11.13.08
Size Matters
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.”
