Tag Archives: sunscreens

Sunscreen season and the latest from the Environmental Working Group

Last year (July 9, 2009), I wrote about the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and their meta-analysis of the studies conducted on the use of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreens. Much to the EWG’s surprise, they gave the sunscreens with nanoparticles a passing grade. The EWG still examines sunscreens and, according to an article by Ariel Schwartz on the Fast Company site, have some concerns,

Sunscreen is supposed to protect us from cancer, but a new report from the Environmental Working Group claims that many products don’t do what they’re supposed to. Some sunscreens contains ingredients that might even trigger skin tumors and lesions, according to the EWG’s 2010 Sunscreen Guide.

This year’s problem (from the EWG site),

A surge in exaggerated SPF claims above 50 and new disclosures about potentially hazardous ingredients, in particular recently developed government data linking the common sunscreen ingredient vitamin A to accelerated development of skin tumors and lesions.

If you plan to spend some time investigating  the EWG’s report on sunscreens, be prepared to receive a request to sign up (but it’s not required) before viewing the report.

Nanotechnology, risk, science literacy and feelings; Canada’s Science and Technology Week 2009

The Swiss-based Innovation Society has waded into the discussion about nanoparticles and sunscreens  in the wake of the Friends of the Earth (FOE) report (mentioned here yesterday August 20, 2009).

They point out something I forgot. Despite disagreeing on the “risk  profile,” both the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and FOE advise that nanomaterials should be labelled so that consumers can make informed choices,  (I’m not sure if I’ve seen the phrase risk profile or if I just coined it but I hope it makes sense in this context.) You can read about the Innovation Society’s perspective in their media release on Nanowerk News where they also offer links to the society’s August 2009 newsletter. You have to register to receive it and the form is in German as is the page which houses the public portion of the August 2009 newsletter. So, I’m not sure what language the newsletter is written in although most of what I saw on their site is in English.

As this last week has featured a published study about two women workers who died due to nanoparticle exposure and the FOE report, I’ve been reminded of the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School (mentioned here on this blog last week). One of the conclusions in the paper I read about nanotechnology and risk is that people will make judgments about emerging technologies quickly, with little information, and in line with their feelings (affect), and cultural values. In the experimental investigation they found that increasing scientific literacy (i.e. giving the respondents more factual information about nanotechnology) did nothing or very little to alter someone’s opinion once it was formed.

I can agree with this conclusion as far as it goes. I’ve observed the same process of adhering to an opinion despite any evidence to the contrary in myself and others. I noted yesterday that the FOE report did not mention the EWG findings which, in my opinion, damages their credibility and bears out the conclusions made by the team at the Cultural Cognition Project.

There is one thing which niggles at me. Technologies have emerged before, e.g. electricity. At the time, during the 19th century, it was highly contested (do take a look at Carolyn Marvin’s book, When Old Technologies were New) . Very inflammatory language was used; all kinds of “experts” emerged; scientists engaged in lots of public outreach; there were deaths and injuries; and there were predictions that life on earth would end.  Seems familiar, doesn’t it? Still, electricity has become ubiquitous for much of the world. If cultural values and feelings trump science literacy, how did electricity become ubiquitous?

The Cultural Cognition Project team seemed to suggest in their paper that once opinions have been formed they are largely intractable. If that’s so, regardless of which group’s narrative gains dominance wouldn’t the other group continue to resist? (Note: the Amish opted out from using electricity.) History tells us otherwise.

I am getting ready for my presentation at the International Symposium on Electronic Arts (ISEA) so y9u may find that my posting schedule is interrupted. Happy weekend and here are a few final nuggets,

The Government of Canada, in the person of Rona Ambrose, Minister of Labour, has recognized Quantium Technologies (Edmonton, Alberta) for its innovation in the areas of “linking scientific research to commercialization, jobs and economic growth.” More can be found  in the media release on Nanowerk News.

Nanowerk News has also published a guide to the materials on their site, 10 things you should know about nanotechology. I highly recommend checking this out. Go here.

Canada’s 2009 Science and Technology Week will take place Oct. 16 – 25, 2009 (seems more like 10 days to me). You can check out the currently scheduled events (I’m sure this will be updated) for your province here,

There’s an interesting  story about the first copyright trial in 6th Century Ireland here on Techdirt.

Friends of the Earth and sunscreens; update on RUSNANO

In a bit of interesting timing given that it’s on the heels of the publication of a study about two tragic deaths which are being attributed to exposure to nanoparticles, the Friends of the Earth (FOE) organization has released a report titled Nano-Sunscreens: Not Worth the Risk.The media release can be found on Azonano or Nanowerk News.

I have read the report (very quickly) and noted that they do not cite or mention the recently released report on the same topic by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) which stated that after an extensive review of the literature, there was no evidence that the titanium dioxide or zinc oxide nanoparticles used in sunscreens were dangerous. (posting here).

Shortly after the EWG report’s release, a new study (which I mentioned here … if you are inclined, do read the comments as some additional points about reading research critically are brought out)  suggested concerns based on the work of researchers in Japan.  The new study from Japan is cited in the Friends of the Earth report.

While the overall tone of the FOE report is fairly mild (they suggest precaution) they cite only a few studies supporting their concern and they damage their credibility (in my book) by ignoring a report from a well respected group that reluctantly admitted that there is no real cause for concern about nanoparticles in sunscreens based on the current evidence. FOE didn’t have to agree with the EWG’s conclusions but some counter-argument or discussion suggests that they don’t have a counter-argument or that they will ignore any opinions, and in the EWG case it’s based on evidence, contrary to their own.

More about this tomorrow when I tie it into science literacy, critical thinking, affect (feelings), and values.

Meanwhile, RUSNANO (Russian Corporation of Nanotechnologies) has announced $1.25B US  (40billion rubles) of investment will be approved this year. I blogged (here) about RUSNANO when their executives visited Canada with an eye to investing in Canadian nanotechnology companies. I will be eagerly waiting to find out if RUSNANO has followed up with investments in Canadian nanotechnology.

Flies carry nanoparticles; EPA invites comments; scientific collaboration in virtual worlds

A new study is suggesting that flies exposed to nanoparticles in manufacturing areas or other places with heavy concentrations could accumulate the particles on their bodies and transport them elsewhere. From the media release on Nanowerk News,

During the experiments, the researchers noted that contaminated flies transferred nanoparticles to other flies, and realized that such transfer could also occur between flies and humans in the future. The transfer involved very low levels of nanoparticles, which did not have adverse effects on the fruit flies.

It makes perfect sense when you think about it. Flies pick up and transport all manner of entities so why wouldn’t they pick up nanoparticles in their vicinity?

In other news, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has asked for comments on case studies of nanoscale titanium dioxide in water treatment and sunscreens. Presumably you have to be a US citizen to participate. For more information on the call for comments, check out this item on Nanowerk News. From the item,

EPA is announcing a 45-day public comment period for the draft document, Nanomaterial Case Studies: Nanoscale Titanium Dioxide in Water Treatment and Topical Sunscreen (External Review Draft), as announced in the July 31, 2009 Federal Register Notice. The deadline for comments is September 14, 2009.

Yesterday, I came across an announcement about scientific collaboration in a virtual world (specifically Second Life). It’s the first professional scientific organization, Meta Institute for Computational Astrophysics (MICA), based entirely in a virtual world.

This idea contrasts somewhat with the NanoLands concept from the National Physical Laboratory in the UK where an organization with a physical location creates a virtual location. (You can see my interview with Troy McConaghy, part of the original NanoLands design team, here.)  The project blog seems to have been newly revived and you can find out more about NanoLands and their latest machinima movies. (If you want to see the machinima, you need a Second Life account.)

What I found particularly interesting about MICA is this bit from their media release on Physorg.com,

In addition to getting people together in a free and convenient way, virtual worlds can offer new possibilities for scientific visualization or “visual analytics.” As data sets become larger and more complex, visualization can help researchers better understand different phenomena. Virtual worlds not only offer visualization, but also enable researchers to become immersed in data and simulations, which may help scientists think differently about data and patterns. Multi-dimensional data visualization can provide further advantages for certain types of data. The researchers found that they can encode data in spaces with up to 12 dimensions, although they run into the challenge of getting the human mind to easily grasp the encoded content.

Shades of multimodal discourse! More tomorrow.

Nanoparticles in sunscreens and other places

Whodathunkit? Sunscreens with titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles are safer and more effective than the sunscreens without them. Thanks to Andrew Maynard at 2020 Science there’s an overview of the results, the study, and, most importantly, the source for the study’s report. Maynard (chief science advisor for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies) also offers a few comments about environmental and health concerns and the need for more research into the use of nanoparticles in cosmetic/beauty products.

The EWG (Environmental Working Group) is, according to Maynard, not usually friendly to industry and they had this to say about their own predisposition prior to reviewing the data (from EWG),

When we began our sunscreen investigation at the Environmental Working Group, our researchers thought we would ultimately recommend against micronized and nano-sized zinc oxide and titanium dioxide sunscreens. After all, no one has taken a more expansive and critical look than EWG at the use of nanoparticles in cosmetics and sunscreens, including the lack of definitive safety data and consumer information on these common new ingredients, and few substances more dramatically highlight gaps in our system of public health protections than the raw materials used in the burgeoning field of nanotechnology. But many months and nearly 400 peer-reviewed studies later, we find ourselves drawing a different conclusion, and recommending some sunscreens that may contain nano-sized ingredients.

There is a proviso to their evaluation and it’s standard science talk. The conclusion is based on the current evidence, which means that someone might or might not discover a problem tomorrow.

I commented about an article on sunscreens, which covered some material about nanoparticle concerns, in a fashion magazine here.

Meanwhile, the concern over silver nanoparticles continues. The Australian branch of Friends of the Earth (FOE) has issued a report urging caution. From the Australian Broadcasting Corporation article by Anna Saleh

Associate Professor Tom Faunce, an expert in the medical and regulatory aspects of nanotechnology at the Australian National University in Canberra says because nano-silver is very useful in medicine, he does not support the call for a total moratorium on nano-silver.

But he thinks there does need to be some restraint on its use.

“There is accumulating evidence now that if nano-silver use is left unrestrained and it enters the waterways in large amounts, this will be dangerous to the environment,” says Faunce.

I am relieved to hear about the nanoparticles in sunscreens and not surprised about the caution regarding silver nanoparticles. After scanning the internet for information about nanotechnology over the last 2.5 years or so, there are two major areas of concern (from my neophyte’s perspective), silver nanoparticles and carbon nanotubes (the ones that resemble asbestos fibres).

Regardless of the EWG’s conclusions, I’m pretty sure there are people out there who will reject the findings because they don’t like the idea of nanoparticles in anything, anywhere, anytime.

Tomorrow a little nano haiku courtesy of NISE network.