The nanotechnology debate

Consumer groups have clashed with the cosmetics industry about the safety of using nano titanium dioxide in sunscreens and other beauty products during a conference in Brussels. Industry representatives insisted on the safety of such products, while consumer organisations highlighted continuing concerns about nanotechnology's growing use in cosmetics.

Gerald Renner, director of science at the European Cosmetics Association (Colipa), was bullish about the advantages of nano titanium dioxide in sunscreen and the level of knowledge the industry now possesses about the substance. "We now know quite a lot," he told delegates at the third annual nano 'safety for success' dialogue hosted by the European Commission. He agreed there had been an increase in the use of nanomaterials in cosmetics but said that this was mainly in "very traditional first generation materials" such as titanium dioxide, which he claimed was "not an emerging technology."

He reminded delegates that the first patents for this ingredient were agreed in the early 1980s and that it had been used in sunscreen for the past 20-25 years. He insisted that titanium dioxide in nano form was essential for "the protection of consumers from radiation because of its ability to reflect and scatter light. Nano titanium dioxide is necessary for high sun protection factors as people don't want white slop on their skin and with the ingredient in nano form we get good formulations."

Renner dismissed concerns about safety, insisting that "any cosmetic product has to be proven to be safe" before it reaches the market and that "the manufacturer has to be able to demonstrate safety at any time to the EU authorities". He added that "titanium dioxide is probably the nanotechnology with the largest safety database" and said that safety demands will be tightened further by the EU cosmetics directive that is due to be adopted in December. This will mean that ingredients will have to be labelled, where appropriate, as nano and "we will have to notify the EU authorities if we are using nanotech materials six months in advance of them coming to the market". This procedure "adds a level of scrutiny," said Renner.

He also said that dermal penetration was not a problem, assuring delegates that the cosmetics industry did not want sunscreen to travel. "We want it to stay on not penetrate the skin," he said, and confirmed that "all evidence so far is that titanium dioxide does not penetrate the skin". He assured delegates that the cosmetics industry had tested the product on damaged skin and not found any negative effects and accused critics of never being satisfied. "Even if we tested more types of damaged skin we would be asked to test more," he said, adding that the industry had even carried out a study in which "nanotech ingredients were injected under skin and there was still no safety effect, the material stayed where it was injected and there were no toxic effects".

But Laura Degallaix, head of safety and environment at BEUC, the European Consumers' Organisation, did not agree with this positive appraisal of nanotechnology in cosmetics and set out to prove "how little we know about nanomaterials and how much we should know before we use them". She said that in 2006 the Commission had concluded that 5% of cosmetics contained nanoparticles, but that an inventory published by BEUC this month showed 151 products containing nanoparticles, namely 24% of all products. She suggested that consumers should be aware that this includes a wide range of products including toothpaste, creams, lotions and sun protection.

Degallaix also insisted that consumers should be concerned about their levels of exposure to nano titanium dioxide because they are generally using more sunscreen because of fears about skin cancer, and because UV filters are used in a greater number of products than ever before, including hair care, make-up, foundation and non-cosmetic products such as water treatment.

She agreed with Renner's claims that there was "lots of data," but said that "lots is contradictory and there are lots of unanswered questions". She highlighted the lack of information about the "toxicity end points," questioned the idea that nano products did not penetrate the skin and added that there was "still a lack of data regarding damaged skin". Moreover, she said there were "even higher concerns" about nano titanium dioxide in its "anatase form" and asked whether some nanomaterials, such as nanoemulsions, "could increase the effects of other risky chemicals". The new EU cosmetics directive would leave many problems unsolved, she suggested, and said it would only tackle some issues if it were properly enforced.

Degallaix also questioned Renner's assertions about the need for titanium dioxide to be used for high factor sunscreen, saying it was the "formulation that matters" not the inclusion of a specific ingredient. "The benefits claimed have not been proven," she said, adding that "many other ingredients perform as well [as nano titanium dioxide] offering transparency on the skin and are easy to apply".

Dr Rye Senjen from Friends of the Earth Australia, agreed with Degallaix on the potential dangers of nano titanium dioxide and cited recent studies in which researchers had indicated the possible "very adverse effects" of nanotechnology on foetus. "There is a lot of indication that what we thought was safe is not so safe," she said.

Renner replied that such articles were based on artificially high doses of the ingredient and that "litres and litres of water" would be equally dangerous for a human. But Degallaix was not persuaded. "We cannot conclude today on the safety of nano titanium dioxide because there are too many unknowns, such as the effects of other ingredients on nanoparticles," she insisted.