Nanotech in Skin Care & Cosmetics

[Guest guest]

From todays New York Times, an article on nanophobia towards

ingredients used on human skin. Barely brushes the surface of this

trend & inaccurate in some regards as far as research I've done -

note the " experts " are mostly trade spokespeople & the notorious FDA,

which has been using a similar illogic here as it does with GMO food.

The article doesn't appear in the Science section, rather in Fashion

& Style. Any " science " mentioned in it seems as faddish as the usual

coverage. Mostly notable for being reported in such a highly regarded

newspaper. Best wishes, Sue

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/fashion/04skin.html

Skin Deep

New Products Bring Side Effect: Nanophobia

By NATASHA SINGER

Published: December 3, 2008

IT sounds like a plot straight out of a science-fiction novel by

Crichton. Toiletry companies formulate new cutting-edge

creams and lotions that contain tiny components designed to work more

effectively. But those minuscule building blocks have an unexpected

drawback: the ability to penetrate the skin, swarm through the body

and overwhelm organs like the liver.

Humans have long lived in dread of such nightmare scenarios in which

swarms of creatures attack. Alfred Hitchcock envisioned menacing

flocks in " The Birds. " In the 1990 film " Arachnophobia " a killer

spider arrives in the United States, where it attacks and multiplies.

And now comes nanophobia, the fear that tiny components engineered on

the nanoscale — that is, 100 nanometers or less — could run amok

inside the body. A human hair, for example, is 50,000 to 100,000

nanometers in diameter. A nanoparticle of titanium dioxide in a

sunscreen could be as small as 15 nanometers. (One nanometer equals a

billionth of a meter.)

" The smaller a particle, the further it can travel through tissue,

along airways or in blood vessels, " said Dr. Adnan Nasir, a clinical

assistant professor of dermatology at the University of North

Carolina at Chapel Hill. " Especially if the nanoparticles are

indestructible and accumulate and are not metabolized, if you

accumulate them in the organs, the organs could fail. "

Indeed, some doctors, scientists and consumer advocates are concerned

that many industries are adopting nanotechnology ahead of studies

that would establish whether regular ingestion, inhalation or dermal

penetration of these particles constitute a health or environmental

hazard. Personal care products are simply the lowest hanging fruit.

But people are already exposed to nanoparticles. Stoves and toaster

ovens emit ultrafine particles of 2 to 30 nanometers, according to

the National Institute of Standards and Technology; the researchers

reported last month that long-term contact with such appliances could

constitute a large exposure to the smallest of nanoparticles.

Several products already use nano-engineered materials. There

are " nano pants, " stain-resistant chinos and jeans whose fabric

contain nano-sized whiskers that repel oil and dirt, and nanocycles

made from carbon nanotubes that are stronger and lighter than

standard steel bicycles. And in lotions and creams, the use of

nanocomponents may create a more cosmetically elegant effect — like

uniformity or spreadability.

Some ingredients may behave differently as nanoparticles than they do

in larger forms. Nano-sized silver, for example, can act as an

antibacterial agent on the skin. Larger particles of zinc oxide and

titanium dioxide result in white pasty sunscreens; but as

nanoparticles, they appear more transparent.

When it comes to beauty products, however, some consumer advocates

are concerned that dynamic nanoparticles could pose risks to the skin

or, if they penetrate the skin, to other parts of the body. Mineral

sunscreens have attracted the most attention.

" Substances that are perfectly benign could be toxic at the nano

scale, " said Hansen, a senior scientist at Consumers Union,

the company behind Consumer Reports. " Because they are so small, they

could go places in the body that could not be done before. "

This month, the magazine published a study it had commissioned that

found mineral nanoparticles in five sunscreens, even though four of

the companies had denied using them. In October, Dr. Hansen sent a

letter to the Food and Drug Administration commissioner, asking the

agency to require cosmetics and sunscreen manufacturers to run safety

tests on nano scale ingredients. In the letter, he cited a few

studies published in scientific journals that reported that exposure

to nanoparticles of titanium dioxide caused damage to the organs of

laboratory animals and human cell cultures.

But cosmetics industry representatives said there was no evidence

that personal care products that contain nano-size components

constitute a health hazard. Furthermore, no rigorous clinical trials

have been published showing that cosmetics with nanocomponents caused

health problems. A review of the potential risks of nanomaterials,

carried out for the European Center for Toxicology in 2006, concluded

that sunscreens with metal nanoparticles were unlikely to penetrate

healthy skin, but it did raise the question of whether safety studies

should examine if such materials may penetrate damaged skin.

" It's very difficult to get anything through the skin, " said

, the executive vice president for science of the Personal Care

Products Council, an industry trade group in Washington. " The skin is

a very effective barrier. "

Indeed, some nanotechnology researchers said it was illogical to

assume that a nano-size component inherently carries greater risk

than a larger component. Furthermore, some say cosmetics may contain

molecules like a silicone fluid called cyclopentasiloxane that are

even smaller than nanomaterials.

" I think it's a double standard because nanoparticles are less likely

to go through the skin than solutions where you are using single

molecules, " said S. Langer, a chemical engineering professor

at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. He is

developing nanoparticles for the targeted delivery of cancer

medications, and is a founder of Living Proof, a cosmetics company

that makes hair products. " The molecules in a cream are certainly

going to be smaller than a nanoparticle. "

The Food and Drug Administration does not require manufacturers to

list the format of ingredients on labels. The agency does require

cosmetics manufacturers to ensure that their products are safe for

use; in 2006, the agency created its own task force to investigate

the safety of engineered nanomaterials.

Ken Marenus, the senior vice president of regulatory affairs

worldwide at the Estée Lauder companies, said nanomaterials had to

undergo the same kind of assessment for exposure, risk and dosage

levels as any other cosmetic component. " The same toxicological

standards for every chemical will apply to nano, " he said.

Dr. of the Personal Care Products Council estimated that

several thousand sunscreens and cosmetics currently use some kind of

nanoscale component.

Cor soap, for example, uses 50-nanometer particles of silver combined

with silica that are smaller than the size of a skin pore. The

material is designed to enter the pores and kill bacteria.

" The silver suffocates the bacteria and then you rinse it off with

water, " said McKinley, the chief executive of Cor. Although

a study has shown that nanosilver can permeate broken skin, Ms.

McKinley said the soap was safe because it contains only a limited

amount of nanosilver and the particles do not remain on the skin.

Indeed, using nanoderivatives of precious metals is becoming a trend.

Last year, Chantecaille introduced Nano Gold Energizing Cream, a $420

face cream that contains 5-nanometer particles of 24-carat gold

encapsulated in silk fibers. Sylvie Chantecaille, the chief executive

of the company, said the capsules delivered the gold particles, which

work as an antioxidant, into the surface layers of the skin. " It's a

very effective way to transport beneficial ingredients, " she said.

But many beauty companies are shying away from discussing minuscule

particles in their cosmetics. And that kind of avoidance may itself

stoke nanophobia. For example, when La Prairie introduced its

Cellular Cream Platinum Rare earlier this year, the company sent out

press materials promoting " nano-sized Hesperidin Smart Crystals to

protect DNA " in the formula. But, in a phone interview, Sven Gohla,

the company's vice president for research and development, distanced

the brand from nanotechnology. Just because the particles of

hesperidin, a flavonoid, in the formula are small does not mean they

are manufactured nanotechnology, he said.

Last month, a consumer group in London called Which? published a

survey it had conducted of 67 cosmetics companies on the prevalence

and safety testing of nanomaterials in personal care products. Only

17 companies responded, of which eight acknowledged using

nanomaterials.

" When nanotechnology was hot, everybody wanted to talk about `nano

this, nano that.' Look at the iPod nano, " said Dr. Hansen of

Consumers Union. " But now that the concerns have come out, people are

not so sure the word nano is a good thing to be touted. "