Activists reactions seem do seem overly sensitive, if the effects of nano-particles on humans is the only concern with sunscreen use. But what I missed from your article is the effects of this new technology on the environment: the seas, lakes, rivers, sands, marshes and wildlife. Excessive sunscreen use alone is a problem in many ecosystems frequented by large amounts of humans during certain seasons, without the addition of new unknown potentials for disruption.

Is this a factor in any of these companies’ decisions to scale back nanoparticle use? Is there any research done on this? What’s even more interesting to me as a layperson: is there any government regulation requiring companies to think about their product’s effects on anything but their customers or consumers?

Yes agree that if the word ‘nano’ hadn’t been invented, it may have passed by unnoticed, but you can thank the scientists chasing funding for that! On the other hand, old materials used in a new way with new properties would always have been called something, though would perhaps have been the focus of more case by case scrutiny rather than blanket coverage.

Prof Richard Jones of Univ Sheffield suggests an excellent ‘precautionary’ framework which would be very useful in either instance on Andrew Maynard’s blog: He suggests we consider:

* what are the benefits that the new technology provides – what are the risks and uncertainties associated with not realising these benefits?
* what are the risks and uncertainties attached to any current ways we have of realising these benefits using existing technologies?
* what are the risks and uncertainties of the new technology?

Read more: http://2020science.org/2010/07/18/the-safety-of-nanotechnology-based-sunscreens-some-reflections/#more-3444#ixzz0uVCfdW2u

I also agree that some stakeholders, and FOE is perhaps as guilty of this as many others, do choose their evidence to support their world view, which is also unhelpful for the public.

However, what I would have really liked to see, instead of ranting from all sides (and sorry David, I am classing this contribution in that vein, a few too many sweeping statements!) was patient, easy to understand explanations, information clearly communicated by scientists and companies about the testing they have done to ensure these products are safe for us all, perhaps articles in the women’s mags or in supermarkets, with information about the science behind the nano sunscreens and why they are safe and an improvement. Not scientists scoring points by trying to make a splash with dubious extrapolations about research and companies remaining totally silent. Why is that so hard?

Sometimes I think that the increasing lack of trust in business and science is richly deserved! Let’s hope it improves

The point is to present the science as it is available (incomplete and emergent – tomorrow we usually know more than today) and help the public make informed choices. Some take the risk, some don’t, and the experiment can continue.

A better labeling could be

USE CAUTION This product helps protect your skin from sunlight by absorbing the energy of UV radiation. Prolonged exposure or incomplete application on skin may negate protective effects. This product contains nanoparticles (around 20 nm). Scientific findings suggest particles of the specified size will only be absorbed by the upper layer of dead skin cells and not enter body circulation.

Reading “primary particle sizes” I conclude that smaller particles may occur and some can get absorbed, so we are back at square one whether the perceived risk is big or small, but now it is up to the customer to decide and experiment. Until science brings more usable findings as I am sure will happen.