Cancer Council Australia

Join our network

Facebook Twitter Google+
Pinterest Youtube RSS

Subscribe by email

To stay updated on the latest news and information released, simply type in your address below and click subscribe.

Enter your email address:

 
Larger Text Smaller Text Print

How worried should we be about nanoparticles in sunscreen?

Terry Slevin
22 August 2012


We have known for more than 30 years that excessive sun exposure increases skin cancer risk.

Research published in 1999 showed that systematic use of sunscreen in an adult Queensland population (the “Nambour study”) reduced the incidence of squamous cell carcinoma, the second most common form of the disease, by about 40% and in 2003 they showed sunscreen use retarded the growth of solar keratosis. An analysis published in 2011 after longer follow-up of the same study population found sunscreen use helped prevent melanoma.

In 2009, environmental activist organisation, Friends of the Earth (FOE), commenced a campaign raising concerns about the possible adverse effects of the nanoparticles used in some sunscreens. They suggested that micronising metal particles such as zinc oxide and titanium dioxide – useful ingredients of sunscreens seeking to protect against UVA and UVB radiation because they reflect the Ultraviolet (UV) radiation – may allow those ingredients to penetrate bodily organs and so increase cancer risk.

FOE states that: “The long-term health risks of nanoparticles remain poorly understood. The likely exposure in ‘real life’ conditions is also unknown” – but goes on to warn of various possible and serious adverse health effects - largely based on studies in mice.
Data released on Wednesday (8 Feb) by the Australian Government’s Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education suggest that the FOE campaign is having some impact. In a survey of 1000 people, about a third had heard of the possible risks of using sunscreen.

However, the more concerning finding was that rather than switching to a sunscreen that didn’t contain nanoparticles, 13% of that group said they were likely to reduce or stop their use of any sunscreen. That translates to 4% of Australians choosing to reduce or stop using sunscreen altogether, a figure that you expect will increase as more Australians see reports in the media highlighting concerns about nanoparticles in sunscreen.

The truth is - no one can say with certainty whether possible adverse health effects due to using nanoparticles in sunscreens are real - but neither can we say with certainty that they don’t exist. “Proving a negative” is extremely difficult.

While uncertainty exists, if there is a possibility of any long-term harm, it seems reasonable that sunscreens are labelled as to whether they contain nanoparticles. This at least allows consumers to make their own choice about what they believe and whether to use it or not.

On the balance of available evidence – the research suggesting sunscreen is beneficial in reducing the burden of skin cancer in Australia is very clear and convincing. The research suggesting harm from nanoparticles in sunscreen is, at best, speculative.

It is important to understand that the Nambour study referred to above was conducted in the 1990s – before nanoparticles were a part of sunscreen formulation. So unfortunately that study does not enlighten this debate.

The Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration review in 2009 of this issue concluded that the potential for titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreens to cause adverse effects depends on the ability of the nanoparticles to reach living skin cells.

So far, the current weight of evidence suggests that titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles do not reach living skin cells; rather, they remain on the surface of the skin and in the outer layer of the skin that is composed primarily of dead cells.

A key question is whether people reducing their use of sunscreen would result in more cases of skin cancer. If this is an (inadvertent) outcome of the FOE campaign, it would be tragic and a major setback to cancer prevention efforts.

Cancer Council has led the charge to reduce skin cancer risk in Australia for more than 30 years and has gone as far as influencing the retailing of sun protection products – including sunscreen – by becoming an active part of the industry. But what Cancer Council is about is reducing the burden of cancer in the Australia community. If any credible evidence was available to suggest adverse effects of sunscreen we’d be working hard to ensure all sun protection products were as safe as they can be and we’d be making lots of noise about any such problems.

In circumstances of scientific uncertainty around public health problems, good quality reliable research is the best way to guide our decisions. When that is a slower process than we would all like – sensible and responsible public debate is legitimate and important.

Avoiding hyperbole and scare tactics is wise. To retain our credibility with the community we serve, we must make every effort to give the best possible balanced advice and be as true as we can to the interpretation of the science. After that everyone needs to decide what they believe and make the best choice for themselves and their families.

Further information:
TGA monitoring of nanoparticles in sunscreens



Top

Comments (4)

  1. michael:
    Jan 04, 2013 at 10:36 AM

    seems funny only some elderly people ever got skin cancer when i was young and melanoma ware the rarest type of cancer in the world, now with sunscreens teenagers and even babies are getting skin cancer, when you read all the toxic ingredients in sunscreens many that proved carcinogens no wonder we have such a high rate of skin cancer, its all about the money.

  2. Franco:
    Mar 05, 2013 at 11:19 AM

    Michael, where's the evidence to back up what you say? All the research I've seen indicates the opposite to your view re sunscreen. Yes, melanoma is more apparent particularly in Australia, but have you even stopped to consider the environmental issues associated with that increase e.g. depleted ozone, pollution, food/nutrition... and to imply that the Cancer Council is all about the money, which you have done in the way you worded your comment given they also sell cheaply/supply free... I seriously think you are barking up the wrong tree!

  3. Dr Malcolm Nearn BSc PhD:
    Apr 03, 2013 at 10:26 AM

    Friends of the Earth have expressed concerns that nanoparticles in certain sunscreens may penetrate human skin and generate free radicals. I would like to point out that if you don't wear a sunscreen and you are exposed to the sun, free radicals WILL be generated in the skin. The UVA part of the sun's rays damages DNA and other tissues by forming free radicals. Nano zinc oxide absorbs evenly over the whole spectrum of UVB and UVA up to about 375nm, and is proven to be highly protective against sunburn and UVA damage.

    I am a founder member of Standards Australia's sunscreen committee, and co-author of a number of scientific research papers in collaboration with scientists at the University of Sydney.

  4. John Hunter:
    Jun 12, 2013 at 12:57 PM

    Most of the support for sunscreen comes from Australia where UV levels go sky high in summer - this advice does not really apply elsewhere. The Earth’s orbit is elliptical and Australia is closer to the sun during their summer whereas the UK is farther away –making our climate milder. This wouldn’t be a problem of course if it wasn’t for the fact that Australia is full of white people that shouldn’t really be there. It’s not a problem for the indigenous population –Aborigines don’t need or use sunscreen.

    So the point is that people have light skin for one reason and one reason alone. We are white because we need exposure to sun and in accordance with the theory of evolution by natural selection, darker skinned people suffered from poor Vitamin D and died out from northern latitudes.

    Surely a suntan is your best protection.

This thread has been closed from taking new comments.