, and beauty. Our ancestors usually tried to avoid direct sunlight either by covering themselves with hats and other garments or by staying in the shade whenever possible. In cultures where exposure to intense sunlight was unavoidable, formulations of oils and sand were used to protect the skin.

The intentional tanning of skin, as with the use of cosmetics, first arose from the desire to be fashionable. By some accounts, the trend began with French designer Coco Chanel, who accidentally sunburned herself on a boat in the 1920s. Her afterglow started a fashion trend among Hollywood starlets that hasn’t abated to this day.

In 1944, Miami pharmacist Benjamin Green developed a suntan cream called Red Vet Pet, which he made from a mixture of cocoa butter and jasmine, cooked on his wife’s stove, and tested on his own bald head. Sun worshippers on Florida beaches were his target consumers. His creation later became Coppertone Suntan Cream, the first mass-produced sunscreen. Mainstream consumers soon took note, and a multibillion dollar industry was spawned.

When twentieth century scientific research identified the ultraviolet wavelengths of sunshine—generally categorized as short (UVB) or long (UVA) wavelengths—and their relationship to sunburn, it prompted cosmetics manufacturers to create two types of products to protect against sun exposure: absorbers (sunscreens) and reflectants (sunblocks).

What Sunscreens Do

Sunscreens act by absorbing short-wave ultraviolet light, or UVB, the wavelength responsible for sunburn. To gauge how much protection each sunscreen product affords you against burns, a Sun Protection Factor (SPF) was created in 1962 as an international standard and embraced by sunscreen makers and the regulatory and health agencies of most governments. The higher the SPF number on the label, the higher the level of protection the product theoretically affords. A SPF of 30, for instance, supposedly guarantees you that the product will enable you to remain in the sun thirty times longer, safely, than if you had not used sunscreen at all.

Though the SPF standard feels comforting, it is based on a faulty premise and so provides only the illusion of safety. There are several problems with relying on a product’s SPF. First, when we swim in water, or even just sweat, we lose the product’s protective value (unless it is continually reapplied). Second and even more importantly, because few people apply sunscreens “at the same rate of application at which the product was tested in the laboratory,” in the words of New Zealand physician and sunscreen expert Dr. Steve Taylor, “no one should think that their sunscreen gives them anything more than two hours protection at best,” no matter how high the SPF.¹

As Dr. Taylor further explains in his 2002 online book, Two Fingers To Sunscreen? An Essential Guide for the Effective Use of Sunscreens, “For testing purposes all sunscreens, whether they be creams, lotions, or gels, are applied at an internationally agreed application rate of 2mg/cm², and it is from this rate of application that the product’s SPF is determined.... Studies have shown, however, that in reality most people apply only a fraction of that amount. This varies between 10 percent and 75 percent of the test quantity. On average, people apply about one-third of that amount. So the SPF they actually achieve on their skin is nowhere near what they expected.”

When consumers slather themselves with sunscreens boasting high SPFs, they do so with false expectations about their safety, especially given that nowhere on product labels is a warning posted about the necessary application rate. Taylor estimated that two-thirds of the population of his home country New Zealand will contract skin cancer during their lifetimes, in part because they have been lulled into a false sense of security about the effectiveness of the sunscreens they apply and so remain in the sun far longer than they should or otherwise might have.

A certain amount of sunshine is healthy, as it stimulates the body to produce vitamin D and can counteract depressive disorders, but that amount is generally no more than fifteen minutes of sun exposure a day. And supplements also provide an effective antidote for vitamin D deficiency, so there’s no good health reason to purposefully expose yourself to the sun. “Deliberately setting out to get a suntan should not be seen as being ‘cool,’ nor ‘attractive,’ nor ‘desirable, ’” observes sunscreen expert Dr. Taylor. “It should be seen for what it really is: rather absurd and irresponsible.”

What Sunscreens Don’t Do

The extra sun exposure this false sense of security results in may contribute to why the greatest increases in the incidence of the dangerous skin cancer malignant melanoma have occurred in those areas of the world where sunscreen use is the most prevalent. But it’s only part of the reason. The rest is because of something sunscreens don’t do, no matter how effectively they’re applied: block long-wave ultraviolet radiation (UVA).

It has been well documented that dark-skinned people and people who tan well are less likely to develop skin cancer than persons who are light- or red-skinned, though they do still face the same risk of damaging their skin and causing premature aging. The reduced skin cancer risk is due to the fact that dark skin contains much higher levels of the natural black pigment melanin, which is very effective in blocking long-wave UV radiation.

A study published in a 1992 issue of the American Journal of Public Health, provocatively titled “Could Sunscreens Increase Melanoma Risk?”, first introduced this idea into public debate.² Sunscreens clearly encourage people to remain in the sun for extended periods of time, and even if their sunscreen is effectively absorbing the short-wave radiation that causes sunburn, they are still exposing themselves to increased long-wave radiation. This radiation penetrates into the deep layers of the skin, breaking down the protein and collagen that keep the skin firm and plump and is responsible for the classic signs of skin aging, including wrinkling and discoloration. More seriously, UVA radiation is well recognized as the major cause of malignant melanoma, which is now the fastest rising cancer in the world. Since 1975, its incidence in white men and women has increased by 243 percent and 172 percent, respectively, while its mortality rate has increased by 55 percent and 24 percent, respectively.³ (In sharp contrast, there has been no increase in the incidence and mortality of malignant melanoma in black men and women, who are protected by the pigment in their skin.)

This exposure seems to be particularly dangerous during childhood and adolescence; years of research data have clearly shown a relationship between the number of sunburn episodes before the age of fifteen and the subsequent development of skin cancer later in life.

Why Are Nanoparticles in Sun Protection Products?

There are significant safety differences between sunscreens and sunblocks. All sunscreens are unsafe for two reasons: They encourage people to stay longer in the sun, and they have hormonal effects. Sunscreens do not protect against the dangerous long-wave ultraviolet radiation, while sunblocks, especially those including zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, are highly protective; they block long-wave ultraviolet light by reflecting radiation off the skin’s surface. If you must be out in the sun, don’t use sunscreen, use sunblock.¹¹

Even sunblocks, however, are not a sure, safe bet for sun protection. Borrowing a technique used by the pharmaceutical industry in skin patch tests, cosmetic manufacturers often add “penetration enhancer” ingredients to their products, including sunscreens and sunblocks, to decrease skin resistance and drive chemicals deeper into body tissues. Their reasoning is that by increasing the absorption of these chemicals, the products become more effective and longer lasting.

The rise of nanotechnology has been a huge step forward in penetration enhancement, a development comparable to the technological leap that occurred when plane propellers were eclipsed by the development of jet engines. By shrinking chemical particles to 100 nanometers wide, or about 1/100,000 of the thickness of this sheet of paper and far smaller than the smallest blood vessels, these “nanoparticles” are able to penetrate human skin more rapidly and much more deeply that was ever before possible.

Nanotechnology has been put to good use in a variety of products: stain-resistant clothing and textiles, computer microchips, plastics, and even razors and food-storage containers, to which nanoparticles of silver have been added as an antibacterial agent. And by the end of 2007, at least 300 sunscreen and sunblock products contained nanoparticles of titanium dioxide or zinc oxide, making this the most common use for nanotechnology among all consumer products. An Australian government health agency estimated that about 70 percent of sunblocks that include titanium dioxide and 30 percent of sunscreens that include zinc oxide contain these materials in nanoparticle form.

Once titanium dioxide or zinc oxide is reduced in size, the chemical becomes transparent, losing its usual white coloration when applied to the skin. Both nanoparticle versions still block harmful ultraviolet radiation but allow visible light to pass through, making them a more appealing product to consumers previously repulsed by the white sheen sunblocks left on their skin.

Because both titanium dioxide and zinc oxide have been traditionally regarded as safe materials without any impact on human health, manufacturers are blithely assuming that nanoparticle versions will not pose a health risk either. A common assurance given by sunscreen and sunblock manufacturers is that nanoparticles of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide remain on the surface of the skin, never penetrating into your skin cells or into your bloodstream (and through it, the rest of your body). But at least four major independent science studies between 2003 and 2008 have emerged to convincingly refute that claim.¹² By 2004, two dozen toxicology publications had reported that nanoparticles pose unique and unpredictable risks.¹³

Lip Gloss Can Magnify the Sun’s UV Rays

A consumer alert from dermatologists, widely publicized in April 2008, warned that lip glosses can act like magnifying glasses, concentrating the UV rays of the sun in a way that allows more light rays to penetrate directly into the lips. As a result, the wearer’s risk of contracting squamous cell carcinoma, a cancer of the lips, could be increased—though it must also be noted that, as of this writing, no medical studies had been conducted to confirm a cancer link.

Just to be safe, however, one option to reduce risk is to mix lip gloss with zinc oxide, which has a protective effect, rather than use lip gloss alone.

While titanium oxide and zinc oxide are harmless and beneficial as topical sunblock agents, having those chemicals distributed more deeply throughout our bodies may create unknown health risks. A perceptive article about nanotechnology in The Economist magazine (November 22, 2007) summarized the health concerns associated with their use this way: “Research on animals suggests that nanoparticles can even evade some of the body’s natural defence systems and accumulate in the brain, cells, blood and nerves. Studies show there is the potential for such materials to reach the lung and cause inflammation; to move from the lungs to other organs; to have surprising biological toxicity; to move from within the skin to the lymphatic system; and possibly to move across cell membranes. Moreover, these effects vary when particles are engineered into different shapes.”

Studies by the DuPont Company have shown that injection of nanoparticles into the lungs of rats resulted in very high mortality. Other studies have found that small nanoparticles penetrate deeply into the lungs of rats, where they produce severe inflammation.¹⁴ They also rapidly diffuse into the blood, resulting in coagulation disorders. And at least one variety of nanoparticles used as penetration enhancers in sunscreens has the potential to cause neurological damage to humans, according to the results of a study in 2006 by a research laboratory at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. While examining the effects of nanoparticles of titanium oxide on cultures of mice cells called microglia, which protect brain neurons, researchers found that the particles provoked these cells to go into dangerous overdrive, producing free radicals in an attempt to destroy the invading nanoparticles. This is a serious risk to health because free radicals don’t just attack the nanoparticles; they can also damage neighboring cells. The result is oxidative stress in the brain, which is theorized to be a cause of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases.¹⁵

“The chemicals industry has blithely assumed that if large grains are safe, smaller ones will be too,” commented an article about the study in the science journal Nature. “But that assumption is coming under increasing scrutiny and is not necessarily always valid.” Previous studies had indicated that nanoparticles of titanium oxide might also be toxic to skin, bone, and liver cells.¹⁶

A July 2007 issue of Consumer Reports reported on the magazine’s test of nineteen sunscreen products. Of those nineteen products, eight contained nanoparticles, but only one disclosed their presence on the label. Not only that, but the magazine found no correlation between the presence of nanoparticle ingredients and increased product effectiveness.

Even with products marketed as containing only “natural” ingredients, you will need to read the labels carefully to detect nanoparticles, if they are identified on the label at all. Caribbean Blue Natural Basics, for example, is advertised as a “100% all-natural sunscreen formula” that contains “natural zinc oxide in a new patented transparent form” to prevent skin whitening. When I phoned the manufacturers to inquire about the new transparent form of zinc oxide in the formula (called “microfine” in the ingredient list), I was told this language referred to a nanoparticle ingredient. (Other than this major flaw, the product seemed safe, made from a natural base of oils extracted from coconut, seaweed, safflower, almond, sesame, and macadamia nut, plus other vitamins and essential oils.)

A Warning on Sunblocks

When buying sunblocks, be very careful to check the ingredient list, as often, products are labeled sunblocks despite not actually including ingredients that block the sun’s rays. Neutrogena Age Shield Sunblock, Aveeno Continuous Protection Sunblock Spray, and Hawaiian Tropic Ozone Spray Sport Sunblock all claim to be sunblocks, but contain neither zinc oxide nor titanium dioxide. Only if one or both of these ingredients appear as the active ingredient on the label is a product a true sunblock!

An Emerging Regulatory Nightmare

Nanotechnology research and development, and the addition of nanoingredients to products, have advanced far faster than the ability of scientists and health agencies to evaluate their impact on human health. Currently, toxicologists do not even have the technology to measure all of the ways in which nanoparticles escape into the environment, much less measure all of their effects once inside the human body.

The first public revelation of the cosmetics industry’s use of ultra-fine particles came in a January 8, 2005, article in the New York Times with a headline proclaiming, “Cosmetics Break the Skin Barrier: Sophisticated Science Being Used to Deliver Creams Behind the Lines.” The products the article discussed were designed to force powerful anti-wrinkle, anti-aging, moisturizing, and other ingredients deep into the skin. Examples cited included Procter & Gamble’s use of invisible small ball bearing-like particles in its Olay brand body lotions; Freeze 24/7’s new line of anti-wrinkle creams, which combine the muscle relaxant gamma-amino-butyric acid, which does not penetrate skin, with gynostemma, a plant extract that does penetrate; and Esteé Lauder’s use of cell vectors, small spheres of protein that encapsulate anti-wrinkle ingredients, to penetrate the skin, where the vectors are slowly dissolved by enzymes, releasing their contents.

Despite the cosmetic industry’s hype, nanotechnology is already hitting some unexpected snags. European consumers have reacted with alarm, much as they did in response to genetically engineered foods, dubbed “Frankenfoods.” The cosmetics industry should not be surprised if European campaigns and boycotts of “Frankencreams” follow.

Some developments that may herald this trend:

• A nanoproduct aerosol bathroom spray was recalled by German health authorities in 2006 after eighty people reported severe respiratory problems. Six people were hospitalized with fluid in their lungs.

• The International Center for Technology Assessment, together with a range of other organizations, petitioned the FDA in 2006 to monitor products containing nanoparticles—including more than 100 cosmetics and sunblocks—for their toxic effects. This petition was filed in conjunction with the release of a comprehensive report on the dangers of nano-cosmetics by Friends of the Earth.¹⁷

• A British health agency issued a report in 2004 urging that nanoparticles be considered “new chemicals under European and U.K. legislation.”¹⁸ As such, they would be subject to safety testing by an independent safety committee before they could be used in cosmetics and other consumer products.

• A 2006 report, “Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies,” commissioned by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, featured former Deputy FDA Commissioner Michael Taylor criticizing the ability of his former agency to regulate nanotechnology: “Unless the FDA addresses potential nanotechnology risks now, public confidence in a host of valuable nanotechnology-based products could be undermined ... There are important gaps in FDA’s legal authority that hamper its ability to understand and manage nanotechnology’s potential risks, (particularly) in the area of cosmetics ... and in the oversight of products once they reach the market.” Taylor’s criticisms were strongly supported by activist groups, notably the Consumers Union and the Organic Consumers Association.

The FDA issued a statement in 2007 that it would not require any special labeling or regulations for nanoparticles added to cosmetics because, the Agency claimed, there was no scientific evidence of any major safety risks. But to the contrary, there is now more than enough evidence to demonstrate that nanoparticles pose serious and irreversible health hazards. Under no circumstances should nanoparticle cosmetics be evaluated in humans, let alone be further commercialized, until thorough toxicological investigations have been undertaken by industry and rigorously evaluated by independent experts.

Led by the International Center for Technology Assessment, a group of consumer and environmental groups filed a petition in early 2008 with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requesting the regulation of more than 200 consumer products that contain nanoparticles of antimicrobial silver to kill germs. These nano-sized particles of silver are considered lethal to beneficial and harmful microbes both. The petition asked that the nanoparticles of silver be treated as a type of new pesticide, a regulatory category that would require safety analysis and oversight before products containing them could be released to the public. The FDA had not responded as of this writing.

Nature Provides Sunscreen Options

Research into sun care products that utilize natural active ingredients has advanced rapidly over the past decade. This new generation of ingredients mined from nature may actually protect body cells from UV radiation damage rather than just blocking or absorbing the rays as conventional sunblocks and sunscreens do.

Some examples of this welcome trend:

• Broccoli extract contains a chemical called sulforaphane that may reduce UV damage by up to 37.7 percent, based on findings from a study in 2007 conducted at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. This chemical stimulates the cell’s own protective mechanisms to inhibit the activation of carcinogens. It also continues to support the cell’s innate protective system for several days after the extract dissipates from the body.

• Black tea, with its antioxidant components, seems to have the ability to help repair skin damage from UV exposure. Research published in an October 2007 issue of the International Journal of Cosmetic Science reported that when an extract from black tea leaves was topically applied to skin that was then exposed to UV radiation, burning was prevented, apparently because the extract absorbed the UVB rays within cells, protecting DNA against damage from sun exposure.

• Scientists at Israeli Biotechnology Research, a private company that investigates natural non-toxic ingredients for cosmetics, released experimental results in 2007 showing how the carotenoids phytoene and phytofluene provide double protection against UV radiation by limiting free radical damage and absorbing the more damaging rays. Carotenoids are a class of 600 or so natural fat-soluble pigments found primarily in plants. The most publicized is carotene, from carrots.

• Risks of melanoma can be reduced, to a limited degree, by the addition of vitamin E to sunscreens. Of interest in this connection is evidence that a skin lotion spiked with caffeine or green tea extract, containing the antioxidant EGCG (epigallo-catechin-3-gallate), reduced the risk of skin cancer in hairless mice following repeated exposure to high levels of UVB radiation.¹⁹ The protective effects of caffeine, however, were shown to be a result of its ability to induce cell suicide among sunburn-damaged cells, technically known as “apoptosis,” rather than its effectiveness as a sunscreen.

• Soyscreen, a combination of two natural plant ingredients, ferulic acid and soybean oil, has been reported to be a highly effective “green” sunscreen and was licensed by the USDA in 2005. It also has the advantage of being water resistant. Another natural plant ingredient, gamma oryzanol, from rice bran, is an effective, safe sunscreen as well as a sunblock.²⁰^,²¹

Sunscreen Regulations

On August 23, 2007, the FDA proposed new regulations for the informative labeling of sunscreens. Almost a year later, however, they had still remained pending.

In response to the FDA’s inaction and mounting concerns about SPF, Connecticut attorney general Richard Blumenthal wrote to the FDA on July 24, 2008, criticizing its failure to regulate the sunscreen industry and prevent it from making “dangerously misleading claims” about the safety and effectiveness of its products. A week later, Senators Jack Reed and Christopher Dodd introduced the “Sunscreen Labeling Act of 2008.” The Act was introduced into the Senate for ratification in 2009, and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Further action is still pending.

Table 12: Toxic Ingredients in Sunscreens and Sunblocks

INGREDIENT	TOXIC EFFECT(S)
Benzophenone-3	Penetration enhancer, hormone disrupter, and allergen
Octyl-methoxycinnamate (OMC)	Penetration enhancer and hor mone disrupter
Oxybenzone	Hormone disrupter
Nanoparticles (“micro-fine,” “ultra-fine”)	Penetration enhancers
Parabens	Hormone disrupters

Safe Products and Ingredients for Sun Worshippers

SUNSCREEN

There are no safe sunscreen products on the market.

Mexoryl SX is a combination sunblock and sunscreen said to achieve protection against UVB rays with an SPF of about 90, which if true would make it more effective than any other sunscreen currently being sold.

SUNBLOCK

Zinc oxide and titanium oxide are safe and effective sunblock ingredients, and most common sunblock products contain these substances. Be aware, however, that nanoparticle versions of these ingredients have not been fully tested, and evidence points to potential negative health effects. The presence of nanoparticles is sometimes indicated by the words “ultra-fine” or “micro-fine” but often is not indicated on labels at all.

Burt’s Bees Chemical-Free Sunscreen^b

Active ingredient: titanium dioxide (8.58 percent) Inactive ingredients: water, cannabis sativa (hemp) seed oil, glycerin, stearic acid, fragrance, helianthus annuus (sunflower) seed oil, hydrated silica, sucrose distearate, calendula officinalis (calendula) flower extract, crataegus oxyacanthus (hawthorn) stem extract, hamamelis virginiana (witch hazel) extract, hydrastis canadensis (golden seal) extract, symphtum officinale (comfrey) extract, rosmarinus officinalis (rosemary) leaf extract, alginic acid, acacia senegal gum, xanthan gum, beta carotene, sucrose stearate, lecithin, aluminium hydroxide, sodium borate, glucose, sodium chloride, canola oil, glucose oxidase, lactoperoxidase

www.burtsbees.com

CLOTHING

Solumbra

A sun-protective line of clothing created by Shaun Hughes after he was diagnosed with malignant melanoma. Solumbra offers swimsuits and everyday-wear clothing for people of all ages, with 97 percent protection from both UVA and UVB rays.

What Sunscreens Do

What Sunscreens Don’t Do

More Problems with Sunscreens

Why Are Nanoparticles in Sun Protection Products?

An Emerging Regulatory Nightmare