Ocean safety and sunscreen ingredients

Ocean safety and sunscreen ingredients

Sunscreen, Ingredients, SPF

Think you know all about reef safety, coral bleaching and reef safe products? You might be surprised. Click here to read our overview blog – Reef safe products – crisis or con?

What’s it all about?

  • Where contamination is unavoidable, use chemicals that are ecologically safe to minimise harm
  • Non ecologically safe sunscreen actives include all forms of Zinc Oxide (which are incorrectly believed to be reef safe), along with Octocrylene, Octyl Salicylate and Benzophenone-3 (Oxybenzone)
  • Protective clothing and minimising sunscreen use can help minimise the impact on oceans
  • Highly water resistant sunscreens help minimise unwanted contamination of the ocean environment

Zinc Oxide – not all it’s cracked up to be?

In this blog it’s discussed where the claims of ‘reef safe’ products and chemicals originated; a US-based environmental laboratory undertaking experimental research that aimed to directly link a sunscreen active to coral bleaching.

Contrary to the laboratories suggestion that ‘non nano’ Zinc Oxide is a non marine pollutant, and by association, non coral bleaching (somehow excluding nanoparticles), there is research that suggests uncoated Zinc Oxide can contribute to coral bleaching and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) aquatic hazard classification categorised Zinc Oxide as being very toxic to marine life with long lasting effects.

Primary vs secondary particles sizing 

The laboratory implies that ‘non nano’ Zinc Oxide(i.e. larger than 100 nm in size) is miraculously safe as compared to ‘nano’ Zinc Oxide (i.e. less than 100 nm in size), as one may expect, safety and toxicity associated with ‘small’ and ‘smaller’ is unlikely to be that black and white (101nm is ok?). 

The vast majority of sunscreen grade Zinc Oxide have what we refer to as ‘primary particles’ that are nano in size, which is what makes them highly effective sunscreens. It is these primary particles that then form tightly held, larger aggregates which are referred to as the ‘secondary particle’ that by definition makes them non nano (despite being nano).

Beyond ‘reef safe’ to ‘ocean safe’

Over the past decade, consumers have increased their focus on carbon footprints, global warming and harm minimisation for future generations. 

Whilst the concern that sunscreens are impacting reefs is likely to be largely unwarranted, in the context of global warming and increasing ocean temperatures, we should continue to minimise our impact on oceans which of course affects  other marine life including fish, crustaceans, molluscs etc, particularly in areas that have a rich ecosystem, which is often around reefs.

 

How do we protect ourselves and the oceans?

Whilst we must care for the environment and do everything we can to minimise unnecessary damage, we need to also protect ourselves.  The harm sunscreens may cause to coral reefs is not well defined, in contrast, the harm not wearing sunscreen causes to humans is undeniable and we must find a balance. 

Some suggestions include:

  • Swim in a pool and not in the ocean if possible. Whilst pool water will be contaminated and eventually end up in the sewer system, the treatment process can be expected to remove contaminants with effluent kept away from beaches and reefs
  • If swimming in beaches, pick ones away from reefs and other rich ecosystems
  • Wear protective clothing (high UPF long sleeve rash vests, hats etc) to minimise the amount of skin requiring sunscreen
  • Do not automatically go for ‘mineral’, ‘natural’ and ‘non-nano’ sunscreens which are often perceived as safest
  • Use an eco-friendly sunscreen, avoid anything with Zinc Oxide, Octocrylene, Benzophenone-3 and Octyl Salicylate
  • Ensure the sunscreen has the maximum water resistance possible, an Australian-made 4hr water resistant sunscreen is always preferable over an 80 minute resistance

 

What is an eco-friendly sunscreen?

Although the majority of sunscreens are perfectly fine for everyday use in and around a pool, when selecting sunscreens to use in lakes, rivers and beaches, we should avoid sunscreens that use active ingredients associated with eco toxicity where possible, using the ECHA classifications as a guide. 

ECHA eco toxicity classifications of sunscreen active ingredients

HIGH RISK

  • Zinc Oxide
  • Octocrylene
  • Octyl Salicylate
  • Benzophenone-3 (Oxybenzone)

LOW RISK

  • Octyl Triazone
  • Octyl Methoxycinnamate (Octinoxate)
  • 4-Methylbenzylidene Camphor

Instead, focus on ingredients that haven’t been associated with causing toxicity or have otherwise negligible levels of risk.

POSSIBLE RISK

  • Methylene Bis-Benzotriazolyl Tetramethylbutylphenol
  • Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl Benzoate

NEGLIGIBLE RISK

  • Titanium dioxide
  • Phenylbenzimidazole Sulfonic Acid
  • Homosalate
  • Avobenzone
  • Bis-Ethylhexyloxyphenol Methoxyphenyl Triazine 
  • Tris Biphenyl Triazine 

The EcoSun Pass

EcoSun is a proprietary system developed by global leader in sunscreen chemical development and the world’s largest chemical producer, BASF. The EcoSun system quantifies the environmental safety of sunscreen actives and their usage concentrations based on a variety of factors including:

  • Acute aquatic toxicity
  • Chronic aquatic toxicity
  • Biodegradability
  • Bioaccumulation
  • Endocrine suspicion
  • Terrestrial toxicity
  • Sediment toxicity

To achieve EcoSun Pass certification, BASF set a target score of >200 however, the algorithm and combination of the above factors is proprietary and therefore unknown. 

An example of how the EcoSun system works; at a 10% dosage of a single sunscreen chemical, the ‘high risk’ ingredients score poorly; Zinc Oxide a paltry ‘37’, Octocrylene, Octyl Salicylate ‘0’ and Benzophenone ‘77’. In contrast, the negligible risk ingredients score far better; Bemotrizinol ‘302’, Titanium Dioxide ‘148’ (still not as good as some modern synthetic chemicals) and Tris-Biphenyl Triazine ‘189’.

We did find a minor flaw in the algorithm logic, where we would assume using less of any chemical ingredient would be better for the environment and result in a higher score, or at a minimum, have the same score regardless of dose which enables a EcoSun rating against active concentration. Unfortunately, in some cases the system appears to encourage higher usage levels to achieve higher ratings, which is counterintuitive, as the best scores should be as the dosage approaches zero and less actives enter the environment. 

As an example a 50/50 blend of Bemotrizinol and Tris-Biphenyl Triazine:

5% – 268

10% – 285

15% – 300

20% – 312

Admittedly the scores are quite good and all exceed the 200 required for certification however this is not factoring in the resulting SPF. In combination with other sunscreen chemicals, it is perhaps pushing BASF proprietary chemicals and less economical active ingredients.

Oddly, this flaw was corrected when using another active (Avobenzone) and less erratic when looking at others individually, all that aside, this is a great tool.

Avobenzone:

2.5% – 149

5.0% – 98

7.5% – 69

10% – 53

Interestingly, it seems individual ingredients that scored zero, including Octocrylene and Octyl Salicylate, would cause an otherwise favourable combination of ingredients to immediately be scored zero at any combination.

Combining EcoSun value with the BASF sunscreen simulator (which enables in silico estimates of sunscreen performance), a high-performing sunscreen capable of an EcoSun Pass of 238 is feasible using the following sunscreen chemicals:

Titanium Dioxide, Tris Biphenyl Triazine, Phenylbenzimidazole Sulfonic Acid, Butyl Methoxydibenzoylmethane & Bis-Ethylhexyloxyphenol Methoxyphenyl Triazine

The above combination was estimated to achieve an SPF of 62.5 and a UVA-PF of 21.4

An all-mineral formulation based on either Zinc Oxide, Titanium Dioxide or a combination of both are not capable of achieving broad spectrum SPF50+ and an EcoSun value of >200. 

 

Maximise the water resistance and minimise the contamination

Having an entirely waterproof sunscreen would be a solution to the concern of sunscreen chemicals entering waterways. However whilst an entirely waterproof sunscreen may not be practical, some sunscreens are far more resistant to wash off than others, and the ‘water resistance’ claims on packaging only go so far as to communicating how resistant they are.

Australian water resistant sunscreens are on balance more water resistant than their overseas counterparts, as a consequence of how the test results are interpreted to make the claim, but also as a result of higher time periods (80 minutes vs 4 hours). 

Sunscreens that make water resistance claims in Australia are required to maintain the claimed amount of SPF after immersion in water. So if claiming SPF50 and 4hr water resistance, the sunscreen must still be SPF50 after 4 hrs. In contrast, a US or EU SPF50 sunscreen, which can only claim 80 minutes water resistance (1/3rd of what an Australian product can), is permitted to be SPF 25 after 80 minutes. 

What this means in simplistic terms is that half of the sunscreen is allowed to wash off after 80 minutes, potentially it has all washed off after 4 hours, whereas the Australian sunscreen has not washed off at all after that same time period.

Worst-case allowable SPF claims and water resistance

This is a fairly extreme example and there are likely to be European sunscreens that are extraordinarily water resistant by chance rather than design.

Unfortunately, there is currently no measure of water resistance indicating ‘how much will end up in the ocean’, something that could become a feature of future sunscreens or a proven claim relating to ocean safety.

How do I formulate a product?

How do I formulate a product?

So, you have a great idea for a new product, but you aren’t sure what’s next? There are a few steps between a wonderful idea and uploading products to your website or being stocked at your favourite retailer

Reef safe products – crisis or con?

Reef safe products – crisis or con?

Sunscreen, Ingredients, SPF

What’s it all about?

  • The term ‘reef safe’ positions itself alongside coral bleaching, which incorrectly implies that chemicals are the cause of the bleaching
  • Coral bleaching can be caused by a number of factors, however rising ocean temperature is the most likely
  • Whilst some sunscreen chemicals have been associated with coral bleaching, the link is tenuous, regardless of this it clearly it’s preferable to minimise the contamination of beaches and waterways

What is reef safety?

Reef safety is a term used to broadly suggest a product, particularly a sunscreen, is safe for use at beaches and other areas surrounding coral reefs. These claims are based on the questionable belief that some sunscreen active ingredients cause coral bleaching. We say it is questionable as it is associated with observations of coral bleaching in reef areas and the perceived correlation between human activity, sunscreen chemicals in the waterways and the bleaching of coral.

The term “reef safe” has no firm definition and is not regulated by any independent, impartial authority, instead, it is a concept that many brands use at an increasing frequency to differentiate their product in a competitive market.

 

Coral bleaching

Coral bleaching occurs when the coral expels the symbiotic algae that lives within the coral tissue, this algae is responsible for the colouration (zooxanthellae) that’s associated with healthy coral. The algae is expelled as a result of an external stressor in the form of changes in the surrounding environment, including nutrients in the water, light and temperature (but also reportedly associated with sunscreen chemicals).

Coral that has become “bleached” is at risk of dying, yet when the external stressor is not severe or prolonged in nature, the symbiotic algae can return and the coral recovers. In contrast, when the stress is severe and prolonged, the coral which has now become exposed to the stress that the algae had protected it from can then die.

There is evidence of coral bleaching globally, which is a major environmental concern. However, it must be noted that the actual cause is not well understood and is an area of active research.

The term ‘coral bleaching’ can be harshly interpreted. We immediately associate ‘bleaching’ with chemicals used around the home and ‘bleach’ as the adopted term for any chemical that causes whitening. It is for this reason that coral bleach is better referred to as ‘coral decolorisation’ to remove the stigma that inevitably accompanies the word ‘bleach’ because of the understanding that chemicals are not the most likely cause of damage.

Sunscreens have been associated with contributing to coral bleaching, however it is important to understand that coral reefs are threatened by an ever-increasing number of sources. These include climate change and increased ocean temperatures, along with marine-based diseases, coastal development and an array of chemical contaminants from agriculture and other sources.

 

Why increasing ocean temperatures are the most likely cause

During the 20th century water temperatures increased at a rate of 0.08degC every 10 years on average, however average temperatures in shallow coastal regions (where reefs are typical) are likely higher due the effects of sun exposure on the water, changing tides and the associated water depths.

The Great Barrier Reef has been impacted by several bleaching events, most recently in the years 2016, 2017 and 2020. Unlike the beaches of Hawaii, parts of the Great Barrier Reef aren’t exposed to considerable amounts of human activity and are incredibly remote, so to draw a correlation between sunscreen and coral bleaching of this reef is quite the reach.

A report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change advised that coral reefs worldwide are projected to decline by a further 70-90% at a 1.5°C increase in temperature, with greater losses at a 2.0°C increase. Based on the above 0.08degC increases, this means that the 70-90% decline will occur in ~190 years from now and the greater (and presumably final) losses in ~250 years.

 

Why sunscreen is in the firing line

Sunscreens have been linked to coral bleaching, in part, by the unsurprising detection of sunscreen ingredients around swimming beaches and the observation of coral bleaching events in the surrounding reef areas.

The highest rates of detection are in densely populated regions, particularly areas with high levels of tourism in tropical locations where coral reefs are common (Hawaii, Fiji, Australia, Indonesia, the Caribbean etc). Despite measurable amounts of sunscreen chemicals detected in the water surrounding beaches, this does not mean that sunscreens are the cause, this is an example of a spurious correlation – where variables appear to be causal but are not.

The concentrations of sunscreen chemicals detected in sea water vary significantly, however overall, the dosages are incredibly low and in the order of parts per trillion (ng L-1).

The detection of sunscreen chemicals in beaches triggered an entrepreneurial US-based environmental laboratory to undertake experimental research that aimed to directly link a sunscreen active to coral bleaching.

This environmental laboratory then published a questionable research paper indicating that Oxybenzone (Benzophenone-3), contributed to coral bleaching. This finding doesn’t appear to have been replicated by other research laboratories and has been contradicted entirely by others including a study in Bermuda by the Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences in partnership with Scripps Institution of Oceanography – University of California.

The environmental laboratories research does not appear to have been repeated for other purportedly “non reef safe” sunscreen ingredients like Octinoxate (Octyl Methoxycinnamate) or Octocrylene for example, yet the laboratory suggests on their website a wide array of sunscreen actives are harmful, despite not having been tested in the same manner as Oxybenzone, and that other untested actives are miraculously safe.

This environmental laboratory now acts as an authority and certifier for brands to include an “environmental and reef safety certification”. This is granted on the basis of a sunscreen being absent of sunscreen chemicals that have not been tested and is simply a half-baked paper-based safety assessment. Had the individual sunscreens been tested for their impact on reefs (or associated algae) in-vivo, incorporating other formulations ingredients that may promote penetration of potentially toxic compounds that increases risk, then and only then, would such a certification truly have merit.

It must be noted (Oxybenzone) Benzophenone-3 is very uncommon in Australia and Europe due to being a photo allergen that can cause sensitisation when exposed to sunlight and a potentially endocrine disrupting chemical.

However, it is extremely common in the US who have far less approved options for sunscreen ingredients at their disposal.

The questionable ‘not reef safe’ list

The same American environmental testing laboratory has published a list of all supposedly ‘unsafe ingredients. 

Below is a consolidated list of all sunscreen actives available globally, some of which are apparently ‘unsafe’ according to the testing laboratory and compares this finding with the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) aquatic hazard classification. The ECHA manages the technical and administrative aspects of the implementation of the European Union regulations.

Sunscreen active ingredients testing laboratory stance vs ECHA classification

Active Ingredient
Listed “unsafe” by US laboratory
Tested for coral bleaching potential
ECHA aquatic hazard toxicity classification
Benzophenone-3 (Oxybenzone)
Yes
Yes
Very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects
Zinc Oxide
Yes
No
Very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects
Zinc Oxide (nano)
Yes
No
Very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects
4-Methylbenzylidene Camphor
No
No
Very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects
Ethylhexyl Salicylate
No
No
Very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects
Isoamyl p-Methoxycinnamate
Yes
No
Very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects
Octocrylene
Yes
No
Very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects
Ethylhexyl Methoxycinnamate (Octinoxate)
No
No
Toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects
Polysilicone-15
No
No
Harmful to aquatic life with long lasting effects
Methylene Bis-Benzotriazolyl Tetramethylbutylphenol
No
No
May cause long lasting harmful effects to aquatic life
Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl Benzoate
No
No
May cause long lasting harmful effects to aquatic life
Ethylhexyl Triazone
No
No
May cause long lasting harmful effects to aquatic life
Butyloctyl Salicylate
No
No
May cause long lasting harmful effects to aquatic life
Bis-Ethylhexyloxyphenol Methoxyphenyl Triazine
Yes
No
Non hazardous
Avobenzone
No
No
Non hazardous
Disodium Phenyl Dibenzimidazole Tetrasulfonate (Neo Heliopan® AP)
No
No
Non hazardous
Drometrizole Trisiloxane
No
No
Non hazardous
Menthyl Anthranilate
No
No
Non hazardous
Terephthalylidene Dicamphor Sulfonic Acid (Mexoryl® SX)
Yes
No
Non hazardous
Ethylhexyl dimethyl PABA
No
No
Non hazardous
Homomenthyl Salicylate (Homosalate)
No
No
Non hazardous
Phenylbenzimidazole Sulfonic Acid
No
No
Non hazardous
Titanium Dioxide
No
No
Non hazardous
Titanium Dioxide (nano)
No
No
Non hazardous
Tris-Biphenyl Triazine
No
No
Non hazardous
Ethylhexyl Methoxycrylene (SolaStay® S1)
No
No
Non hazardous
PEG-25 PABA
No
No
Not determined
Polyester-8 (Polycrylene)
No
No
Not determined

Learn more about the environment and water safety via the blog ocean safety and sunscreen ingredients.

How do I formulate a product?

How do I formulate a product?

So, you have a great idea for a new product, but you aren’t sure what’s next? There are a few steps between a wonderful idea and uploading products to your website or being stocked at your favourite retailer

Endocrine disruptors in sunscreen and skincare

Endocrine disruptors in sunscreen and skincare

SPF, Ingredients, Spotlight On, Sunscreen

If you haven’t already read part 1 of our spotlight on endocrine disruptors, which delves into the endocrine system and what endocrine disruptors are. Click here to read part 1. 

 

What’s it all about? 

    • Endocrine disruptors are natural or synthetically produced chemical compounds that interfere with the production of hormones in humans and other animals that may contribute to disease and other conditions
    • Common sunscreen active ingredients including Homosalate and 4-Methylbenzylidene Camphor have been deemed as potentially endocrine disrupting by the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) with others still under review.
    • There are difficulties in reliably determining the endocrine disruption potential of chemicals due to bans on animal testing.
    • If brands avoid ingredients associated with endocrine disruption, it will contribute to an increase in the price of their sunscreens. 

A deep dive into relevant sunscreen ingredients 

Benzophenone-3

Benzophenone-3 (Oxybenzone) is globally approved for use in sunscreen up to 5% (maximum 10% in Australia). It is a comparatively high-performance and cost-effective, broad-spectrum UV filter, however it is being used less frequently, particularly in Australia, as a consequence of it being a photoallergen. The SCCS has concluded that 6% (the max permissible amount in the EU) is safe when used in products for the face, hands and lips, however, recommends 2.2% in products for the body or sprays.

Benzophenone-3 has been linked to concerns around ‘reef safety’ following some arguably flawed research by a US-based environmental laboratory, suggesting it can cause coral bleaching. Benzophenone-3, like a lot of chemicals, including Zinc Oxide, is associated with aquatic toxicity, although Benzophenone-3 has been detected in the water in areas subjected to coral bleaching events, it is a phenomenon that occurs in regions of very limited human activity, including the Great Barrier Reef and correlates to increasing water temperatures.

Alternatives

 An alternative to Benzophenone-3 is Bis-Ethylhexyloxyphenol Methoxyphenyl Triazine (BEMT, also known by the trade name Tinosorb® S) a higher-performing UVA/UVB filter that provides a comparable SPF in-silico at less than half the dosage. Despite the lower dosage, the cost is 5-6 times higher than that of Benzophenone-3, so it remains more expensive on a cost per SPF unit basis.

 

Octyl Methoxycinnamate (Ocinoxate)

Octyl Methoxycinnamate (sometimes referred to as ‘Octinoxate’) is globally approved for use at up to 7.5% (10% in Australia) and is a high performance and cost effective UVB filter.

It is being used less frequently as it is photo unstable (not to be confused with a photoallergen) in certain combinations particularly in mixtures with Avobenzone. Despite the photo instability, it is very effective when used correctly. The SCCS are yet to draw a conclusion on the use of Octyl Methoxycinnamate, whilst it has been associated with endocrine disruption in some studies, the SCCS will no doubt interpret the available literature and provide a detailed opinion in due course.

Alternatives

There is no single alternative to OMC. It’s unique as a liquid emollient with high UVB absorbance, an alternative could be a combination of other oil based UVB filters and a crystalline UVB filter to enhance the SPF.

Combinations of Octyl Salicylate, Butyloctyl Salicylate, Octocrylene, Ethylhexyl Methoxycrylene and Octyl Triazone generates comparable SPF to Octyl Methoxycinnamate when tested in-silico. The cost for an alternative system based on Octocrylene is roughly 2-3 times higher, whereas one based on Ethylhexyl Methoxycrylene is 5-6 times more expensive.

 

4-Methylbenzylidene Camphor

4-Methylbenzylidene Camphor (4-MBC) is an approved sunscreen ingredient in many jurisdictions up to 4%, except for the US and Japan. The US has not ‘unapproved’ the ingredient, it simply sits in a box with several other sunscreen ingredients that haven’t ever been approved. In Australia, 4-MBC is becoming increasingly rare in sunscreens as it has been associated with increased sensitisation.

As at the end of 2022, the SCCS’s official stance on 4-Methylbenzylidene Camphor is that 4% or above is not a safe level, however they are unable or unwilling to propose an acceptable limit. To date the EU has not changed the maximum dosage level from the current 4%.

Alternatives

An alternative to 4-MBC is Octyl Triazone, also a crystalline filter which is higher in UVB performance but slightly lower in UVA. The price of Octyl Triazone is currently less than 4-MBC, as MBC has increased in price recently, likely as it is phased out and production is scaled back.

 

Octocrylene

Octocrylene is globally approved up to 10%, it has a moderate performance and is a cost effective UVB filter with powerful solubilising ingredients, capable of dissolving other more high-performing filters that would otherwise be unusable.

In 2021 the SCCS concluded that 10% (the maximum allowed in Australia) is safe in most products, however, recommends 9% in spray products, when used in conjunction with other products containing 10% octocrylene.

Octocrylene has been associated with the formation of Benzophenone, a widely recognised toxin, whilst not considered an endocrine disruptor, it is a possible human carcinogen.  Benzophenone is a degradation product with an increased rate of formation in the presence of water and accelerated by exposure to higher temperatures

Alternatives

An alternative to octocrylene is another liquid emollient that provides comparable solubilising power; Ethylhexyl Methoxycrylene (and SPF booster), however the cost is 3-8 times more.

Whilst there is no existing evidence to support the suggestion, it may be expected that Ethylhexyl Methoxycrylene may be similarly associated with the degradation and formation of Benzophenone. Likewise, there is potential for it being harmful to aquatic life, it is currently considered non-hazardous.

 

Homosalate

Homosalate is globally approved for use up to 10% (15% in Australia), it is a low performance but cost effective UVB filter. Despite its average performance as a sunscreen, as a liquid emollient with UV absorbance it is useful in solubilising other active ingredients and as a result it is incredibly common in sunscreens.

The SCCS 2021 opinion concluded that Homosalate acts as an endocrine disruptor and that levels above 10% Homosalate are unsafe, recommending a maximum 7.34% in products intended for the face and 0.5% for body(1).

Of all the chemicals of concern that have been reviewed by the SCCS regarding endocrine disruption, Homosalate stands as the ONLY sunscreen active that can be considered an EDC with a resulting change to the maximum permissible limits and it is likely that it will be banned entirely in the EU.

Alternatives

Finding alternatives to Homosalate can be difficult, particularly to avoid other ingredients with negative press such as Octyl Methoxycinnamate. As Homosalate is a liquid emollient with UV absorbance and some level of solubilization capacity for crystalline UV filters it is fairly unique. One possible alternative is Octyl Salicylate (a permitted sunscreen active) whilst this is comparatively priced, it does have a lower maximum permitted dosage. Another alternative is Butyloctyl Salicylate (an SPF booster) which is roughly twice the price of Homosalate.

 

Parabens

Parabens are a group of chemicals based on a ‘para-hydroxybenzoate’ structure that are highly effective preservative ingredients globally approved in cosmetics with dose-based limitations, in addition to use in food and pharmaceuticals.

Parabens are becoming less common in cosmetics as a consequence of negative press (derived from flawed research) and a resulting brand preference to make ‘paraben free’ claims.

The SCCS found parabens are not a concern at the current maximum recommended dosages, which vary on the specific paraben (methyl, ethyl, butyl, propyl etc). The lower molecular weight, short chain options including Methylparaben and Ethylparaben are deemed entirely safe as they quickly metabolise into non-toxic p-hydroxybenzoic acid, whereas for the higher molecular weight, long chain types including Butylparaben and Propylparaben the metabolism is less clear based on current data.

Alternatives

Many alternatives to parabens are available, most of which are equally effective, whilst they may be more expensive in comparison, the dosages are low in contrast to those of sunscreen ingredients.

 

Testing EDC’s and animal testing

Industrial and other mixed-use chemicals will continue to be tested using an array of animal-based screening methods to determine whether they disrupt the endocrine system. However, as a consequence of bans on animal testing in cosmetics, there will be issues in continuing to determine whether a potential EDC used solely in cosmetics is an actual EDC.

Whilst in-vitro methods are being developed as a substitute for in-vivo/animal testing, there are currently no valid methods for determining the endocrine disrupting potential of an ingredient.

 

 

Conclusion

We are surrounded by endocrine disruptors and other toxic substances, these chemical compounds aren’t dangerous by default, and often they’re essential to our health. Identifying a hazard exists and understanding it is simply the first step in determining how we can safely co-exist with it.

In the case of sunscreens, 4-Methylbenzylidene Camphor, Benzophenone-3 (Oxybenzone) and Homosalate have been identified as potentially endocrine disrupting by the SCCS at currently approved maximum usage limits, and further limitations on their use proposed which will likely be implemented into law in Europe. How this impacts other regions from a legal perspective is uncertain, the SCCS opinion in the absence of any other similarly robust evaluation of the available literature should be, and likely will be, heavily considered by sunscreen brands into the future.

Other sunscreen actives including Octocrylene have not been deemed endocrine disrupting by the SCCS, with others including Octyl Methoxycinnamate and many more yet to be evaluated.

With the move away from common sunscreen ingredients like Homosalate, sunscreen reformulations are expected in the coming years. Due to comparable and cost-effective alternatives not yet existing, the cost of sunscreens is anticipated to increase for the consumer as a result of the more expensive sunscreen ingredients, but also the costs of sunscreen reformulation, SPF and broad-spectrum testing and stability testing.

 

NOTES: (1) It may be worth noting the difference between recommendation between face and body, this is no doubt linked to ‘the dose makes the poison’ whereby the amount applied to the face is considerably lower than that applied to the body, hence the risk is higher when applying to the body resulting in a recommendation for those products to have a lower dose.

SPF30+ vs SPF30 sunscreen showdown

SPF30+ vs SPF30 sunscreen showdown

Sunscreen, Product comparisons, SPF

If you saw a sunscreen that was marked ‘SPF30’ and one that was ‘SPF30+’, which do you think would be the better sunscreen? Asking yourself whether that’s a trick question, you’d be correct, strangely, it’s the SPF30.

spf30image

I don’t intend to cause a panic with this statement, they’re both providing 30x more protection than unprotected skin, but the devil is in the detail. Before I go any further and to avoid confusion, I want to be clear that the ‘+’ in SPF50+ sunscreen is unrelated to the faults i’ll be discussing here, SPF50+ are the ‘superior’ sunscreens, if you see SPF50 alongside SPF50+, the ‘+’ is the better option and I’ll explain that in more detail later.

The difference between the ‘+’ and the ‘plus-less’ for SPF30 sunscreens is not in whether one offers more SPF than the other. The difference is in which has more UVA protection and is impossible for the average consumer to know, in fact, it’s counter intuitive, consumers are being encouraged to buy the inferior sunscreen by association that ‘+’ is better than ‘plus-less’, which is a little disturbing.

Realising we’re all time poor and save you some time, SPF30+ sunscreen has as low as 1/3 of the protection from UVA radiation (the radiation responsible for causing premature ageing and skin cancer) than an SPF30. Confused? Read on….

A radiation recap

To back track slightly, SPF is a measurement of protection against UVB radiation, those UV wavelengths that cause sunburn. UVA radiation are those wavelengths that cause skin pigmentation and are associated with skin cancers. The amount of sunburn protection is recognisable by the SPF value where SPF30 sunscreen will allow a person to spend 30x more time in the sun before they start to burn. The amount of UVA protection is far less obvious and is communicated by whether ‘broad-spectrum’ is claimed, generally SPF30/SPF30+ products both claim broad-spectrum.

Drawing 1

The Requirements

All sunscreen sold in Australia are required to comply with the Australian/New Zealand Standard (AS/NZS 2604) and have been for quite some time. In 2012 there was an update to the previous standard that had been in place since 1998 and this is where the confusion began. There is no question that the 2012 standard was a leap forward, it took the maximum claimable SPF from 30+ to 50+ (actually SPF60), so doubled the maximum protection, it also took a much better approach to how UVA protection was measured and what was required to claim ‘broad-spectrum’.

How is/was UVA protection determined?

In 1998, UVA performance was being tested using a number of different methods, one of which included dissolving sunscreen in a solvent and analysing it with a spectrophotometer, a tool typically reserved for the analysis of raw materials in industry. These methods bore no similarity to how we use sunscreen, it wasn’t applied to skin and wasn’t then exposed to the sun where bad sunscreens often start to fail. The test methods used prior to 2012 were inappropriate and ultimately inaccurate.

In 2012, the test became far more advanced, sunscreen was applied to a skin like substance and then placed in a solar simulator where the sunscreen is exposed to UV radiation, simulating actual sun which can cause degradation of the sunscreen. The sunscreen was then tested using a Labsphere sunscreen analyser, the results from the Labsphere are then processed and weighted against the SPF that was measured from human testing to calculate the UVA-PF. Whilst the new test is still technically ‘in-vitro’, it uses an in-vivo test as its basis, saving having to test on people more than necessary, risking the health of the test subjects.

To claim ‘broad-spectrum’ in 2012 and beyond, a sunscreen was required to have a UVA-PF of at least one third of the claimed SPF, for an SPF30 sunscreen, it needed a UVA-PF of at least 10. The 1998 requirement didn’t use UVA-PF as the basis of figuring out whether it was broad-spectrum, this combined with the different test methods means that 1998 sunscreens may not pass 2012 requirements.

To figure out how they compare, we need to test sunscreens that comply with the 1998 requirement using the 2012 methods. The below graph illustrates how these vary.  I have included SPF50+ to highlight the huge improvement in UVA-PF for SPF50+ sunscreens as compared to the old SPF30+ sunscreens.

Drawing 3

https://www.tga.gov.au/sunscreen-standard-2012-information-industry

How did this happen?

Unfortunately, some time around 2012, a decision was made that any sunscreen already in the market that complied to the 1998 requirements could continue to be sold indefinitely. This allowance applied only to existing sunscreens that were already listed with the TGA, any new sunscreens had to comply with the 2012 requirements.

I recall a justification for this around 2012 with an expectation that market forces would result in the 1998 compliant sunscreens drifting off shelves. Unfortunately, it’s been 5 years and the Australian public continues to have access to subpar sunscreens with no end in sight, we have all been let down somewhat by the government department that was supposed to be looking out for our health and wellbeing.

From a consumer perspective, I can understand the decision from a ‘cosmetic’ standpoint, where a consumer buys a foundation with SPF30+ for example, the primary purpose of the product is as to colour the skin and not to prevent sun-damage. I can appreciate that it would be difficult and also expensive for some brands to change their range of SPF15 lipsticks to comply with the new requirement.

On the flip-side, for a ‘therapeutic’ sunscreen, where the primary purpose is to prevent sun related damage, the consumer should be provided some assurances that the sunscreen they’re buying is of the highest standard.

Are SPF30+ sunscreens bad?

Not all sunscreens are created equally, there may well be some SPF30+ sunscreens that may comply with current requirements and just haven’t been tested to confirm. Mineral sunscreen particularly could be expected to comply as minerals including Zinc Oxide or Titanium Dioxide aren’t photo-unstable, others using more advanced sunscreen filters or effective combinations of filters are also likely to be OK. Photo-instability (i.e. a sunscreen that is photo-unstable) refers to the issue of a sunscreen degrading and a loss of performance during exposure to the sun.

Sunscreens that combine Butyl Methoxydibenzoylmethane and Octyl Methoxycinnamate are notoriously photo-unstable and since 2012, formulators have been forced to find alternate combinations, if you see these on your SPF30+ sunscreen, use with caution,

Making an informed decision

Some brands will identify whether they comply with the 1998 or the 2012 requirement on the back of the pack, it is not a legal requirement to declare which standard a sunscreen was tested to, so it’s not cut and dry, but can be an easy way to know whether you’re buying the best SPF30 sunscreen. Cancer Council is one example of a brand that will include a remark on which standard the product complies.

To be clear, if the sunscreen is an SPF50+ or if it’s claiming 30 (no ‘+’) it complies to the 2012 requirement and is a better sunscreen, if its SPF30+, it’s an inferior sunscreen, if its less than SPF30, it becomes difficult, if you’re planning on spending time in the sun, let’s be honest, you shouldn’t be picking up anything less than an SPF30.

With regard to SPF50 vs SPF50+, both comply to 2012 requirements, the difference is in the SPF, where SPF50+ indicates the tested SPF is between 50-60 and SPF50+ has an SPF of more than 60.

Brands to watch out for

A review of sunscreens in supermarkets and pharmacies was undertaken to identify which brands continue to include SPF30+. Some brands may have already discontinued their SPF30+ products, however are still available via retail channels, this list is in no way exhaustive:

SPF30Image2

*Mineral based, may be OK

**Aerosol based, steer very clear

A side note, be wary when buying online, descriptions on retailer websites may refer to SPF30 when its SPF30+ and vice versa. Products are best bought when you can read the label and check the standard the sunscreen was tested and cite the physical label.

What can we do?

All we can do to protect ourselves is to be aware and make a more conscious effort when sunscreen shopping. Avoid SPF30+ sunscreen and any temptation that may go with a potentially cheaper option and tell your friends and family too, knowledge shared is knowledge gained!

Boycotting SPF30+ will help to stop brands manufacturing old and outdated sunscreens or at least go some way to force their hand to have them perform the necessary testing to comply with the 2012 standard. Continuing to buy SPF30+ only encourages the brand to keep making them.

In the SPF30+ vs SPF30 sunscreen showdown, SPF30 wins!

Edit (17/4/2018)

Following original publication, I was contacted by Skin Health, the brand managing organisation behind Cancer Council sunscreen. It was highlighted that the SPF30+ Everyday Sunscreen range had been discontinued in 2012 . Although I wasn’t able to find  Cancer Council SPF30+ Everyday Sunscreen in store and had observed the newer ‘SPF30’ variants being sold, I had found that there had been many online retailers/pharmacies that gave the impression SPF30+ were still in the market as they hadn’t updated their product pages along with a Cancer Council promotion that had SPF30+ imagery being used. Skin Health are now working with retailers and pharmacies to correct this so all Everday variants are good Everyday variants.

Cancer Council continue to have one SPF30+ variant in the Repel range, but have indicated that this is earmarked to be replaced by SPF50+ soon.

The dangers of DIY sunscreen

The dangers of DIY sunscreen

Sunscreen, DIY, SPF

There has been increasing consumer concern over the use of ‘chemicals’ in everyday products, as a consequence, there has been a surge in the number of do-it-yourself or homemade products being publicized  on-line. Sunscreens are no exception to the DIY craze, but are these products all they’re cracked up to be? In short, the answer is no, they most certainly are not!

The chemicals argument

The principal reason behind the desire for homemade skin care products relates to concerns over the chemicals used in store bought products. Unfortunately, the concerns are not founded on fact, homemade products contain chemicals, although the chemicals may be natural, this does not miraculously make them any safer than mineral, synthetic or naturally derived alternatives, in fact, the opposite is often the case.

Naturally sources ingredients are complex mixtures of chemicals and can contain hundreds of discreet chemicals, those available to those at home are often food grade in nature and unrefined and not suitable for use on the skin. Some of the most toxic chemicals known are found in nature, a few examples include Ricin and Alfatoxin, most common pesticides are also natural.

Synthetic chemicals are also found in plants where they are unable to be extracted at meaningful quantities, nature identical synthetic chemicals will be manufactured. Synthetic chemicals often sound harmful merely as a consequence of their unpronounceable names, however, have been refined and considerably more pure than naturally sourced ingredients.

Sunscreens, more than just a number

When you buy an off the shelf sunscreen, you are buying assurances. Commercial sunscreens have been formulated by highly experienced and tertiary qualified development chemists and they have been designed and stringently tested to comply with regulatory standards.

In Australia, regulatory standard refers to an Australian & New Zealand Standard (AS/NZS 2604:2012) and the Sun Protection Factor (SPF) has been certified. For a high SPF, water resistant sunscreen for full body use, it will also comply with the Australian regulatory guidelines for sunscreens (ARGS). Further to this, the ingredients used are approved and deemed safe for use by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), and manufactured following principles of Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP). There is also a high likelihood that the product has been dermatologically tested to confirm skin compatibility and qualify as non-irritating and non-sensitizing (low allergenic).

The evidence

Below is the absorbance profile of a store bought SPF50+ sunscreen (tested to AS/NZS 2604:2012) prepared using roughly 26% synthetic UV filters as compared to a DIY sunscreen prepared using ingredients and instructions detailed on-line, containing roughly 26% mineral UV filter (zinc oxide):

RegularZincOxide

As can be seen, the absorbance for the DIY sunscreen (white line) is incredibly low as compared to the store bought sunscreen (black line). Using software to interpret the absorbance profile, the estimated SPF for the DIY sunscreen is SPF5, 10 times less than the store bought sunscreen which has been certified as SPF50+.

Below is a similar comparison using store bought Invisible Zinc brand SPF50+ that contains ~26% zinc oxide which is more comparable to the DIY sunscreen with respect to active ingredient used, again, the DIY sunscreen has incredibly low absorbance in comparison.

InvisibleZinc

What causes this difference?

The key differences between the DIY and store bought sunscreen are; zinc oxide, the other ingredients and the process used to manufacture the product.

The zinc oxide suspected to be used in Invisible Zinc SPF50+ sunscreens is a highly specialized UV filter grade zinc oxide that is only available to industry, these grades are purposely engineered to absorb more UVB light (sunburn protection) with greater transparency in the visible light region so as not to appear white on skin. There is likelihood that the zinc oxide is also used in combination with synthetic, pseudo UV filters that also absorb UVB light to achieve a high level of performance, these ingredients can include Butyl Octyl Salicylate, Polycrylene or Ethylhexyl Methoxycrylene.

Other ingredients helping to support the active ingredients achieve maximum UV light absorbance include those that help form a uniform film over the skin, minimizing the potential for unprotected skin, along with those that provide water resistance so the protection remains after swimming or exercise.

The process used to manufacture the products will also be vastly different, commercial sunscreens will often be produced with high energy mixers (think of a Nutribullet, but far more advanced and costing tens of thousands of dollars) that break up agglomerates of zinc oxide that would otherwise provide very little protection and distributing them evenly throughout the product, maximizing  every possible ounce of protection from  the UV filters.

Sunscreens are not art, they’re science

Making sunscreen at home may sound crafty, however, the end result delivers very questionable levels of protection from poor quality ingredients and techniques and ultimately have not been tested to confirm effectiveness, unlike those purchased from a retailer or pharmacy.

Your skin is no place to perform experiments that impact your health. The risk of sunburn as a result of not properly protecting your skin is absolute, the risk of skin cancer from repeated exposure is incredibly high, although will go unnoticed for many years. The risk of harm from synthetic chemicals is low, if a product causes an allergic reaction however, then its use should be discontinued and an alternative store bought product should be found.

Those that consider making their own sunscreen should understand they are attempting to make what can be considered an anti-cancer drug. Would they consider making a vaccine or a heart disease medication if the materials were more accessible?

References

Wellness Mama

The Science of Eating (now removed)