A common sunscreen ingredient turns toxic in the sea – anemones suggest why

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01271-4

by gmays • 4 years ago

191 139 4 years ago

nature.com

wrycoder2• 4 years ago

Toxic to anemones, that is.

dtagames• 4 years ago

The concern is that it's toxic to coral, an important part of the food chain in the ocean.

The risks of sunscreen chemicals to coral has been known for years in reef communities like Cancun and Hawaii, but it isn't widely known elsewhere. Of course, many tourists still use these chemicals when they swim in the reef.

mherdeg• 4 years ago

We're all-in on zinc oxide for sunscreen (90%+ of the time avoiding other chemical alternatives).

I don't know if the *-benzones or the other ingredients actually pose any health risks to humans and I doubt the risk is greater than the risk of melanoma after sunburn. But it doesn't cost us much extra to stick to a single ingredient, it's something we already smear on our kids all the time (as Desitin), and it's only slightly more inconvenient to apply without looking like a spooky ghost, so why not?

wrycoder2• 4 years ago

Oxybenzone — a chemical linked to coral bleaching — transforms from a UV-blocking agent into one that damages cells when exposed to light.

The article subhead, copied above, suggests that oxybenzone, once exposed to seawater, could damage cells. Without qualification, human cells. That was my initial takeaway.

It turns out that anemones convert oxybenzone to a molecule that could damage coral. That’s very different.

lostcolony2• 4 years ago

How common is oxybenzone (or octinoxate for that matter) currently? Just a couple years ago it seemed to be in nearly every container of sunscreen (and all the articles I can find about it were from then), as I actively tried to avoid it. I went looking for sunscreen just last week, and I literally didn't see it listed once, even in the most commodity brands like Banana Boat and Sun Bum.

gruez• 4 years ago

"Amazon's Choice" for "sunscreen" contains 6% Oxybenzone.

https://www.amazon.com/Neutrogena-Ultra-Dry-Touch-Sunscreen-...

lostcolony2• 4 years ago

I don't know if I believe that, actually.

If you look at one of Amazon's "best sellers" in the category, https://www.amazon.com/Sun-Bum-Moisturizing-SPF-Hypoallergen..., you see the description says both Oxybenzone and Octinoxate free, but that the image of the ingredient list shows Octinoxate. They clearly updated the product, but not the images.

If I search for the particular sunscreen you link and go to Neutrogena's website, I get https://www.neutrogena.com/products/sun/ultra-sheer-dry-touc..., which is, as you'll note from the URL, Oxybenzone free (and Octinoxate as well). Searching more broadly, I can't find -any- reference to the 70 SPF ultra sheer dry touch with Oxybenzone on Neutrogena's site; I can find the 100 SPF at https://www.neutrogena.com/products/sun/ultra-sheer-dry-touc... (via Google), but as you'll note, that's discontinued.

I can also comment, in Target, I looked at every Neutrogena product. I can't say for certain I saw the 70 SPF, but I can say I definitely checked out the ultra sheer dry touch line. No Oxybenzone.

So my expectation is that either that item on Amazon is old stock, or they haven't updated the product details (I don't see an indicator it's being filled by a third party else I'd also suggest it might be a formulation for another country that doesn't have regulations/awareness around oxybenzone). It's not actually being sold by Neutrogena in the US any more.

scythe• 4 years ago

The persistence of these *benzones in sunscreen is largely an American problem. As of 2019, the FDA had not approved any new sunscreen ingredients in two decades:

https://www.cosmeticsandtoiletries.com/regulations/spf-sun/n...

So if you live outside the US, you probably see very different ingredient lists.

qgin2• 4 years ago

Pretty much every other country has better and less toxic sunscreen than the US, but unfortunately we categorize sunscreens as drugs and there’s not enough money in sunscreen do the kind of trial FDA requires for new drugs.

ravenstine3• 4 years ago

I never use sunscreen at the ocean, both because I just hate putting it on and because I always thought it was probably not the best thing to put that crap directly into the ecosystem. Unless I'm spending a ton of time at the beach, which rarely happens, I feel like I can deal with an hour or so of that kind of sun exposure every now and then.

If one is spending a ton of time in the sun, then yeah, use sunscreen. Since I'm indoors most of the time, I rarely find sunscreen that helpful. Anecdotally, I think I became more sun tolerant after changing my diet. In short, I highly limit eating processed foods and stick to meat and some plants that are low in natural defense chemicals. Since that's a low-inflammatory diet, maybe that explains it. But I'm purely speculating.

fullstop2• 4 years ago

I would look like a tomato if I were exposed to 1 hour of mid-day sun at the beach.

nkingsy• 4 years ago

I burn about as easily as anyone, but 20 mins on each side with my face and neck covered doesn’t result in a burn for me.

I do wear mineral sunscreen on my face, neck and arms for normal outdoor activities.

dymk8• 4 years ago

Getting the sunburn has nothing to do with your body’s inflammatory response.

Like, taking aspirin won’t keep you from getting sunburnt. Same way it won't prevent you from getting burned if you touch a hot stove. It makes no sense.

UniverseHacker• 4 years ago

Actually aspirin totally does have a powerful effect on sunburns... the aspirin probably doesn't actually protect your skin from damage, but it reduces the painful inflammation afterwards, which is the part we actually feel and consider a 'sunburn.' I know several people that take aspirin instead of using sunscreen.

ravenstine3• 4 years ago

Sunburns are absolutely an inflammatory response. Nearly any given academic literature will state that it is definitively. It's dumbfounding how you state sunburns have "nothing to do with inflammation." Feel free to check out the links I'll add below for more info.

Second, yeah, of course aspirin won't stop sunburns. Sunburns, being inflammatory, are caused by damage. In particular, the inflammation is responding to damage from UV radiation. Aspirin can only somewhat reduce inflammation after the damage has taken place, but it can do nothing to prevent the damage itself.

As inflammation is a response to damage, and nothing (known) about any diet can stop UV damage, so yeah, you are right that my diet won't prevent sunburn. It's not like I actually said that it would in the first place. The idea is that if one doesn't already have a level of inflammation then something like a sunburn won't get as aggravated or aggravated as quickly. As I said in my original comment, it's speculation. I just don't think it's as farfetched as you seem to believe per your aspirin-stove analogy.

---

"Sunburn" (Encyclopedia Britannica)

https://www.britannica.com/science/sunburn

sunburn, acute cutaneous inflammation caused by overexposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation of the so-called UVB wavelength band

"Sunburn" (National Library of Medicine)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK534837/#_article-29684...

UVA and UVB rays both play a role in sunburn, though UVB rays are responsible for directly damaging DNA by inducing the formation of thymine-thymine cyclobutane dimers.[6] When these dimers are formed, the body generates a DNA repair response, which includes the induction of apoptosis of cells and the release of inflammatory markers such as prostaglandins, reactive oxygen species, and bradykinin. This leads to vasodilation, edema, and pain which translates into the classically red, painful skin seen in a sunburn. Additionally, skin exposure to UVB causes an increase in chemokines such as CXCL5 and activates peripheral nociceptors, which results in over-activation of the pain receptors of the skin.

"What Inflammation Is And Why Is It Dangerous?" (Harvard Medical Publishing)

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/what-is-infla...

But sometimes this immune response occurs when it shouldn't. It can be triggered, for example, when you are exposed to toxins, and by other causes such as chronic stress, obesity, and autoimmune disorders. In these cases, instead of moving in, healing the problem, and then returning to normal, the inflammation persists over time. It's thought that this chronic state of inflammation can lead to numerous health problems, including heart disease, arthritis, depression, Alzheimer's disease, and even cancer.

simiones• 4 years ago

How toxic can this be, compared to the enormous dilution it would reach in the ocean?

If this is indeed a major cause of the coral reef issues, I would expect that there is some entity dumping large amounts of the stuff directly into the ocean. Intuitively it seems very unlikely that the amount that will wash off swimmer's skin would be a major contributor, at least for anything that is not living right next to the beach side.

x86_64Ubuntu• 4 years ago

Living organisms are SUPER sensitive to chemical and temperature changes. The fact that oil spills, algae blooms from ag runoff have wide reaching effects shows that dilution is not as significant as we want it to be in making problems go away.

shakezula2• 4 years ago

Not to mention places like Hawaii have outlawed certain chemicals in sunscreens specifically because of these types of issues. It’s not really a question of if anymore but how much and how bad.

tsimionescu5• 4 years ago

Comparing oil spills and agricultural runoff to skin residue is absurd. We're talking about trillions of times the quantity, if not more, even from a small oil spill.

A whole tube of sunscreen has a few hundred grams, of which you only wear a fraction, which you then slowly dilute in many tens or hundreds of thousands of kilograms of water close to the shore. I'd doubt you get more than a few molecules ever reaching any particular organism.

titzer2• 4 years ago

There is also the phenomenon of bio-accumulation, where things get concentrated as they move up the foodchain. Unfortunately the food chain is a bit like a filter for all the bad stuff in the water; the complete opposite of dilution.

mrfusion2• 4 years ago

10 internet points if you can point me to a sunscreen that’s sweat resistant, non greasy, and non toxic (physical)

I’ve been trying to find one for months.

easyat• 4 years ago

Lightweight clothing covering your skin is the best way

dymk8• 4 years ago

Unfortunately my hands, feet, neck, and ears sunburn easily, and can’t really be covered when swimming or on the beach, so a sunscreen is still needed

causi2• 4 years ago

It absolutely is not. Thin clothing is bad at blocking UV. For example, a cotton t-shirt blocks 41% of UVA and 40% of UVB. That's like wearing SPF 1.7 sunscreen, i.e., you're getting twenty times the UV exposure you'd get wearing bare-minimum SPF-15 sunscreen.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4414538/

annoyingnoob2• 4 years ago

I hate sunscreen but I have pale skin that burns in an instant. I've been going for the mineral based products for the last few years. Though they are mostly greasy and need to be reapplied.

changoplatanero• 4 years ago

I learned that countries in Europe and Asia have better sunscreens because the bureaucracy of the FDA in America makes it too difficult to get those sunscreens imported here. I like using it though. If it's good enough for Europeans it's good enough for me.

hombre_fatal• 4 years ago

I think ISDIN carries those sorts of sunscreens: https://www.isdin.com/en/product/fotoprotector-isdin/fusion-...

It was the first time I realized sunscreen doesn’t need to be greasy and/or a thick paste that never absorbs. And my Mexican girlfriend pointed out that state of sunscreen tech is much better than what we have in the US.

It blew my mind to use sunscreen that spreads like a watery cream that instantly absorbs and leaves behind no residue. I finally became a daily user.

TedDoesntTalk2• 4 years ago

Shiseido Ultimate Sun Protector Lotion SPF 50. It also is free of benzene, unlike many other sunscreens:

https://www.consumerlab.com/answers/cancer-causing-compounds...

warning: it is expensive but worth it

hadlock4• 4 years ago

Coppertone Sport SPF 50 (in the blue bottle) seems to be the best I've found. It's used almost exclusively in the sailboat racing communities, particularly in sunny areas like south texas.

mrfusion2• 4 years ago

Not greasy?

xxpor2• 4 years ago

Get some Korean/Japanese sunscreen from Stylevana.

For example:

https://www.stylevana.com/en_US/kao-biore-uv-aqua-rich-water...

The watery gel stuff isn't approved by the FDA, but it feels a million times better than anything we can get here. Absorbs nearly instantly, doesn't feel greasy, and over SPF 50.

dljsjr• 4 years ago

Contains benzene still so probably not what the parent comment is looking for.

jabl• 4 years ago

I usually get some SPF 50+ kids sunscreen. The one I use has the downside that one looks like a mummy, but I guess that's the price one has to pay for physical protection (titanium dioxide usually IIRC).

Personally I'm the kind that turns from ghastly pale into red-like-a-boiled-crab at the flick of a switch, so I tend to wear long-sleeved shirts and a wide-brimmed hat as much as possible in the summer.

morsch• 4 years ago

I just hope the titanium dioxide is as non toxic as we hope, since it's damn hard to avoid, including in stuff that you put inside your body as opposed to just on it. I failed to get a toothpaste without it, but it's in other stuff I consume, too (for no particular reason other than optics).

tsimionescu5• 4 years ago

Titanium dioxide is no longer considered safe as a food additive in the EU at least. Hopefully it's not as problematic on the outside of your body, but you never know...

pbhjpbhj• 4 years ago

It's it possible to have sunscreen that is sweat-resistant and non-greasy?

aryik• 4 years ago

Supergoop and kinship both make pretty great non toxic sunscreens.

volkl48• 4 years ago

Hero Cosmetics's line has worked pretty well for me (for a face sunscreen). Zinc oxide only, doesn't make me (a white guy) look ghostly.

lacrosse_tannin• 4 years ago

Hat

belval2• 4 years ago

The comments here seems to be missing the point, yes the article is not technically clickbait, but it also explicitly mentions that while oxybenzone causes bleaching, it is not responsible for THE coral bleaching that we are seeing in most reefs around the world.

The study lacks “ecological realism”, agrees Terry Hughes, a marine biologist at James Cook University in Townsville, Australia. Coral-bleaching events on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, for example, have been linked more closely to trends in water temperature than to shifts in tourist activity. “Mass bleaching happens regardless of where the tourists are,” Hughes says. “Even the most remote, most pristine reefs are bleaching because water temperatures are killing them.”

And this gem as a final note:

Hughes emphasizes that the greatest threats to reefs remain rising temperatures, coastal pollution and overfishing. Changing sunscreens might not do much to protect coral reefs, Hughes says. “It’s ironic that people will change their sunscreens and fly from New York to Miami to go to the beach,” he says. “Most tourists are happy to use a different brand of sunscreen, but not to fly less and reduce carbon emissions.”

pentae• 4 years ago

Indeed. I imagine it would be pretty hard for people to enjoy swimming in these places without taking a commercial flight

dymk8• 4 years ago

This is why we need a net carbon tax. Behavior won’t change unless people start paying the real cost of emitting carbon.

sfe22• 4 years ago

Maybe we do indeed need that tax. My only request would be the decision to be democratic and making sure the revenue doesn’t go to to the monopoly that injected people with plutonium. Instead it can be used to reverse the damage and with any excess being returned to their rightful earners.

belval2• 4 years ago

Carbon tax only works if everyone agrees which is the actual crux of the issue. If you enforce new legislation to tax carbon-emitting industries in the US, all you are doing is offshoring that manufacturing to some place where the tax does not exist.

Not saying that it's inherently a bad idea, but there are no silver bullets on that issue. I'd like to see more work done on point source capture of carbon/methane. https://netl.doe.gov/carbon-management/carbon-capture

rgrieselhuber• 4 years ago

Best way to do it would be to tax anyone flying on PJs. You could buy an annual private jet license and it would be very expensive.

upsidesinclude3• 4 years ago

Absolutely and utterly fictional. Carbon credit schemes are a way to push cost off and allow for corporations to pollute. Look at industrial pollutants and carbon is one of the least concerning. It's a political talking point why? Because lobbyists tell politicians they need it and hand them money.

Investigate a little deeper. You will find that the entire world must agree to participate for something like carbon tax to work... the world is not on board with hobbling industry

RRL3• 4 years ago

Ref final note:

Exactly. I have quite a few friends who regularly fly/travel to these scenic ocean/river systems, but will absolve themselves of concern because they're using some 'reef safe' sunscreen when they dip in to the water. Greenhouse gas emissions are always someone else's fault. Industry, diesel trucks, etc etc.

They're also the same folks that attack Airbnb and gentrification at home, but are the first to jump on to the Airbnb moneyed expat lifestyle when traveling.

At this point, it's not even worth the time to debate.

jstanley• 4 years ago

the same folks that attack Airbnb and gentrification at home, but are the first to jump on to the Airbnb moneyed expat lifestyle when traveling.

Are you sure they're the same people?

It is a classic mistake to lump everyone you've ever disagreed with into a single group and then lampoon the group for its contradictions.

pvaldes• 4 years ago

Everybody is bad, except me of course, but in the end this is a little step in the right direction.

So... Why is a problem that a few less anemones don't die?. Conservation is not like zapping a magic wand and all is good again.

Even little steps helps and every little problem solved is one less problem that we have.

gusgus01• 4 years ago

This feels like a corollary of the concept of "Voting with your wallet", which is a debatable concept at best. Individual actions in the face of corporations like airlines and airbnb won't affect the company. It's only going to negatively impact your life. Working on systemic change is the answer.

ch4s35• 4 years ago

You could make a compelling argument that no one with any real power would care about the reefs if they weren't regularly visited by relatively wealthy tourists that have at least some connection to those in power and the broader public. Yellowstone wouldn't exist without people like John Muir. Travel helps people connect with the physical world and the people who inhabit physically and culturally remote places.

virtue3• 4 years ago

One could argue that the oil industries play to shift greenhouse gas emission responsibilities to consumers was pretty horse shit.

Especially since greenhosue gas emissions for the airline industry is about 3% of all greenhouse gas emissions.

hackernewds2• 4 years ago

You can also live a practical life while making ethical practical choices. Traveling to another state is a necessity, even if for leisure.

cryptonector• 4 years ago

all the private jet-set elites join the chat

jay_kyburz• 4 years ago

I just got back from a trip to Cairns and the reef is basically gone in the few locations I visited. 20 years ago it was like swimming in a Disney movie with Nemo. Now you might as well be swimming off the rocks at Batemans Bay.

The 21/22 bleaching event has finally killed the reef I think.

https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/ulmgcb/leaked_dr...

Found this today too. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/10/devastat...

titzer2• 4 years ago

This is so depressing. I was never diver, and now it looks like that too is going to be a thing of the past.

hadlock4• 4 years ago

Oxybenzone studies have in the past been funded by a sunscreen company in hawaii, and used those to push for the ban of Oxybenzone sunscreen sales in Hawaii. Since Hawaii is an island, everyone needs to buy sunscreen on arrival after landing at the airport. Oxybenzone studies have been questioned previously based on the amount used in sunscreen, dilution in The Ocean, and those used in the study. Follow the money.

dave51042• 4 years ago

Since Hawaii is an island, everyone needs to buy sunscreen on arrival after landing at the airport.

If you're implying this is somehow enforced at the airport, this is not even remotely true.

Source: Brought my own sunscreen from outside of Hawaii and used it all last week while visiting.

jdminhbg• 4 years ago

I think the implication instead is you can't carry on sunscreen since it's a liquid, so you'd have to buy when you get there. But you're right, if you're checking a bag, you can bring all the sunscreen you feel like schlepping.

ocschwar• 4 years ago

Confirmed that enforcement is lax.

And also that there is a horrifying amount of broken coral washing ashore at Waikiki.

ODILON_SATER• 4 years ago

Check out EWG's sunscreen list, it rates sunscreens based on toxicity and UV protection.

https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/

They rate most products found in North America. It is my go-to resource for sunscreens

nate• 4 years ago

Thanks for this! This explains so much. I've been allergic to various sunscreens for years, and now I see why :)

TedDoesntTalk2• 4 years ago

It was recently publicized that a lot of sunscreens (even popular ones like Neutrogena) have benzene. Choose one without it:

https://www.consumerlab.com/answers/cancer-causing-compounds...

robocat• 4 years ago

For better technical details see https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/05/corals-convert-sunsc...

TLDR: oxybenzone from sunblock gets glucose attached, which turns oxybenzone into a UV light driven catalyst. The catalyst doesn’t degrade, and the UV light catalyses biological molecules of the coral, damaging or killing the coral, particularly bleached coral lacking protective symbiotes.

kleton• 4 years ago

Everyone really should only be using "physical" blockers like zinc oxide, like is in the baby sunscreens. You might not like how Zuck looked on his board with face painted white, but it's coming out that the organic compounds that absorb UV are bad news.

galangalalgol• 4 years ago

And make sure its not blend-in nano-particle zinc oxide, apparently it blends in by crossing into your bloodstream. I've been mostly using the fern pills that are advertised to stop sun damage. They absolutely prevent and even reverse a sunburn, but I have no idea if they are actually preventing dna damage that leads to melanoma.

redytedy• 4 years ago

Considering the majority of the female population in Japan has been using chemical sunscreen for a generation now, I figure it can't be THAT bad..

tintedfireglass3• 4 years ago

Do we need a sunscreen? I've lived in the tropics most of my life and only hearing about sunscreens from Europeans and Americans. Is it due to the white skin or something? I don't understand.

ossyrial• 4 years ago

Yep it's something with white skin, see [0]. Generally the whiter the skin the easier you burn, which has health risks (skin cancer, faster aging).

[0] https://www.weatheronline.co.uk/reports/wxfacts/The-UV-Index...

tintedfireglass3• 4 years ago

Wow, thanks!

iostream24• 4 years ago

Melanin does indeed absorb and blunt the effects of UV on human skin. It also lowers vitamin D production in low sunlight climes.

I’m trying to figure out what messed-up melanin strategy freckles are, spot protection?

All this said, sunburns are symptomatic for skin damage that can result in melanoma, and yes, dark skin can burn too, etc…

Sunscreens are relatively recent as far as products go, but mud and mineral skin protection is ancient. Many tribal hunter gatherers use such protection against a variety of threats including sunburn and insect bites.

tintedfireglass3• 4 years ago

Yeah, the Bedouin cover their heads for sun and sand protection but the Polynesians,South East Asians, central/southern African tribes all don't show any mention of protection from sunlight, they even wear minimal clothing. The only place I see ancient people protecting themselves from sun is in sub Sahara Africa and Middle east

astura• 4 years ago

Yes, it's due to the amount of melanin in one's skin.

Have you ever seen someone with a sunburn? It's painful, the skin is red, hot to the touch, and the person feels generally unwell (flu-like symptoms). The skin hurts for days and the it will blister and then peel. The blister/peel stage is extremely itchy.

Wouldn't you want to avoid that if possible? Even ignoring the risk of long term harm.

I prefer wearing long sleeves and a wide brim hat to chemical sunblocks but that is not possible when swimming.

A common sunscreen ingredient turns toxic in the sea – anemones suggest why

Related Stories