This has just landed in my email in box from Craig Cormick at the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education in Australia, and I thought I would pass it on given the string of posts on nanoparticles in sunscreens on 2020 Science over the past few years:
At Australia’s International Conference on Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (ICONN 2012) earlier this month, the results of a public perception study were released that indicate some Australian consumers would rather risk skin cancer by not using sunscreen than use a product containing nanoparticles. This despite increasing evidence that nanoparticles in sunscreens do not present a significant risk to health. The study was complimented by tests conducted by Australia’s National Measurement Institute that suggest some sunscreens labeled as “nano free” contain nanostructured material.
According to the media release on the public perceptions study,
“An online poll of 1,000 people, conducted in January this year, shows that one in three Australians had heard or read stories about the risks of using sunscreens with nanoparticles in them,” Dr Cormick said.
“Thirteen percent of this group were concerned or confused enough that they would be less likely to use any sunscreen, whether or not it contained nanoparticles, putting them selves at increased risk of developing potentially deadly skin cancers.
“The study also found that while one in five respondents stated they would go out of their way to avoid using sunscreens with nanoparticles in them, over three in five would need to know more information before deciding.”
A news release sent out a couple of weeks ago to coincide with ICONN 2012 also noted
Scientists from Australia’s National Measurement Institute and overseas collaborators reported on a technique using the scattering of synchrotron light to determine the sizes of particles in sunscreens. They found that some commercial sunscreens that claim to be ‘nano-free’ do in fact contain nanostructured material. The findings highlight the need for clear definitions when describing nanomaterials.
This study allegedly led to Friends of the Earth Australia removing their Safe Sunscreen Summer Guide 2011-2012 from the web – a guide which advises against using nanoparticle-containing sunscreens – until further information is available. The guide’s website currently states:
“Doubt has been cast over the accuracy of the nano status of some sunscreen brands in our guide. It appears that some companies may have been deceived as to the nano-content of their products. We are working flat-out to get a resolution to this matter.
We advise people to continue to be sun safe when spending time in the sun: seek shade, wear protective clothing, a hat and sunglasses and use sunscreen.
This page will be updated as soon as possible.
Thanks for your patience.”
While early questions concerning the possible dangers of using nanoparticle-containing sunscreens were legitimate given the state of science ten years ago, research over the intervening years has failed to substantiate concerns (see this review for example). Despite this, this latest opinions survey indicates that people may be at risk of placing themselves in greater danger because of concerns that continue to be articulated. Although it’s always hard to estimate how answers to questions like the ones asked here translate into actual actions, the survey does beg the questions – at what point does asking questions stimulate actions that lead to greater risks; and how should the public dialogue around a speculative risk respond to new evidence as it emerges?
Full details of the sunscreen perceptions and awareness survey can be found here.
Also worth reading: The safety of nanotechnology-based sunscreens – some reflections
I think there is asking questions and campaigning vociferously against, these are different, and probably have different outcomes.
However, I am reading a very interesting book called Thinking, fast and slow, by Daniel Kahneman, one for you Andrew if you haven’t already read it. There are many interesting observations for us, but the one that springs to mind in relation to this, is the fact that participants in a study who only saw one side of a particular argument were much more confident in their opinions and judgements, even though they absolutely knew it was only one side and was biased. Those who saw both were much less confident of their judgements.
We construct a coherent story for ourselves out of what we know and want to think, so consistency of information really helps with that coherence. If, as you say, by adding complexity and asking challenging, contradictory questions are we, by the simple fact of doing that, making people more confused, more likely to revert to ‘what they think’ regardless of the facts which subsequently arise and disengage with alternative information which challenges that view? This is hard-wired, not just flabby thinking and is the case with experts as well as lay people. It is consistency of information that counts, not completeness when we make sense of information in order to judge and act.
So FOE’s clear rhetoric – ‘don’t do it’ is appealing, because it plays to people’s innate fear of the new and odd and that all adds up. When scientists say ‘it’s all OK because we know what we are doing’, that may also plays to others of us who feel that the clever people will sort it all out. But scientists asking challenging questions about safety and NGOs shown to be less than clear about their underpinning information makes the whole thing wobbly and unsatisfactory. People simply disengage with both?
This is perhaps the same as the muddying of the water around climate change, it really does make people less clear about what they think, and less able to act, because the coherence of the story is not there.
Anyway, this is a very lay perspective on a very good and clever book, packed with really fascinating observations. Worth a read Helpful post Andrew, thanks.
Hi Hilary,
I think you are right that there is a big difference here. And asking questions is critical to discovery. But I also think there is some really interesting middle ground where legitimate concerns still lead to action that is potentially harmful. Not sure anyone has a robust framework for how we handle this yet.
Just some anecdotal evidence, Andrew – I was on the train back from a nano-conference with a bag saying nano-something on it, and got into a conversation with the lady sitting opposite me who told me her boyfriend had advised her not to use sunscreen anymore because of the particles in it, and was it right to be so worried about them. I did my best to convince her that the risk of nanoparticles in sunscreen was for all we know at the moment quite a bit smaller (sorry, no pun intended) than that of skin cancer.
Interesting. Even as scientists we raise concerns, because that’s what drives our research in the risk field. But how do you ensure those concerns don’t loose their context?
That’s the question!! I quite like this little leaflet, though it’s probably nothing new to you:
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/uploadDir/admincommunicating_risk.pdf
With the lady on the train I took the “I’m still using it and I work in risk assessment” approach and I think that was quite useful.
For me knowing that people in Australia would rather risk skin cancer than using nano-sunscreens is really worrying news. I thought “Here is the risk of bad risk communication”. I think it highlights the responsibility all of us working on nanotech communication have. And we know well how hard this communication is, with many knowledge gaps we have to deal with. Nevertheless, I think FoE is responsible of having putting forward a rather poor guide that in the end provoked the worse reaction. I can understand that FoE wants to “protect” consumers against the dangers of nanotech, and I think they are right in asking for further research and even regulation. Yet, on my opinion, they have approached the whole “sunscreen” topic in the wrong way from the beginning, labelling “nano” as the bad guy, and other “nano-free” sunscreens as the good one, without evidence on the actual composition of the products, with loads of generalization. I hope this is a lesson for FoE too: we need them to voice consumers concerns, and to ask safety of consumer products, but nobody will benefit from this form of bad risk communication
Hey there! I’ve been reading your site for a while now and finally got the bravery to go ahead and give you a shout out from Huffman Tx! Just wanted to say keep up the fantastic job!