Holidaying feds leave bathers waiting for suspect sunscreen list
Melissa Fyfe
December 28, 2008
AS YOU head to the beach this summer, perhaps you would like to know which sunscreens may be toxic and which may not?
Well, bad luck. The Federal Health Department has also gone on holidays and cannot provide a list of creams that contain nanoparticles, a technology that has attracted criticism lately.
The tricky thing for sunscreen makers is this: the two key sun-blocking ingredients, titanium dioxide and zinc oxide, come in relatively big particles not easily rubbed into the skin.
Since 1990, makers have pulverised them into nanoparticles 1000 times smaller than the width of a human hair or 200 times smaller than a blood cell. This gets rid of the white residue.
But laboratory tests have established that nanoparticles of metal oxides can penetrate cells and damage DNA.
A NSW parliamentary inquiry recently concluded that nano versions of existing chemicals should be assessed as new chemicals and recommended that "ingredient labelling requirements for sunscreens and cosmetics include the identification of nano-scale materials".
Several Australian academics, including Tom Faunce, from the ANU's law and medical school, and CSIRO scientist Maxine McCall, who is leading a team on nano safety, have highlighted how little is known about nanotechnology's health effects.
Dr Faunce is concerned the tiny particles could get inside cells through creases or dead or damaged skin. He said it was unclear how much the particles accumulated in the body.
Dr McCall, who is testing nanoparticle sunscreens on people to see how they get absorbed during outdoor use, told the ABC's 7.30 Report recently there was potential for the nanoparticles to interact with proteins or DNA in the cell.
"Yes, the worst-case scenario, I suspect, could be the development of cancer," she said. "But we don't know. That's what we are trying to find out."
In Australia there is no requirement for sunscreen makers to label nanotechnology products.
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) says sunscreens with nanotechnology have been used safely in Australia since 1990 and "the risks of excessive sun exposure are well documented and outweigh the proven theoretical risks related to nanoparticles".
Department spokeswoman Kay McNeice said that while sunscreen makers had to declare use of nanoparticles, the TGA would not be able to go through all 1200 sunscreen products to provide a list because the department closed at 3pm last Wednesday and would not open again until January 5.
The Sunday Age asked for a list last Tuesday.
Ms McNeice said the Federal Government "was looking closely at the recommendations of the NSW parliamentary inquiry".
Friends of the Earth's Georgia Miller said the TGA's response was disappointing given that Christmas holidays were a peak sunscreen-using time.
"The TGA should make an effort to provide this information in a transparent way in the new year so that for the rest of summer Australians are in a position to make an informed choice about whether to buy sunscreens with nanoparticles in them," Ms Miller said.
The TGA estimates about 70 per cent of sunscreens with titanium dioxide and 30 per cent with zinc oxide have these materials in a nanoparticle form.
Meanwhile, BlueScope Steel has recommended its workers avoid some sunscreens after hand and finger-shaped damage was detected on some steel products.
It seems installers had left nanoparticle sunscreens on the steel and in six weeks it caused damage equal to 15 years' weather damage.
Melissa Fyfe
December 28, 2008
AS YOU head to the beach this summer, perhaps you would like to know which sunscreens may be toxic and which may not?
Well, bad luck. The Federal Health Department has also gone on holidays and cannot provide a list of creams that contain nanoparticles, a technology that has attracted criticism lately.
The tricky thing for sunscreen makers is this: the two key sun-blocking ingredients, titanium dioxide and zinc oxide, come in relatively big particles not easily rubbed into the skin.
Since 1990, makers have pulverised them into nanoparticles 1000 times smaller than the width of a human hair or 200 times smaller than a blood cell. This gets rid of the white residue.
But laboratory tests have established that nanoparticles of metal oxides can penetrate cells and damage DNA.
A NSW parliamentary inquiry recently concluded that nano versions of existing chemicals should be assessed as new chemicals and recommended that "ingredient labelling requirements for sunscreens and cosmetics include the identification of nano-scale materials".
Several Australian academics, including Tom Faunce, from the ANU's law and medical school, and CSIRO scientist Maxine McCall, who is leading a team on nano safety, have highlighted how little is known about nanotechnology's health effects.
Dr Faunce is concerned the tiny particles could get inside cells through creases or dead or damaged skin. He said it was unclear how much the particles accumulated in the body.
Dr McCall, who is testing nanoparticle sunscreens on people to see how they get absorbed during outdoor use, told the ABC's 7.30 Report recently there was potential for the nanoparticles to interact with proteins or DNA in the cell.
"Yes, the worst-case scenario, I suspect, could be the development of cancer," she said. "But we don't know. That's what we are trying to find out."
In Australia there is no requirement for sunscreen makers to label nanotechnology products.
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) says sunscreens with nanotechnology have been used safely in Australia since 1990 and "the risks of excessive sun exposure are well documented and outweigh the proven theoretical risks related to nanoparticles".
Department spokeswoman Kay McNeice said that while sunscreen makers had to declare use of nanoparticles, the TGA would not be able to go through all 1200 sunscreen products to provide a list because the department closed at 3pm last Wednesday and would not open again until January 5.
The Sunday Age asked for a list last Tuesday.
Ms McNeice said the Federal Government "was looking closely at the recommendations of the NSW parliamentary inquiry".
Friends of the Earth's Georgia Miller said the TGA's response was disappointing given that Christmas holidays were a peak sunscreen-using time.
"The TGA should make an effort to provide this information in a transparent way in the new year so that for the rest of summer Australians are in a position to make an informed choice about whether to buy sunscreens with nanoparticles in them," Ms Miller said.
The TGA estimates about 70 per cent of sunscreens with titanium dioxide and 30 per cent with zinc oxide have these materials in a nanoparticle form.
Meanwhile, BlueScope Steel has recommended its workers avoid some sunscreens after hand and finger-shaped damage was detected on some steel products.
It seems installers had left nanoparticle sunscreens on the steel and in six weeks it caused damage equal to 15 years' weather damage.
