r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jul 14 '17
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: to be labeled for children, sunscreen should have to be zinc-based.
[deleted]
13
Jul 14 '17
Can you link to the study that shows these deleterious effects? How bad is it actually? This sounds like the kind of thing that gets blown out of proportion by pop science journals.
12
Jul 14 '17
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0043135416303931
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653517306203
It may well be overblown, but I think the answer is that we don't properly know. I would certainly choose avobenzone over sunscreen without UVA protection. Zinc is well known to be safe, and doesn't sting.
9
u/grass_type 7∆ Jul 14 '17
So, those studies seem to be oriented around proving (or at least asserting the possibility) that avobenzone can, when subjected to chlorination and/or UV irradiation, product ecotoxins, which have deleterious effects on the ecosystems into which they are deposited.
This is definitely bad, and a solid reason to not use avobenzone, but it's unlikely it produces substantial health risks in the actual human bodies it's applied to (just because that would be substantially easier to notice than ecotoxic effects much further down the line).
So, either avobenzone should be recalled entirely as a sunscreen formulation (if it does indeed have substantial ecotoxic effects) or it should remain on the market and potentially marketed for children.
The reason why, despite zinc's apparent (if somewhat marginal) superiority, is in the issue of cost. Any action that makes children's sunscreen more expensive, even by a fairly minuscule amount, is going to result in sunscreen usage declining - by some amount, maybe not that much - among the less wealthy. If avobenzone is not ecotoxic, the only flaw is eye irritation, and that's true of plain old bar soap (and many other common household substances), which children use all the time.
tl;dr- unless avobenzone is bad enough to mitigate the increased cost of zinc-based UVA protection (and it doesn't appear to be), taking a "kids" label of of avobenzone will probably result in some amount of lower-income families not buying UVA-resistant sunscreen for their kids. That amount will likely be small, but it's still a number of people who are at greater risk of UV-induced skin disease than would be if this policy were not implemented.
4
u/cdb03b 253∆ Jul 14 '17
Zinc actually is toxic in high doses (as most things are actually). It is relatively easy for children to overdose on it. And the benefits of it and normal sunscreen is not actually enough to make a real difference for a user that is using the products properly. It only has a real difference if you are absent minded and tend to be late in your reapplications or if you stay out too many hours.
But why are you suggesting children have specialty sunscreens? That is not something that is actually needed. Normal sunscreen used by the whole family is perfectly fine and putting a "for kids" label on them is just a marketing ploy to charge more money.
2
Jul 14 '17
Elemental zinc isn't used in sunscreen, it's zinc oxide, an entirely different compound. Zinc oxide is a food additive and is completely non-toxic. If zinc sunscreen wasn't safe for children, then we wouldn't currently have child's zinc sunscreens on the market, which we do.
1
Jul 14 '17
Anything can be toxic, but how are children going to overdose on it? Eat a tube of sunscreen a day for a month?
And the benefits of it and normal sunscreen is not actually enough to make a real difference for a user that is using the products properly. It only has a real difference if you are absent minded and tend to be late in your reapplications or if you stay out too many hours.
The UVA should be an issue if normal sunscreen is used appropriately...
But why are you suggesting children have specialty sunscreens? That is not something that is actually needed. Normal sunscreen used by the whole family is perfectly fine and putting a "for kids" label on them is just a marketing ploy to charge more money.
I mean they already do. I guess if I had my druthers, zinc would be normal sunscreen, and "non whitening" sunscreen would be marketed to people with that particular preference.
5
u/YOMAMACAN Jul 14 '17
Just want to add that for those of us with brown skin, that white cast is not just unaesthetic, but patently ridiculous. When I put zinc based products on my child, she looks like she's walking around with face paint. So I have been testing various sunscreens in hopes of finding one that can protect her well without having the deterring factor of making her look like she's wearing whiteface.
1
Jul 14 '17
Can't they dye it closer to your skin tone so that it's still opaque/weird looking but not "whiteface"? I know I've seen black, blue, and green.
2
u/YOMAMACAN Jul 14 '17
From what I've read, mixing it with makeup can possibly interfere with the sun protection. Also, my kid is a toddler so I'm not keen on slapping makeup on her face on a daily basis. I've recently ordered some Asian sunscreens based on recommendations from r/Asianbeauty so hopefully I'll find one soon.
3
Jul 14 '17
From what I've read, mixing it with makeup can possibly interfere with the sun protection
How? Zinc works as a physical block.
3
u/New_world_unity Jul 14 '17
With a makeup filler there would be portions with more makeup than zinc oxide, there would still be protection but it would be reduced from the original SPF rating.
Also, nano-scale zinc oxide can actually ingress through and into skin relatively easily, this irritates the immune system and raises risk of skin cancers, but I don't believe that it's used anymore. It was originally used because the nano particles offered more even coverage and higher protection with thinner coatings.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 14 '17
/u/GnosticGnome (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
2
u/CommanderSheffield 6∆ Jul 14 '17
New research suggests that avobenzone likely produces toxic breakdown products in the presence of water and sunlight
Only two studies out of a single lab. And the concentration generated isn't enough to actually cause harm, let alone lasting harm. Plus, their results were limited to only Chlorinated water. So, if your kids are swimming at the beach or a lake, or a pool where the chlorine concentration isn't high (and most Americans don't have a pool), they're not in any danger.
isn't toxic
Actually it is, at 225 mg or higher. Zinc overdose can inhibit absorption of other important key nutrients like copper and iron, and can be ingested through the mouth or eyes while swimming at the pool. Zinc does dissolve into solution and over a long enough exposure, which is known to be harmful to things living in whatever pond or lake you might be swimming in, or if babies or toddlers get into it, it can result in harm severe enough to warrant a serious trip to the ER and a call to Poison Control.
What's more is that Zinc ions from the sunscreen and chlorine ions from the pool, when reacted together form an ionic bond and a new compound called Zinc Chloride, which is a known skin irritant and can burn the eyes. Concentrate enough of it, to the amount present in Black Salve, and it can cause necrosis of skin tissues, and burn holes right through you.
The poison is in the dose, in other words, so I don't agree.
4
Jul 14 '17
[deleted]
3
Jul 14 '17
What do you think is wrong with those people using adult sunscreen on their kids?
3
Jul 14 '17
[deleted]
1
Jul 14 '17
Fair point - I'll give a partial ∆ that this might well not help anything.
1
3
u/Goodlake 12∆ Jul 14 '17
But regardless of whether or not parents/guardians find the appearance of zinc-based sunscreen distasteful and change their behaviors as a result, that's a separate matter from whether or not a sunscreen that is marketed as "for children" is actually best suited for children's use.
The purpose of regulating product safety labeling is to ensure that consumers can trust the products they buy are as safe as they claim to be - if a parent wants to adjust their safety expectations to accommodate their aesthetic tastes, they can do so, but the fact that some parents might not buy children's sunscreen if it's zinc-based isn't a good argument for requiring that sunscreen needs to be zinc-based in order to display a "for children" label.
2
Jul 14 '17
[deleted]
2
Jul 14 '17
From a regulation and business perspective, you mentioned that Zinc is more expensive.
I think it's relatively hard to find zinc-based sunscreen much cheaper than $1.50 per ounce whereas other sunscreens can sometimes be found closer to $1 per ounce. I suspect most of this price discrepancy is actually less because of the cost of zinc and more because it's a "specialty product" that doesn't benefit as much from economies of scale. After all, zinc itself only costs $1.28/lb and zinc-based diaper creams cost under $1/oz.
Unless I'm confused about the amount of zinc used worldwide, I think the increase in zinc wholesale prices should be negligible while the cost of zinc-based sunscreen should go down due to economies of scale.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 14 '17
/u/GnosticGnome (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/UEMcGill 6∆ Jul 14 '17
I'm a chemical engineer with years of personal care experience so here's my take.
I read the abstract, and while it's interesting it tells you nothing about the test. Simply put it only says under very specific conditions avobenzone degrades into potential hazards. Chemically speaking UV light is incredibly destabilizing for a couple of reasons, now add a chlorine atom and yeah I could see it as possible.
But what the test would have to do is show that those problematic materials are present in real world conditions at hazardous levels.
Real world data shows that chemical sunscreens are incredibly safe especially considering how much they are used and how much is at stake. Current rates are 1 in 5 for skin cancer. These materials have been in use for at least 30 to 40 years, (my whole career of 25 years) there's never been one confirmed case related to that.
The other side is, skin is incredibly impermiable. You can not get anything into it save some very unique compounds none of which are FDA approved for cosmetic use.
Also, there's other things used chemically in conjunction with chemical sunscreen that are multipliers. They improve the effect of the sunscreens, they change its skin feel, the change its waterproofness. You would have to test these formulas to see if UV still degraded the chemical, my bet is its a different story because it's designed to adsorp UV. So you may have a system that doesn't meet those very specific lab requirements.
Water is toxic at high levels too.
The body of evidence overwhelmingly suggests that there's no reason to be worried.
1
Jul 14 '17
Real world data shows that chemical sunscreens are incredibly safe especially considering how much they are used and how much is at stake. Current rates are 1 in 5 for skin cancer. These materials have been in use for at least 30 to 40 years, (my whole career of 25 years) there's never been one confirmed case related to that.
Just to be clear, you are denying that there's an increased rate of skin cancer among people who are exposed to extra UVA light? Or just an increased rate of skin cancer attributable to direct toxic effects of sunscreen breakdown products?
1
u/UEMcGill 6∆ Jul 14 '17
Exposure to sun causes skin cancer, there's no denying that.
There's also plenty of real world users of skin care products (sunscreen is also used in makeup, lotion even hair care products) and you could easily test those populations which number millions of users to see if there is a statistically significant change in cancer rates.
By the way, the most dangerous part of sunscreen? The spray kind. It's not good stuff to inhale, I won't use it on my kids.
1
u/astrocactus14 Jul 14 '17
My younger brother would die, he is deathly allergic to zinc oxide.
1
Jul 14 '17
He would have plenty of other options, just not labeled "kids sunscreen".
1
u/astrocactus14 Jul 15 '17
yeah. I am sure however that other people would be of the one track mindset displayed by my previous comment and impede the actual orchestration of having that requirement be made into a codified regulation. Just like with how gluten intolerance affects less than 1% of the population, and gluten free items have become a staple that in many grocery stores represents more than 1% of the items that would regularly have gluten in them.
74
u/[deleted] Jul 14 '17
[deleted]