Cosmetic Surgery and Beauty Magazine #66

feature
The case against
In 2006, eight non-government organisations in the US filed a petition
with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The paper called for
action, urging the agency to ‘declare all current available sunscreen drug
products containing engineered nanoparticles of zinc oxide and titanium
dioxide as an imminent hazard to public health.’
In Australia, a similar movement followed, with non-profit and nongovernment
groups such as Friends of the Earth leading the way. Concern
was fuelled when, in 2008, certain titanium dioxide particles were found
to destroy the paint coating in Bluescope steel and Colourbond roofing.
This was followed by research in 2010, which deemed titanium dioxide
capable of destroying virtually any organic matter. Understandably, these
findings led scientists to ponder the effects such destructive properties
could have if the sunscreen particles were to breach the skin’s outer
layers and impact live dermal cells.
A study by Dai Tran and Robert Salmon, published in the Australasian
Journal of Dermatology, explains that, while larger particles of titanium
dioxide and zinc oxide work to reflect UV radiation in sunscreens,
nanoparticles have the opposite effect. By absorbing UV radiation, as
opposed to reflecting it, nanoparticles release ‘reactive oxygen species’
into the skin, or free radicals with the capacity to alter the DNA in
live cells.
‘If we want to introduce new technology into sunblocks, the
people that are attempting to do that, or the manufacturers, need to
prove that they don’t cause problems,’ co-author Robert Salmon told
the ABC. ‘I would want the labelling such that the people
knew whether there were nanoparticles in these preparations or not
so that the consumers could make some sort of informed choice
by themselves.’
Similarly, a paper by Friends of the Earth Australia and endorsed
by the Public Health Association Australia, cites peer-reviewed articles
in stating some nanoparticles in Australian sunscreens ‘aggressively
produce free radicals that can damage DNA and skin cells.’
Claiming the penetration of reactive nanoparticles into the skin could
worsen the effect of sun damage, the paper criticises the lack of research
into topical sunscreen penetration to the dermis, particularly in people
with damaged skin, for example with eczema or acne. Finally, it calls
upon the Australia Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) to subject
nanoparticle sunscreens to further scrutiny and assessment.
www.cosbeauty.com.au 91