11.13.08
Posted in nanotechnology at 9:43 pm by Administrator
Right, it’s just as my nanotechnology expert, physicist Dr. Jay Nadeau, keeps telling me: “the behavior of nano-sized particles is completely different, and unpredictable.” I just heard yesterday that nano-sized particles may even have their own dimensions, which would certainly explain why their behavior is unpredictable—who knows what to expect from an entity that at any moment may be elusively bouncing around in the tenth dimension?
Science fiction speculation aside, the problem that is not being addressed with nanoparticle use in cosmetics is described by the following quote from an article entitled: “ Size Matter When It Comes to Cosmetics.” (http://www.cosmeticsdesign.com/Formulation-Science/Size-matters-when-it-comes-to-cosmetics/?c=AlPW5KR5AuFIv9Kz0lniBw%3D%3D)
“At present the FDA does not recognise that the size of a material affects its behavior, Hansen [Michael Hansen, chief scientist of the Consumers Union] told CosmeticsDesign.com.
This means that manufacturers can include nano-scale particles of materials that have already been approved on the macro-scale, he explained.
As titanium dioxide and zinc oxide, two of the most common sunscreen ingredients are approved for use in the macro scale, there is nothing to stop manufacturers including them in products in the nano-scale. “
The point to take home here is that titanium dioxide at the macro level and titanium dioxide on the nano level are two entirely different substances, and studies establishing the safety of large sized particles of titanium dioxide can not be interpreted to mean safety of same at the nano level.
Not only have irrelevant studies given companies the green light (by inference) to use nanoparticles in cosmetics, these same companies are also under no obligation to list their presence on their labels. The Consumers Union recently wrote to the FDA asking that they require a full safety assessment on the use of nanoparticles in sunscreens and cosmetics before they are released to market, and that labelling reveal their presence if they are in the product. The letter came about as a result of a series of investigations by the Consumer’s Union, which led to the following disturbing findings:
“Back in July 2007 the consumer group tested 8 mineral-based sunscreens and found all 8 contained nanoparticles of zinc oxide and/or titanium dioxide although only one disclosed this fact on the label.
This prompted the group to test a further five products that the companies’ representatives said did not contain nanoparticles. Four out of the five products contained nanoparticles.
According to Michael Hansen, chief scientist at the Consumers Union and author of the letter, these investigations show that use of nanoparticles is widespread and that consumers are not being informed of their presence. “
The scientist went on to note that the European Union is well on the way towards stiffening labelling requirements vis a vis nanoparticles in products, and warns that the US could eventually lose its place in the global cosmetics community if it does not set up rigorous standards of its own. He points out that we are already finding ourselves outside the pale when it comes to regulation of genetically modified foods—lack of nanoparticle regulations would, beyond a doubt, further weaken our competitiveness in the global market.
If we do not begin now to take regulatory steps we could someday find that the slogan “Made in the USA” has become in the wider world an acronym for “untested, safety-questionable, avoid.”
Permalink
11.06.08
Posted in Outside the Box at 8:45 pm by Administrator
A Fresh Look at Wrinkles
While I usually write about my favorite organ, the skin, the recent US election has led me to ruminate on another organ, which thankfully won the day. Here are some fun and interesting facts about each.
Weight
The skin of an average adult weighs 8-10 pounds, or about 12-15% of body weight.
The average human brain weighs 3 pounds, or about 2% of total body weight.
Surface Area
The skin covers an average surface area of 1.5 to 2 square meters.
The total surface area of the human cerebral cortex is about 2,500 cm2, or about the size of a pillow case (approximately 40 cm by 62.5 cm).
The surface area of the brain, not its total volume, determines how many neurons and synaptic connections it can store. The female brain has deeply folded areas which might compensate for the larger overall size of the male brain. And this is where the topic of wrinkles re-enters the arena.
Wrinkles
Wrinkles form over time as the skin thins and the epidermis sags, due to loss of collagen and elastin in the dermis (among other things). Darker skins, which are thicker, tend to wrinkle at a slower rate than thinner, fairer skins. Skin wrinkles are a sign of age, and their appearance often leads people to find relief in the needle—the Botox needle that is.
In stark contrast, wrinkles in the brain are desirable, indeed, necessary. For example, a rare disease called lissencephaly (’’smooth brain”) is a lack of complex brain folding linked to mental deficiency.
A highly wrinkled cerebral cortex increases the surface area of the brain and thus the number of neurons that may be contained within it. However, though a multiplicity of wrinkles seems to be what makes humans smarter than (most) other animals, it does not explain what made Richard Feynman smarter than most of us. Though convoluted human brains pack larger surface areas into smaller containers, it is the branching of brain cells and the formation of complex links between them that apparently tells the tale.
Our new POTUS scores very well on the wrinkle index: highly wrinkled on the inside and smooth on the outside. However, let me be the first to predict that the burdens of office will soon outweigh his thicker skin advantage with respect to external smoothness, though I suspect he’ll wear each new wrinkle like a badge of honor incurred in our service. Perhaps he’ll even be responsible for a decrease in the popularity of Botox. Welcome to a post-racial society, where wrinkles, definitely internal and maybe even external, rule.
Permalink
08.21.08
Posted in skin care news at 2:47 pm by Administrator
Skin cancer from moisturizers? It seems skin care products are enjoying (!) greater scrutiny than ever before. It might be the enormous public reaction to the bombshell launched by the EWG a month ago related to carcinogens in sunscreens. It is past time that the many suspect ingredients in our popular skin care products be investigated. It’s not just that the products do not live up to their bogus claims, we all know how that works, but that they may contain ingredients that pose health risks. And yes, many of these ingredients are absorbed by the body.
This article will be of interest to many of you.
Beiersdorf defends cream against skin cancer claims
By Guy Montague-Jones
19-Aug-2008 - Beiersdorf has hit back against academic research on mice that linked its Eucerin moisturizer to skin cancer.
Researchers at Rutgers University, New Jersey, found the number of non-melanoma tumors was significantly higher in mice treated with commonly-used creams than the control group.
Cream increases cancer risk in mice
In a paper published last week in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology, the scientists said tumor rates were 24 per cent higher in the mice treated with Beiersdorf’s Eucerin Original Moisturizing Cream.
Beiersdorf has now responded to the research findings with a host of criticisms.
The Germany-based company said the research “selected only a special line of hairless mice that are highly susceptible to developing tumors when exposed to UVB.”
Leading study author Allan Conney was also guarded about the implications of the study for humans saying that more research is necessary to determine the significance of the findings.
Research dismissed as irrelevant
Beiersdorf’s criticisms went further concluding that the study was ‘clinically not relevant’.
The company said the paper does not comply with scientifically accepted or validated methods outlined in OECD guidelines. Beiersdorf also claimed the study lacked dose-response relationships, positive controls, an appropriate placebo group and historical data on the test method.
Beiersdorf’s Eucerin Original Moisturising Cream was not the only product put under the microscope.
The scientists also looked at Dermabase by Paddock Laboratories, Dermovan by Healthpoint, and Vanicream by Pharmaceutical Specialties.
Permalink
Posted in nanotechnology, skin care news at 2:36 pm by Administrator
This article is the first I’ve read to indicate that studies are being done on the nanoparticle penetration into skin issue.
Sun damage may exacerbate skin penetration of nano-sunscreens
By Guy Montague-Jones
20-Aug-2008 - Nanoparticles may penetrate sun damaged skin causing concern about their increasingly widespread use in sunscreens, according to new research.
Nanoparticles may penetrate sun damaged skin causing concern about their increasingly widespread use in sunscreens, according to new research.
In a paper published in Nano Letters, scientists at the University of Rochester found that quantum dot nanoparticles penetrated UV damaged skin more than non-compromised skin.
The conclusion was reached from in-vivo tests carried out on mice exposed to UV light levels similar to those that would induce medium level sunburn in humans.
Gauging the impact of sun damage
To gauge the impact of sun damage on the penetrative capabilities of nano-based sunscreens the scientists used quantum dot nanoparticles.
These are not generally used in sunscreens despite their UV absorption properties but they are a similar size to the titanium dioxide nanoparticles used commonly in sunscreens.
The authors of the study said the higher penetration levels observed in sunburned skin led them to the conclusion that the condition of the skin strongly influences penetration.
Important discovery
“This is an important discovery for nanoparticle safety concerns as consumers often apply sunscreens containing metal oxide nanoparticles of similar size and raw material properties to UV-exposed skin,” said the authors.
They said direct comparisons were impossible to make at this stage as a wide variety of surface coatings are used in commercial sunscreens that may alter skin penetration characteristics.
The authors called for further research. “Future in-vivo studies using custom imaging modalities and commercial sunscreen formulations are planned to generate the necessary insight to assess human health risks from applying nanoparticle sunscreens to UV-damaged skin.”
In Vivo Skin Penetration of Quantum Dot Nanoparticles in the Murine Model: The Effect of UVR
Luke J. Mortensen, Gunter Oberdörster, Alice P. Pentland, and Lisa A. DeLouise
Nano Lett.; 2008; ASAP Web Release Date: 08-Aug-2008; (Letter) DOI: 10.1021/nl801323y
Permalink
07.26.08
Posted in Facts About UV Protection, skin care news at 2:51 pm by Administrator
Now that Sun Serum has made the EWG’s top ten recommended list many people ask what the difference is between Sun Serum and Creme de Jour. They also ask how products in the Intensive Therapy line differ from products in the Therapy line. Here’s how I look at it.
The difference between the Therapy Line and the Intensive Therapy Line.
The main difference lies in the formulation’s purpose. If you have normal skin and you want to maintain its health and integrity with excellent moisturizing and protection then the Therapy line is perfect for you. If, on the other hand, you have a specific condition or mature skin then you might find products in the Intensive Therapy line more suited to your needs. While we spare no expense in providing the best ingredients for both lines, the Intensive line is notable for its wealth of organic and exotic ingredients and its higher concentrations of effective cosmeceuticals.
The difference between the Sun Serum Duet and the Crème de Jour, regular or tinted, is a case in point. While both contain high levels of anti-oxidants and zinc oxide at a 20% concentration, and are free of chemical sunscreens, parabens or fillers which have a deleterious effect on humans and coral reefs alike, there are significant differences.
The Sun Serum duet is the shining star in our rostrum of protective products. Its dual purpose is to protect from UVB (burning) rays, and UVA (aging) rays and provide superior anti-aging properties. It offers protection at the three crucial levels: epidermal (top layer of skin), dermal (deeper layers of skin) and cellular (where everything begins!). Here’s how:
1) Epidermal: Its 20% zinc oxide content blocks the longest wavelengths of UVA rays up to 400 nm. UVA rays penetrate to the dermis rather than the epidermis where they may do longer-lasting damage. They are present from sun-up to sundown, penetrate clouds and glass and are responsible for hyperpigmentation, age spots and wrinkles and may also exacerbate problems with rosacea. One doesn’t burn, one ages from UVA rays.
2) Epidermal: Our zinc oxide is non-micronized. One of the POSSIBLE effects of nanopartcles of zinc oxide is that they may be photo-active, reacting with light to produce free radicals.
3) Epidermal: Other ingredients, Pearl powder, Calaguala fern extract, green tea protect at the surface, while emu, yangu and red raspberry oils increase natural barrier protection.
4) Epidermal and Dermal: Astaxanthin provides internal sun protection and Krill oil has potent anti-aging properties. Cherry kernel, Pomegranate seed and Broccoli seed oils provide additional barrier replenishment and sun protection.
5) Dermal and cellular: The Anti-oxidant supplement provides anti-oxidants in their active form that actually work to minimize free radical damage from UV exposure. The SuppleMent contains high doses of Vitamin C in a powdered form to keep the ingredient stable and effective until it’s ready to use.
6) The EWG rating is 1, and it is number five in their list of top 10 recommended sunscreens.
Crème de Jour is a moisturizing day cream that also provides UVA/UVB protection. This is all you need during the day for normal skin maintenance.
1) Contains 20% non-micronized zinc oxide to provide full-spectrum protection.
2) Penetrates deeply into the dermis providing intense moisturizing and hydrating with jojoba, emu and red raspberry oils. Also provides further protection against sun damage with organic green tea and phyto-based anti-oxidants.
3) Contains no waxes. It is non-greasy and non-comedogenic.
4) The EWG rating is 2.
Permalink
07.05.08
Posted in Facts About UV Protection, nanotechnology, skin care news at 4:40 pm by Administrator
While I am happy about the recent attention that has been paid to our sunscreen products (M V Sun Serum was rated in the top 10 for saftey and effectiveness by EWG) I still have a little bone to pick. This is on the subject of nanoparticles in sunscreens. Evidently The EWG does not have separate categories for micronized zinc oxide and non-micronized zinc oxide. Until nanoparticles have been adeqautely studies I don’t believe we can deem them safe for use, especially on children.
I have written about the need for studies in this area. While the jury is out, Marie Veronique will not use micronized zinc oxide in its sunscreen. Making our sun serum and crme de jour, arguably, the safest you can buy.
Permalink
Posted in Facts About UV Protection, nanotechnology, skin care news at 4:33 pm by Administrator
Link to CNN story on safe sunscreens http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/07/01/sunscreen.study/?iref=mpstoryview
link to
Comment by Sonya Lunder, senior analyst, EWG
As CNN reported, sunscreens over promise and under-deliver. At Environmental Working Group, we analyzed product efficacy and possible health hazards for over 900 commercial sunscreens. We found that 85% of available products don’t measure up: they either fail to block the full range of UV rays or they contain ingredients linked to health hazards. Only 1 of the 144 products from market leaders Coppertone, Banana Boat and Neutrogena is recommended by EWG.
Why is this the case? For starters, FDA has not finalized the comprehensive safety standards for sunscreen they began drafting 30 years ago. Instead, they have delayed many times at the request of the sunscreen industry.
In the absence of a final rule, FDA requests that sunscreen companies comply with their draft guidance. Our analysis suggests that this voluntary system leaves consumers with products that do not meet the claims that are printed on the label, including more than 1 in 10 products marketed as “broad spectrum” that aren’t, and 40% of products that make claims FDA considers misleading, like “all day” or “instant” protection.
In the absence of standards, we publish ratings for nearly 1,000 sunscreens to help consumers find products that provide broad spectrum and contain few if any ingredients with significant safety concerns at .
How to Choose Sunscreen
• The active ingredient is at least 7% zinc oxide or titanium dioxide, not oxybenzone or benzophenone-3.
• Opt for a formula that doesn’t contain bug repellent. Ingredients in sunscreen can make more of the pesticide absorb into the skin.
• Avoid spray-on or powder forms, because those forms are too easy to inhale, which creates further potential hazards.
• Also note that fewer than 5% of 100+ products from market leaders Coppertone, Neutrogena and Banana Boat are recommended by EWG.
Permalink
Posted in Facts About UV Protection, nanotechnology, skin care news at 4:20 pm by Administrator
The Environmental working group did a piece about safe sunscreens that appeared as a news item on CNN.
http://www.informify.com/top-stories/48-health/283-sunscreens-not-as-safe-effective-as-you-might-think
We are pleased that we are rated in the top 10 picks for best sunscreens by the EWG.
Permalink
06.20.08
Posted in nanotechnology, skin care news at 4:44 pm by Administrator
It turns out that scientists are more concerned about potential health and environmental risks of the new nanotechnology than the public. Over 30 percent of scientists expressed concern that nanotechnology may pose risks to human health while only 20 percent of the general public shared their fears. When it comes to allaying public fears, which are more prevalent in Europe than they are in the United States, the few “scientific” studies that exist should be raising even more alarm bells than they are assuaging anxiety.
For example, in a report issued by researchers at L’Oreal in collaboration with scientists at the University of Queensland, Australia, the finding was “that nanoparticles do not pose a risk to human health…[because]there was no evidence to suggest that nanoparticles actually penetrate the epidermis or the dermis.”
This is hardly reassuring, as more and more anti-aging products entering the market purport to be effective precisely because their high tech delivery systems, based on nanocapsules, fullerenes and the like, penetrate to the deeper layers of the skin, carrying their age-defying ingredients with them.
Either they penetrate or they don’t—which is it? Assuming the worst-case (or best-case depending on your point of view) scenario, and some particles do penetrate, it raises questions such as: how do nano-based cosmetic formulations behave once they are applied to the skin? If particles penetrate the skin’s inner layer due to their size, could this then lead to the particles entering the bloodstream? If so what might the implications be?
Scientists are also voicing misgivings over potential chemical instability of nano manipulated particles, particularly when combined with other compounds, as is the case with cosmetic formulations. The newest generation of micronized titanium dioxide particles for example are so-called “buffered,” often with an aluminum coating. (If this sounds familiar, one may recall the not-so-many-years distant controversy over anti-perspirants containing aluminum causing allergic reactions.) Tiny aluminum-coated particles displaying chemical instability sounds like a high tech nightmare waiting to happen, but the bottom line is that at this point we just don’t know what effects, if any, the new technology may have on public health. At this moment all we know is what we don’t know, since, according to nanotechnology expert Dr. Jay Nadeau of McGill University, once particles reach a certain size their behavior becomes “unpredictable.”
This is why, with The Nanotech Report: 4th Edition, by Lux Research, indicating that the market for nanotechnology manufactured goods is estimated to be worth $2.6 trillion by the year 2015, more scientists world wide are calling for more testing. According to a consumer survey by Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BIR) “clear definitions, terms and standards as well as far more research into the potential problems of nanotechnology” is needed before the science is used to a greater degree in products. The German survey confirms calls by scientists and others across the world for more regulatory oversight of nanotechnology.
The explosion of growth in the market place of nanoproducts suggests that the real research and development work into their safety be carried out now, while the technology is still in its infancy.
Permalink
06.19.08
Posted in nanotechnology, skin care news at 9:37 pm by Administrator
This article by Katie Bird points to the growing debate about nanotechnology and its uses. It is growing by leaps and bounds, yet very little is set aside to research safety issues.
Numbers of nano products soars—by Katie Bird
“Consumer products that incorporate nanotechnology are being released at the rate of 3 to 4 a week according to the Project on Emerging Technologies (PEN).
The inventory has now recorded 609 products, 60 per cent of which are health and fitness items including cosmetics and sunscreens.
The news about the increase in nano-based product launches come just days after a PEN investigation concluded that US funding on nanotechnology risk research is lacking, standing at just over half of the amount spent in Europe in 2006.
Rapid expansion in nanotech products
The nanotechnology consumer product inventory maintained by the PEN was started in March 2006 with a total of 212 products.
According to PEN project director David Rejeski the inventory is the tip of the iceberg and the real number of consumer goods products incorporating nanotechnology could be much higher.
Lux Research estimates that by 2014 15 percent of total global output of manufactured goods will incorporate nanotechnology, $2.6 trillion worth. In 2006 this figure was estimated to be $50bn.
Rejeski presented the findings to the Senate Commerce Committee marking the start of the US Senate’s debate on the future of federal investment set aside for nanotechnology research and development.
Federal budget for nanotechnology
The US government has a $1.4bn nanotechnology budget and according to the PEN a dangerously low percentage of this is spent on risk research.
“Public trust is the ‘dark horse’ of in nanotechnology’s future. If government and industry do not work to build public confidence in nanotechnology, consumers may reach for the ‘No-Nano’ label in the future and investors will put their money elsewhere,” said Rejeski.
It is for this reason that Rejeski believes that public perceptions about risks - real and perceived - can have large economic consequences, now and for the future.
“How consumers respond to these early products - in food, electronics, health care, clothing, and cars - is a litmus test for broader market acceptance of nanotechnologies in the future,” he said.
Only three percent spent on risk research
According to a recent PEN assessment only three percent of the federal budget is spent on investigating the risks of nanotechnology.
This amounts to $13m spent in 2006 on projects that were highly relevant to addressing the possible risks of nanotechnology, compared to the $24m spent by European countries in the same year.
Chief science advisor for PEN Andrew Maynard accuses the federal government of ‘wishful thinking’.
“It is trying to substitute research that might inform science’s general understanding of possible nanotechnology risks for research that is focused on getting answers to direct questions being asked today - what makes a nanomaterial potentially harmful, how can it be used safely, and what happens when it is eventually dispose.”
As you know, I am an advocate of doing the research before inflicting potentially risky products on an unwitting public. Men, women and especially children should not be used as guinea pigs while we figure out if there are risks associated with nanoparticle use. I will be writing more about this issue in the coming days.
Permalink
« Previous entries
