skin cancer

The Trouble With Making Your Own Sunscreen

August 6, 2014 By Amanda Foxon-Hill 4 Comments

Yes I have gone sunscreen crazy a little over the last week or so but it is for a good reason. It’s hot here in Australialand right now, hot, UV rich and waaaay too long between pay checks to go buy a $20 bottle of SPF 30 something for some people. That and the fact that there are a growing number of people for whom consumer SPF 30 plus sunscreen no longer cuts the mustard – too many chemicals, what about nanoparticles, too much synthetic perfume, allergic to the preservatives and so on.

So is home-made sunscreen possible?

I would strongly advise against trying and that’s not because I have shares in a sunscreen company because I don’t. It’s hard. Very hard. It’s expensive and hard and more importantly sunscreens are not just any old cosmetic, they might just save your skin.

The googlesphere is jam-packed full with recipes teaching you how to make your own homemade sunscreen. A typical recipe looks something like this:

To make 100g

25g of Zinc Oxide powder

50g Shea Butter

10g Jojoba Oil

2g beeswax

3g Cocoa Butter

10g Olive Butter.

Mix it all up and voila, your own sunscreen and as Zinc Oxide gives somewhere between 1-1.5 SPF unit per % added you have a product with an SPF of between 25-35. Amazeballs.

Only you probably don’t.

Having worked with zinc oxide sunscreens for the last three years with varying success (and lots of failures) I can assure you that it is a pig of an ingredient being both difficult to blend into a base and keep dispersed in said base. Being a strongly charged particle it tends to migrate towards its self and form big clumps at every available opportunity (think of it like a super charged magnet that it sitting just shy of the pulling ground of a complimentary magnetic item). It doesn’t take much before whoooooosh, it’s moved and attached its self to its neighbour to form a duo that is TWICE AS STRONG AS IT WAS WHEN ALOOOOOOONE. You can easily see what will happen next. It’s chemical carnage.

But you can’t necessarily see that and as I found to my detriment a couple of years ago, ignorance is bliss. Knowledge is pain.

I started off in 2009 by merrily mixing my zinc oxide into a base, not really aware of how bad it could get and enjoying each little win like I was some genius in a world filled with losers who just didn’t see what I saw. I wondered why everyone from within the industry shied away from this type of formula, why they refused to take on this work and why they looked at me with that “oh no you haven’t” look when I told them about my happy successes. I was happy because my creations had not yet been tested.

But then came the day of reckoning. I took them to the sunscreen testing lab and they failed.

I had various goes at testing my ‘babies’ SPF’s. Those that I expected would give me an easy 30 came in at a dismal 12, those that were a sure 15 were only a 7 and one that looked amazing and a sure-fire 35 ish read only 8 on the SPF scale. Epic failures all and what was worse was that this was all my own work. In the early days I wasn’t really doing this for customers, I was just teaching myself some bits and pieces. Trying it on for size and investing in my future. Well, at $700 ish a pop for the basic stuff sunscreen testing is NOT something that you want to keep getting wrong and each failure hit me like a brick. And keep in mind that by this stage I thought I was onto a good thing and knew what I was doing – I won’t even go there with the tens of formulation tweaks that I tried and subsequently failed at.

One thing that I realised early on was that just because you put zinc in, it doesn’t mean that it stays sitting in the formula in a useful place. A good sunscreen has to cover the skin evenly like a good coat of paint and unfortunately for zinc users, that chemical prefers to clump together giving you dense lumpy areas that you may or may not be able to see with the naked eye and then empty wasteland craters all of which can act as lenses for sunlight and actually magnify the rays as they come through.

Yes it is true, adding lots of zinc to your product COULD leave you with a hole infested sun magnifying glass rather than a nice, uniform sunscreen. Ouch!

Then came some progress. I read a bit more, observed a little closer and tweaked a few techniques until something started to stick. My reported SPF’s were still a bit lower than I wanted but we were on the right track, no zinc was cottage cheesing and the product was feeling good on the skin. But that was over one year and several thousands of dollars worth of investment in time, materials and testing later and that was BEFORE we started trying to change preservative systems, add different actives, change emulsifiers and add perfumes. Another thing I’ve learned with zinc only sunscreens is that every little change is a big deal and can make a big difference. And that’s where I’m up to today with a few ideas that work and a few that didn’t.

I’m not saying that I’m a genius and if I can’t do it you must be made to think that you can, honestly I’m not. What I am saying that even with all of my friends in the right places, chemical resources, laboratory equipment and analytical testing experience I still stuffed up a lot before I started to make progress and surely that has to count for something. I was lucky in as much as nobody was risking their lives with these failed formulations, the only thing being risked was my money at that stage and thankfully that is replaceable. Our health isn’t always so easy to claw back.

The trouble with making your own sunscreen is that while it looks ever-so-easy from the ingredients list in reality there is a whole chemical dance that has to go on to get these things singing. Now you may just hit the jackpot and come up with a beauty but it is more likely that you won’t so please, please, please be careful and if this is something that you are likely to dish out to babies, your children or your elderly relatives do consider investing in at least one proper SPF test, just to be on the safe side.

Home made sunscreen? In my eyes it is just not worth it unless your home made sunscreen is a nice big hat or burquini.

Will Shark Skin Studies Lead to New Sunscreens?

September 17, 2012 By PerryRomanowski 2 Comments

Did you ever hear that sharks never get cancer? Well, this is false. Sharks do get cancer.

However, they don’t get all types of cancer. In fact, it turns out that sharks do not get skin cancer. Scientists have been investigating the effects of UV radiation on shark skin and have found that while their skin changes color from light to dark (sharks can tan, who knew) they don’t experience melanoma.

At the moment it is a mystery as to why they do not get skin cancer. It is likely due to the high antioxidant properties of the skin but investigations will continue. No doubt that this could be a unique marketing angle for some new sunscreen. I just hope no sharks are harmed.

Incidentally, scientists have discovered extensive skin cancer in fish like coral trout. The cause of this is unknown also but thought to be somehow related to climate change and pollution.

Spotlight on Sun Protection in the USA from In-Cosmetics: part 1

April 18, 2012 By Kristin Fraser Cotte 3 Comments

When it comes to sunscreen, standards and regulation around the globe, there is no global harmonization. However, sunscreen is highly regulated in each country. Sunscreens are considered cosmetics, but fall under their own regulation categories. Each country has their own approved methods for testing efficacy; this includes approved UV filters, SPF ratings, and any label claims or warnings. Part 1 will provide an overview of the US regulations, presented by Anne-Gael Glaevic, a group leader in Global Regulatory Affairs in Personal Care. I’ll review the differences in EU and Asia regulations in following posts.

Bringing a Sunscreen to Market in the United States

In the US, sunscreens are considered OTC (over the counter) drugs that are regulated by the FDA. Any products with a sunscreen claim must be registered prior to use to be in compliance. There are 2 ways to bring a new sunscreen to the market in the US:

1. Ingredients must be in compliance with the OTC sunscreen monograph which was released in 1999. This includes following the regulatory standards set up by the FDA; active ingredients, labeling and marketing claims must comply. Only registered UV filters are allowed through this method. There are 16 approved filters at a given maximum concentration listed in the 1999 OTC monograph. Companies may use a combination of these approved filters in their products, but the combos must be registered as well. There are also specific regulations on how these filters can be combined, and in what percentage the various combinations are allowed.

2. New Drug Application (NDA) is for finished products with new UV filters, or a new combination of filters that are outside of the already approved percentages in the OTC monograph. NDA is a year and a half process to get reviewed and approved for the finished product. There is one other option, TEA (time and extended application) that falls under NDA for sunscreens that already have 5 years of safe sales in another country. This is a slightly longer process to get approved by the FDA with a 2 year registration process with no pending issues.

Anne pointed out that both processes are very time consuming and expensive. It’s important to also acknowledge that when compared to other areas of the world, the USA is not as strict in the area of bringing new sunscreens to market!

In 2011, the US passed new sunscreen labeling claim guidelines that companies must abide with this year in order to be in compliance. Here are the main changes:

The verbiage used in claims “waterproof” “100% protection” “sweatproof” “sunblock” are no longer allowed on product packaging or marketing claims. “Water Resistant” must be used instead, and specifically designated as 40 or 80 minutes in the water.
Limit SPF to 50+
Broad spectrum claims for SPF 15+: The US is the only country that has approved this verbiage for broad spectrum claims on UVA and UVB protection that must be listed under the “drug facts” on the back of the label “If used as directed with other sun protection measures this product reduces the risk of skin cancer and early skin aging as well as helps prevent sunburn”
Any sunscreen under SPF 15 may only make this claim “This product has been shown only to prevent sunburn, not skin cancer and early skin aging

Apparently there will be a future publication of the US Final Sunscreen Monograph to come…

References:

Anne-Gael Glaevic – presentation on EU and US regulatory status for sunscreen at In-Cosmetics 2012 Barcelona

Final Ruling on Labeling and Testing: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-06-17/pdf/2011-14766.pdf

Understanding Over-the-Counter Medicines > Sunscreen: http://1.usa.gov/IJmFUK

Labeling and Effectiveness Testing http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentdetail;D=FDA-1978-N-0018-0698

Rulemaking History for OTC Sunscreen Drug Products http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/Over-the-counterOTCDrugs/StatusofOTCRulemakings/ucm072134.htm

Do Sunscreens Protect Against Skin Cancer?

June 20, 2011 By Colin Sanders 25 Comments

Summer is here and my favourite scare mongers are at it again. They are putting out dire warnings of the risks of using sunscreens if you don’t first check with them and then buy the ones they recommend. I am sure readers of Colin’s Beauty Pages are savvy enough to see through anything so transparently self serving.

One argument I have seen put forward online against these scare tactics is to say that far from causing skin cancer sunscreens do in fact protect against skin cancer. It sounds plausible, but is there any evidence?

In the area of health, a lot of things that get trotted out as facts turn out to be short of back up when you look into it. They may be true – but there is no actual proof. I have totally failed to find any evidence that the risk of diabetes is increased by being overweight for example. There probably is a link. People who work in the area believe it is true and the chances are they are right. Gut feelings often are. I am happy to follow an intelligent experienced expert’s gut feeling. But I am happier still if there is real evidence behind it.

The idea that sunscreens protect against cancer is not totally unjustified. There is some work that bears it out, but it isn’t particularly well known. I have a feeling I wouldn’t know about this study if I hadn’t been at a Dermatology conference in New Orleans in 2002 where one of the authors gave a talk on it. It wasn’t published at that stage. She started the talk with a review of the evidence which had been gathered up to that point. It was patchy, but suggestive that there was an anti-skin cancer benefit from using sunscreens. It was all a bit scant – suggestive but hardly conclusive.

So dermatologists in Australia, where skin cancer is a huge problem, did a serious prolonged study of the incidence of two kinds of cancer: squamous and basal cell carcinomas. Two groups were studied – one group with and one without daily use of sunscreen. Over the 4.5 years of the study, the group on the sunscreens experienced significantly lower levels of the squamous cell form. There was no difference in the basal cell carcinoma incidence. The followed up 8 years after the completion of the study and found that the effect was a long term one. Quite an impressive one for the squamous cell carcinoma with the sunscreen treated group showing 40% lower incidence level.

But the basal cell carcinomas were the same in each group. This is both the more common and the harder to treat of the two cancers studied, so it is disappointing that no benefit was found.

So for what it is worth, I think sunscreens probably do protect to some extent against cancer but it is far from a well established fact. It doesn’t look at all likely that sunscreens themselves are actually carcinogenic based on this data, so that is good. The critics of sunscreens don’t bother too much with evidence so they are unlikely to let this study change their tune. But it has to be said that it doesn’t look like sunscreens are the ideal solution to the problem. I’d take a 40% reduced risk of the second most common form of skin cancer as well worth having, but it falls short of what I’d describe as ‘protection’. Especially when it does so little against the more common form. The search needs to be on for something a lot better.

As to people who confidently assert that you need to have at least SPF15 and preferably SPF30, well they may well be right but lets be clear that they are offering an opinion not a fact.

And as it often turns out, on investigation it turns out that a lot of what is said about an important subject is based on surprisingly thin foundations.

Don’t get me started on global warming…..

Reference

This is the paper reporting the very good Australian study I discuss above.

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/15/12/2546.short

Thanks to gazzaPax on Flickr for the rather natty image.

Statement by Farah Ahmed, Chair Personal Care Products Council Sunscreen Task Force, Response to the 2011 EWG Sunscreen Report

June 16, 2011 By Guest 7 Comments

May 23, 2011

Contact: Kathleen Dezio, (202) 454-0302 or Lisa Powers, (202) 466-0489

“Despite the extensive body of credible scientific research that demonstrates the safety, efficacy, and public health benefits of sunscreen products, the Washington, DC-based activist group, the Environmental Working Group (EWG), has again questioned the safety and efficacy of sunscreens in another unscientific and unsubstantiated report released just in time for Memorial Day. EWG’s assertions about the safety and efficacy of sunscreen products and ingredients lack the rigor and reliability of formal, expert evaluation, are not peer-reviewed, and confuse and alarm consumers.

“In its 2011 sunscreen report, EWG once again challenges the scientific community’s consensus that sunscreen products are safe and effective. The group’s allegations are in direct conflict with established scientific safety assessments of sunscreen products and their ingredients and the assessments of regulatory authorities in the U.S., European Union, Canada, and several other countries. Ignoring the established scientific and regulatory safety assessment process for sunscreen products and ingredients, EWG invents its own sunscreen product rating system not based on credible scientific methodology. In fact, EWG’s methodology for calculating SPF values has been proven to be inaccurate and unreliable by sunscreen experts, both in the U.S. and abroad.

“Compounding this lack of scientific objectivity is the fact that sunscreen products ranked highly by EWG are promoted for sale on the group’s Web site via their partnership with Amazon.com, generating revenue for EWG and demonstrating a clear and inappropriate commercial interest.

“Consumers can be confident that the sunscreen products they rely on for protection against the harmful effects of the sun are both safe and effective. Sunscreen products have been thoroughly studied and tested by qualified scientists and regulatory authorities throughout the world. In the U.S., sunscreens are regulated as over-the-counter (OTC) drugs by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and are subject to rigorous scientific assessment, including safety and efficacy substantiation according to FDA standards that are among the most rigorous in the world.

“In addition to FDA, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), the Skin Cancer Foundation, physicians and other health care professionals also emphasize the safety of sunscreens and the importance of their use as part of a safe sun regimen.

The dangers of the sun are clear and widely recognized by sunscreen experts and dermatologists. A National Institutes of Health “Report on Carcinogens” identifies solar UV radiation as a “known human carcinogen.” Further, a single bad burn as a child is known to increase the skin’s susceptibility to damage and skin cancer throughout life. In light of this scientifically sound and somber evidence of the dangers of the sun, it is alarming that EWG’s “annual report” could cause some consumers to avoid using sunscreens on themselves and their children.

“EWG’s report is fraught with unsubstantiated assertions, contradictions, and distorted facts. Some examples include:

Skin Cancer

“EWG’s report cites increasing skin cancer rates and questions sunscreen efficacy in fighting this dangerous disease. EWG fails to consider that the higher skin cancer rates of today are the result of excessive unprotected sun exposure from several previous decades as well as the ability to better track, monitor, and report occurrence of the disease.

“It is important to understand that approximately 90 percent of nonmelanoma skin cancers are associated with exposure to ultraviolet (UV) rays from the sun.¹ Each year there are more new cases of skin cancer than the combined incidence of cancers of the breast, prostate, lung and colon.² Further, up to 90 percent of the visible changes commonly attributed to aging are caused by the sun.³

“EWG’s assertions are contrary to the body of scientific and medical data that recognizes the use of sunscreens as part of an overall program of sun safety to help protect against skin cancer and other forms of damage caused by the sun.

Vitamin A in Sunscreen

“Retinyl palmitate, commonly known as Vitamin A, has been used safely in various cosmetic and cosmetic/OTC drug preparations, including sunscreen products, for many years. In its latest sunscreen report, EWG once again questions the safety of Vitamin A in sunscreens. Vitamin A, an important vitamin in humans, is made up of a family of compounds called retinoids. Retinoid esters, including retinyl palmitate, account for more than 70 percent of Vitamin A. Retinyl palmitate is approved by FDA as a food additive. Retinyl palmitate has been reviewed by the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) twice and found to be safe for use in cosmetics. CIR is an independent panel of renowned scientific and medical experts that assesses the safety of cosmetic ingredients used in the U.S.

“There is no compelling evidence that retinyl palmitate in sunscreen products presents any human health risk to consumers. In 2000, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) published a notice stating that it would study the potential of retinyl palmitate to enhance UV radiation-induced photocarcinogenicity. The NTP issued a report for this study in 2011, conducting a peer review in January 2011. The Personal Care Products Council filed extensive and detailed comments highlighting the serious methodological flaws associated with this study. In spite of these flaws, the NTP Peer Review Panel nevertheless concluded there was an effect above the control cream (cream without retinyl palmitate) used in the test. Unfortunately, the control cream, which in all toxicological tests should not cause any effect on the test animals, was improperly formulated for this test and caused a significant response that all but obscured the ability to detect any affect arising from retinyl palmitate. In fact, the flaws are so significant that the results of the study cannot be used for a science-based assessment of risk. It should be noted that there is a large body of evidence that in humans, retinoids have anti-cancer effects, in contrast to the effects sometimes seen in mouse models.

“Unfortunately, EWG has inappropriately used these findings to alarm consumers by telling them that products containing retinyl palmitate, including sunscreens, may not be safe. Their position is simply not supported by the available scientific data.

Safety of Oxybenzone

“In its latest sunscreen report, EWG again questions the safety of an FDA-approved active ingredient in some sunscreens called oxybenzone. When used as a sunscreen ingredient, oxybenzone, also known as Benzophenone-3, protects the skin from harmful UV rays.

“FDA and regulatory authorities in Canada and the European Union have approved the use of oxybenzone as a safe and effective OTC sunscreen ingredient. The safety of oxybenzone has also been reviewed and confirmed by the CIR expert panel. CIR has confirmed that oxybenzone is safe for use as a photo stabilizer (to protect the formulation) in cosmetic products.

“EWG also alleges a connection between UV filters found in sunscreens and hormone or endocrine disruption, but to date, available scientific data does not support a link between UV filter exposure and endocrine-disruptive effects in humans.

Sunscreen and Free Radicals

“It is well known that UV light can produce free radicals in the surface of the skin and that this leads to the damage associated with excessive exposure to sunlight, most often observed as redness or sunburn.⁴ The skin produces natural barriers that absorb the UV light to protect against damage. The interaction of solar UV with these natural barriers can produce free radicals.

“The application of a sunscreen supplements the natural UV absorbers and protects against free radical formation and the associated damage that can occur. Even if sunscreens were to form free radicals, this would occur on the surface of the skin and would not affect the underlying structures.

“Every sunscreen is tested in an SPF test to establish the level of protection provided by the product. These tests confirm that the level of damage in sunscreen-protected skin is well below what occurs in the absence of sunscreen application since there is no ‘redness’ produced. Moreover, even with doses of UV light, which do produce free radicals and redness, the presence of sunscreens blocks such reactions.

“By virtue of their ability to absorb UV radiation before it can interact with skin, sunscreens provide significant protection against UV-induced free radical formation within skin compared with unprotected skin. Studies have documented the protective effects of individual sunscreen actives as well as commercial sunscreen products for their ability to protect against UV-induced free radical formation within skin compared with untreated or bare skin.⁵

Vitamin D

“EWG outlines the benefits of vitamin D, but then creates confusion and mischaracterizes the role of sunscreens in cases of alleged Vitamin D deficiency. AAD notes that getting Vitamin D primarily from sun exposure is not advisable.⁶ While UV radiation is one source of Vitamin D, it is not the best source because the benefits of obtaining Vitamin D through UV exposure cannot be separated from an increased risk of skin cancer. Instead, the AAD recommends that ‘…an adequate amount of vitamin D be obtained from a healthy diet that includes foods naturally rich in Vitamin D (e.g., dairy products and fish), foods/beverages fortified with Vitamin D (e.g., fortified milk and fortified cereals), and/or Vitamin D supplements.’⁷

Nanotechnology

“EWG also questioned the safety of the inclusion of nanoparticles in sunscreen products, despite the fact that the general scientific consensus is that nano-sized titanium dioxide and zinc oxide in personal care products pose no risk to human health. Sunscreen active ingredients, some of which utilize sun-protecting nanoparticles, go through an extensive FDA review process to demonstrate they are safe and effective.

Stability

“The 2011 EWG report also claims that many sunscreen ingredients break down significantly when exposed to sunlight and quickly stop working. This is simply not true. Sunscreen formulators take into account the physical and chemical properties of the active ingredients to ensure they perform effectively and meet all established FDA requirements, including chemical stability. FDA also requires that sunscreens meet strict stability testing requirements to ensure they are effective when purchased by consumers.

FDA Sunscreen Monograph

“EWG asserts that FDA has intentionally delayed issuing the final sunscreen regulations. We are not aware of any evidence to support this assertion. We support FDA’s commitment to making decisions based on sound science. Finalizing sunscreen safety standards is a highly complex regulatory undertaking that requires the careful application of scientific principles and consideration of the evolving science and thousands of data submissions received by FDA. The Council has submitted extensive technical and scientific comments as part of FDA’s public and transparent OTC rulemaking process. We understand that FDA is considering these comments, along with thousands of others that have been submitted, and will publish their conclusions after their review is complete. It is critical that FDA has a sound scientific basis for ensuring that sunscreens provide consumers with the protection they need.

“Consumers who have questions about sunscreen use and the safety and efficacy of sunscreens should visit FDA’s Web site, or the Personal Care Products Council’s safety Web site.

“The Personal Care Products Council joins with the American Academy of Dermatology, the Skin Cancer Foundation, Centers for Disease Control, FDA and other health professionals in urging consumers to minimize their sun exposure as part of an overall safe sun strategy. This includes all of the following: limiting outdoor activities or seeking shade between 10:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. when exposure to UVA/UVB rays is the highest, wearing protective clothing, and using sunscreen.”

_________________________________________________________________________________

¹ Pleasance ED, Cheetham RK, Stephens PJ, et al. A comprehensive catalogue of somatic mutations from a human cancer genome. Nature; 2009; 463:191-196.
² Stern, RS. Prevalence of a history of skin cancer in 2007: results of an incidence-based model. Arch Dermatol 2010; 146(3):279-282.
³ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Health effects of overexposure to the sun. July 1, 2010.
⁴ T Herrling, K Jung, E Chatelain and M Langenauer, Radical Skin/Sun Protection Factor RSF – Protection against UV-induced Free Radicals, SOFW-Journal 132, 24-28 (2006).
⁵ T Herrling, K Jung, E Chatelain and M Langenauer, Radical Skin/Sun Protection Factor RSF – Protection against UV-induced Free Radicals, SOFW-Journal 132, 24-28 (2006); K Jung, M Seifert, T Herrling and J Fuchs, UV-generated free radicals in skin: their prevention by sunscreens and their induction by self-tanning agents, Spectrochim. Acta Part A 69, 1423-1428 (2008); KM Hanson and RM Clegg, Bioconvertible vitamin antioxidants improve sunscreen photo protection against UV induced ROS, J. Cosm. Sci. 54, 589-598 (2003).
⁶ http://www.aad.org/skin-care-and-safety/skin-cancer-prevention/be-sun-smart
⁷ http://www.aad.org/stories-and-news/news-releases/dermatologists-can-help-separate-fact-from-fiction-for-sun-exposure-sunscreen-and-vitamin-d
_________________________________________________________________________________

For more information about cosmetic and personal care products, visit www.cosmeticsinfo.org.

Based in Washington, D.C., the Personal Care Products Council is the leading national trade association representing the global cosmetic and personal care products industry. Founded in 1894, the Council’s more than 600 member companies manufacture, distribute, and supply the vast majority of finished personal care products marketed in the U.S. As the makers of a diverse range of products millions of consumers rely on every day, from sunscreens, toothpaste and shampoo to moisturizer, lipstick and fragrance, personal care products companies are global leaders committed to product safety, quality and innovation.

___________________

Personal Care Truth received permission from the Personal Care Products Council to re-post this press release.

Personal Care Scoop Vol 10

December 17, 2010 By LMRodgers 2 Comments

Searching for relevant content related to the personal care industry can be quite daunting, not to mention, time consuming. At Personal Care Truth, we’ve done the legwork for you.

Inside Cosmeceuticals

Honey Helping Out in Antibiotic Wound Resistant Healing
Antibiotic resistance of bacteria is on the rise, which is creating an urgency to discover new alternative therapeutic agents. Read more.

Antioxidants and Skin Cancer
The risk of skin cancers associated with antioxidant intake declines following interruption of supplementation, supporting a causative role for antioxidants in the evolution of skin cancers, according to a recent French study. Read more.

Skin, Inc.

Epidermal Growth Factor for Skin Regeneration
Although the search continues for the proverbial fountain of youth, advancements in skin care have resulted in progress toward its discovery. One such development was the founding of epidermal growth factor (EGF) in 1986 by scientists Stanley Cohen and Rita Levi-Motalcini. Read more.

Why Preservatives Make a Better Mineral Makeup
Today’s women demand more from their skin care products—and makeup—than ever before. In particular, the anti-aging boom of the past decade has brought skin function into sharp focus for discerning consumers. Read more.

Cosmetics & Toiletries

Keratolytic Treatments for Acne: A Review
Keratinocyte deviations in proliferation, adhesion and differentiation obstruct the infundibulum and the sebaceous duct, paving the way for excessive sebum secretion, bacterial overgrowth such as Propionibacterium acnes (P. acnes), and inflammatory response due to release of bacterial and cellular products, i.e. sebum and keratin. Read more.

Catechin and Epicatechin

October 6, 2010 By Cindy Jones 3 Comments

We’ve all heard of these two phytochemicals as beneficial components of our favorite foods: tea, wine and chocolate! These molecules are part of a large family called flavonoids. Notice the 3 ring structures in the diagram; this is what makes these two molecules a flavonoid. More specifically, they are flavanols. The -ol just refers to OH group that you see on the lower right portion of the molecule. Anything that has an OH group is considered an alcohol and the name of the molecule typically ends with –ol as does flavanol. The most common alcohol, ethanol, also ends with –ol and catechin can more correctly be called catechol.

Catechin and epicatechin are isomers which mean they have the same molecular formula (count the number of carbons, hydrogens and oxygens!) but have a different structure or arrangement of those atoms. With catechin and epicatechin the difference lies in the OH group we just spoke of. It is below the plane in epicatechin and above the plane in catechin which is indicated by either the dashed or solid line.

The more correct name for catechin is: 3,3’,4’,5,7-pentahydroxyflavan. Another example of why the phrase ‘if you can’t pronounce something it isn’t good for you’ just isn’t true! Oftentimes catechins will be attached to a sugar molecule and are referred to as O-glycosides.

Products that are high in catechins and epicatechins have been found to have protective effects toward heart disease. Newer research has shown that these compounds are protective for the skin, providing photoprotection and improving the appearance and hydration of skin. Tea, both green and black, may also protect against skin cancer. Apparently, flavonoids have the ability to absorb UV light which may make them a useful ingredient in sun screens and other skin care products. These chemicals are a great addition to a skin care product to protect skin.

Tea Tree and It’s Amazing Tumor Shrinking Power

September 8, 2010 By Amanda Foxon-Hill 10 Comments

Research out of the University of Western Australia showed Tea Tree oil to be effective in inhibiting the growth of tumours under the skin in mice. This fascinating discovery was reported to the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation who hope that this study will lead to a treatment for various types of skin cancer.

During the study a notable shrinkage in the tumors was observed in the mice treated with a tea tree oil formulation applied directly to the skin. Previous research into the anti-cancer activity of tea tree oil has been limited to in-vitro testing which has proved useful but not necessary applicable to real-life situations. This study gives researchers hope that an all-natural treatment based on tea tree may not only be possible but may be deliverable transdermally.

This study represents the first breakthrough in a series of research steps that will hopefully take this all-Australian product into mainstream medicine, you can read more here.

Do UV Nail Lamps Emit Unsafe Levels of Ultraviolet Light?

August 19, 2010 By Doug Schoon Leave a Comment

Three Experts Rebut Claims that UV Nail Lamps are Unsafe for Skin

Doug Schoon, M.S. Chemistry, Chief Scientific Advisor,CND
Paul Bryson, Ph.D. Chemistry, Director of R&D, OPI Products
Jim McConnell, BA Chemistry, President, McConnell Labs

Introduction

A recent report incorrectly claimed that UV nail lamps are a source of “high-dose UV-A” and also inaccurately compared UV tanning beds with UV nail lamps. The report, “Occurrence of Nonmelanoma Skin Cancers on the Hands After UV Nail Light Exposure” (MacFarlane and Alonso) 1 , overestimated the exposure of client skin to UV light emitted from UV nail lamps and improperly characterized the effect of these lamps on the hand.

As three of the leading scientists in the professional nail industry, we were surprised by these claims. To verify the facts, using an independent laboratory we tested the leading UV nail lamps to determine how much UV-A and UV-B they emit and then compared that to natural sunlight.

Testing

In preparation for our study, we tested many UV nail lamps to determine which had the highest UV output and, as expected, found the nail lamp with the highest output was one designed to utilize four 9-watt UV bulbs. We also decided to test a popular UV nail lamp designed to utilize two 9-watt UV bulbs. The purpose for testing both lamps was to determine how exposures vary across the range of UV nail lamps with the goal of providing information that would apply to the majority of salons and situations. The selected two bulb UV nail lamp was chosen and tested because it is a popular brand and representative of other UV nail lamps within the two 9-watt UV bulb category. The selected four 9-watt UV bulb nail lamp was chosen because it had the highest measured UV output of any UV nail lamp tested. No attempt was made to test UV nail lamps utilizing only one UV bulb, since the overwhelming majority of UV nail lamps use two, three or four UV bulbs. The UV nail lamps selected for testing are likely representative of more than 90% of the UV nail lamps used in salons.

Lighting Science, Inc., of Phoenix, AZ., is a fully equipped, completely independent scientific testing laboratory that specializes in the development and testing of many types of illumination devices, including those that emit UV light and Lighting Science is not in the business of manufacturing or selling UV nail lamps. The two selected UV nail lamps were submitted to Lighting Science in brand-new condition. Highly sensitive UV detectors were placed where client hands would normally reside while inside a UV nail lamp. These detectors accurately measured the amount of UV-A and UV-B light emitted from each UV nail lamp. To ensure a proper comparison, Lighting Science also used the same test equipment to measure the UV-A and UV-B light found in natural sunlight. A discussion of these measurements and results is presented below.

Discussion

The MacFarlane and Alonso report made several errors and misstatements concerning artificial nails products and how they are applied. The most notable involves the improper estimation of UV exposure to the skin by UV nail lamps, resulting in a faulty report conclusion. It is incorrect to conclude that putting a hand into a tanning bed with twelve 100-watt UV bulbs is the same as putting that hand into a UV nail lamp with four 9-watt bulbs because: 1) tanning bed users typically use these devices more often and for much longer periods than seen with nail salon services, 2) the authors mistakenly assumed that UV bulb “wattage” is a measure of UV exposure to the skin, when wattage is actually a measure of energy usage, 3) the authors erred significantly by relying solely on UV bulb wattage to estimate the actual amount of UV exposure to skin, and 4) they neglected to consider that UV light reflects many times inside the tanning bed and these internal reflections further increase UV exposure to skin, again demonstrating that MacFarlane and Alonso approach to estimating UV exposure to skin is not valid. Their comparisons to UV tanning beds simply doesn’t make sense logically or scientifically.

The UV testing performed by Lighting Science used proper scientific techniques and equipment to measure both UV-A and UV-B radiation in terms of milliwatts per centimeter squared (mW/cm2), which is a measure of how much UV light falls upon each and every square centimeter of skin (about 1/8 square inch). It is important to understand that UV-B is considered by many to be more potentially damaging to skin than UV-A, which is why nail lamps rely on special UV bulbs that contain internal coatings designed to filter out most of the UV-B light.

It is important to note that clients visit a salon for UV gel nail application or maintenance twice each month and that each of their hands are placed into the UV lamp for intervals of two minute or less, for a total of 6-10 minutes. In this report, we will always assume the highest level of exposure: 10 minutes per hand, twice per month.

Results

Testing by Lighting Sciences produced the following information:

1. UV-B output for both UV nail lamps was less than what was found in natural sunlight.

The bulbs used in UV nail lamps contain special internal filters which remove almost all UV-B, so this result is not surprising. The test results show that the amount of UV-B to which client skin is exposed is equal to what they could expect from spending an extra 17 to 26 seconds in sunlight each day of the two weeks between nail salon appointments.

2. UV-A exposure is much lower than suggested by MacFarlane and Alonso.

Test results show that UV-A exposure for client skin is equivalent to spending an extra 1.5 to 2.7 minutes in sunlight each day between salon visits, depending on the type of UV nail lamp used. A nail lamp with two UV bulbs corresponds to 1.5 minutes and a nail lamp with four UV bulbs corresponds to about 2.7 minutes each day between salon visits.
MacFarlane and Alonso claimed to find two cases of skin cancer that they suggest were caused by UV nail lamps. Both of their patients live in Texas, a climate where significant incidental UV exposure from sunlight is inevitable even in the absence of deliberate recreational exposure. One patient had been exposed to a UV nail lamp only eight times during the same year (we assume every two weeks for 4 months). During this same period, the patient would have been exposed to more UV-A and UV-B simply by spending 10 to 20 minutes eating her lunch outdoors in natural sunlight once per week.

Oddly, the authors described this patient as a 48-year-old white woman who claimed to have “moderate recreational UV exposure”. We fail to understand how, under the circumstances, it could be concluded that this case of non-melanoma skin cancer is caused by these eight exposures to a UV nail lamp, especially in light of the low levels of UV exposure expected during these few visits to a salon. We respectfully disagree and believe the results of Light Science’s independent testing are in agreement with our own laboratory findings supporting the safety of UV nail lamps.

Conclusion

• McFarlane and Alonso’s report has a faulty conclusion because it is based on incorrect assumptions.

• Our testing shows that UV nail lamps emit relatively low levels of UV light and these exposure levels are considered well within safe levels when they are used to perform UV artificial nail services in nail salons.

Unfortunately, inaccurate information can have a long-term damaging effect, even when later disproved. Already, some are unfairly distorting the risks of cancer on Internet blogs, YouTube and other media outlets, even to the extent of offering the exceptionally unwise advice of forgoing the UV curing of products that will not cure otherwise. We believe a fair examination of the facts supports the conclusion that UV nail lamps are safe when used as directed and brief client exposures are as safe as brief exposures to natural sunlight. Client hands are likely to be exposed to more UV light while driving their cars than they will receive from UV gel nail services.

Nail UV lamps are safe when used as directed. Nevertheless, we recognize the Nail Technician’s need to address client concerns. For those clients who express anxiety, a Nail Technician can consider doing the following to make the service more reassuring:

• Place a small piece of white cloth over the hands when placing them in the UV nail lamp.

• If a client insists on wearing sunscreen, they should still be asked to wash their hands before any salon service begins.

In this case, the Nail Technician should take special care to ensure nail plates are properly cleansed and dehydrated in order to prevent service breakdown (e.g. product lifting, discoloration or mottling) from the film sunscreen products can leave behind. Also, it is crucial to keep sunscreen lotions and sprays away from implements and supplies used during the nail service to avoid contamination.

Reference:

1. Occurrence of Nonmelanoma Skin Cancers on the Hands After UV Nail Light Exposure, MacFarlane, D.F., Alonso, C.A., Arch Dermatol. 2009;145(4):447-449
______________________
Author’s Biographies:

Doug Schoon, M.S. Chemistry, UC Irvine, is an internationally known scientist and lecturer with 20 years experience as a scientific researcher in the professional nail industry and has many years experience developing UV cure nail products. Schoon is author of Nail Structure and Product Chemistry, 1st & 2nd editions, many dozens of trade magazine articles and chapters in the textbook Milady’s Standard Nail Technology, as well as chapters on cosmetics in a variety of different reference books for Dermatologists.

Paul Bryson, Ph.D. Chemistry, U.S.C., Director of Research and Development of OPI Products Inc. for the past 12 years. His experience includes formulating both UV cured and 2-component acrylic systems for nail cosmetics, dental restorations, and electronic-part fabrication. He is a regular contributor to trade magazines, has written a chapter on nail cosmetics for a medical dermatology text, and has advised the California Board of Barbering and Cosmetology on improving salon safety regulations.

Jim McConnell, B.A. Chemistry, University of Oregon, President of McConnell Labs, manufacturers of Light Elegance Nail Products. A formulating chemist of UV cured systems for 12 years in the beauty industry. Jim is a contributing author for Milady’s Standard Nail Technology as well as articles in many manicuring trade magazines.

Media Inquiries: Doug Schoon DSchoon@SchoonScientific.com

Cancer from Vitamin A in Your Sunscreen?

July 19, 2010 By Paula Begoun Leave a Comment

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has released their annual sunscreen scare report to help mislead consumers about how to take care of their skin. On the 24^th of May, the Washington, D.C.-based lobbying group sent out a press release stating that retinyl palmitate (a form of vitamin A) in sunscreens is linked to skin cancer and tumor growth. Not surprisingly, within hours of the release we received a flurry of emails from concerned consumers. Once again, the EWG has propagated incomplete, ridiculous information under the guise of being consumer watchdogs—and once again lots of consumers are eyeing their sunscreens with the same suspicion they’d normally reserve for an unmarked vat of toxic chemicals.

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) was implicated in this report, with the basic sentiment being that the risks associated with retinyl palmitate and skin damage was something they were aware of yet failed to warn the public about. Reading the EWG report, you’d think a large percentage of sunscreen-wearing consumers would be stricken with cancer (never mind that sun exposure in and of itself is the most potent carcinogen we’re exposed to on a daily basis) by the very products they’re using in good faith to prevent this disease. In fact, the EWG report points to the increased use of sunscreen as the cause for the increase in current skin cancer cases. This is the very definition of stupidity. The real reason for rising skin cancer rates is the simple fact that today’s skin cancer rates are the result of decades of long-term unprotected sun exposure. Not to mention research shows only 10% of the population even uses sunscreen on a regular basis.

The EWG’s assertions about sunscreen efficacy flies in the face of hundreds of published, peer-reviewed studies from medical and research centers all over the world proving sunscreen can prevent skin cancer as well as wrinkles and skin discolorations.

In terms of vitamin A in sunscreens being a concern, the EWG seems to be completely ignorant of the fact that retinyl palmitate is one of the primary sources of antioxidant protection found naturally in skin (Source: Toxicology and Industrial Health, May 2006, pages 181–191).

The Personal Care Products Council, lead by former FDA chief John Bailey (himself a scientist), was quick to respond to the allegations in the EWG’s report. This group represents the global cosmetic and personal care industry, and is on the leading edge of not only product innovation, but of safety. Here are the highlights you must know:

Sunscreens: General Info

The safety and efficacy of sunscreen products have been thoroughly studied and tested by scientists and regulatory authorities throughout the world.

There is an extensive body of research supporting the safety and efficacy of commercially-available sunscreen actives—far too much to list here.

Daily use of a well-formulated sunscreen rated SPF 15 or greater is recommended not only by the FDA, but by the American Academy of Dermatology, the Skin Cancer Foundation, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.

Sunscreens in the U.S. are regulated as over-the-counter (OTC) drugs by the FDA and must undergo pre-market approval that involves rigorous scientific assessment including safety and efficacy substantiation according to FDA standards. You will be pleased to know that these standards are among the most rigorous in the world.

The EWG’s Inaccurate Sunscreen Assertions

EWG’s statements against sunscreens are in direct conflict with the established scientific and FDA safety assessments of sunscreen products and their ingredients. This includes scientific and regulatory bodies in the European Union, Canada, and several other countries.

According to the Personal Care Products Council, the EWG has invented its own method for calculating how much protection a sunscreen provides; however, this system is “based on very questionable scientific methodology” that has “proven to be inaccurate and unreliable by sunscreen experts around the world.”

Dermatologist Dr. Zoe Draelos had the following comments about the EWG’s latest report: “I think it’s very sad. A lot of their sunscreen recommendations are based on very old technology, and some of the best sunscreens on the market have newer chemicals that are much more effective. A lot of their opinions are not keeping pace with technology and an understanding of the science of these formulations.”

Vitamin A Isn’t Going to Give You Cancer

Here are the key facts about vitamin A (including the retinyl palmitate form) and sunscreen use that you need to know:

Retinyl palmitate is approved by the FDA as a food additive, as an over-the-counter (OTC) drug, and a prescription drug. To achieve premarket approval, the FDA requires extensive and rigorous testing. This vitamin wouldn’t be widely used if pre-market tests showed it to be carcinogenic (cancer-causing).

According to the Personal Care Products Council statement, “In 2000, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) published a notice stating that it would study the potential of retinyl palmitate to enhance UV radiation-induced photocarcinogenisity. While the study is listed as ‘in progress,’ the NTP recently released preliminary data on their Web site; scientific peer review of the entire study is now scheduled for late 2010 or early 2011. Peer review is essential before the results of a study can be accurately interpreted or used to support conclusions. It must be noted that this NTP study was not designed to study retinyl palmitate in the presence or absence of sunscreen formulations.” Therefore, the EWG reached their conclusion based on preliminary data.

A truly credible scientific organization would never evaluate such preliminary data and make recommendations based upon it, especially those that lead to consumer confusion and fear (with fear being what the EWG seems to thrive on).

Retinyl palmitate has been shown in UVB exposure studies to offer sun protection, and it is a potent antioxidant (Sources: International Journal of Pharmaceutics, October 2007, pages 181–189; and Journal of Investigative Dermatology, November 2003, pages 1,163–1,167).

In vitro (test tube) research showed that pure vitamin A (retinol) has a mutagenic effect on cultured skin cells when exposed to UV light. However, the conclusion reached was as follows: “Vitamin A in the skin resides in a complex environment that in many ways is very different from the chemical environment in solution and in vitro test systems. Relevant clinical studies or studies in animal models are therefore needed to establish whether the pro-oxidant activity of photoexcited vitamin A is observed in vivo [on human skin], and to assess the related risks.”

The studies examining vitamin A’s role in the presence of UV light did not involve the use of a well formulated sunscreen or credible sunscreen actives. Although damaging effects upon exposure to UV light were tied to vitamin A, there was no comparison to see what would happen if the lab samples were treated with sunscreen prior to UV exposure (Sources: Toxicology and Industrial Health, November 2007, pages 625–631; Toxicology Letters, May 2006, pages 30–43; and International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, June 2006, pages 185–190).

We know that vitamin A is an antioxidant, and we also know that antioxidants break down in the presence of sunlight, generating by-products that can potentially cause damage. This is how antioxidants work to protect your skin from the greater source of damage, which is sunlight—and it’s precisely why daily sunscreen use is essential!

The EWG’s Own Conflict of Interest

You may have noticed that the EWG recommends a small percentage of sunscreens. But did you also notice that the sunscreens they recommend as safe are available for purchase via links from their site? By linking to the sunscreen manufacturer’s Web site and making a purchase, you are adding to the financial coffers of the EWG, giving them the support they need to continue these unfounded, needlessly alarming reports. This represents the EWG’s commercial interest; they only want you to purchase the sunscreens that they think are safe (and they leave out hundreds of sunscreens we know to be perfectly safe and effective). If they were really concerned about your health and well-being, they would be more open to presenting accurate, peer-reviewed information and would have to admit that their stance on sunscreens is mostly without merit.

In summation, there is no credible, substantiated reason to avoid using sunscreens that contain any form of vitamin A, including retinyl palmitate. Following the EWG’s advice about sunscreen use and which sunscreens are safe not only severely limits your options, but is not based on criteria that even a novice scientist would consider wise.