4.5 Review

Nano-sunscreens - a double-edged sword in protecting consumers from harm: viewing Australian regulatory policies through the lenses of the European Union

Journal

CRITICAL REVIEWS IN TOXICOLOGY
Volume 49, Issue 2, Pages 122-139

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10408444.2019.1579780

Keywords

Nano-sunscreens; toxicity; regulatory policies; Australia; European Union

Categories

Funding

  1. University of Wollongong, Australia
  2. Global Challenges Project

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Nanotechnology has the potential to bring about revolutionary changes in manufacturing products, including sunscreens. However, a knowledge gap between benefits and detriments of engineered nano-materials used in sunscreens exists, which gives rise to safety concerns. This article is concerned with the protection of consumers without impairing the embellishment of this promising technology. It is widely argued that the harm associated with nano-sunscreens may only occur under certain conditions related mainly to users skin vulnerability, which can be avoided by informed and careful use of such a product. We thus recognize the need for fostering the growth of nanotech simultaneously with preventing potential harm. We revisit the Australian sunscreens regulatory policies, which embrace a wait and see approach, through the lens of regulatory policies in the European Union (EU) that are influenced by a precautionary principle. We highlight the importance of informing consumers about the sunscreen they are using and recommend that product labels should disclose the presence of nano-ingredients in line with the EU disclosure requirements. This will allow users to carefully apply the product in order to avoid any potential harm and to protect manufacturers from possible costly litigation in future. This can be achieved through a combined collaborative effort of regulators, supply chain entities, and end users.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available