Vitamin D- Is This the Miracle Vitamin

by Ian Wishart

  “Children who were more highly exposed to PBO in personal air samples (≥4.34 ng/m3) scored 3.9 points lower on the Mental Developmental Index than those with lower exposures.[24]

  “This drop in IQ points is similar to that observed in response to lead exposure,” lead researcher Megan Horton of Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health told journalists. “While perhaps not impacting an individual’s overall function, it is educationally meaningful and could shift the distribution of children in the society who would be in need of early intervention services”.[25]

  You might be surprised to discover that – despite being approved for use in households and on children – no significant human safety testing of PBO has ever taken place until the 2011 study.[26] And that’s kind of the main point here – pesticide and sunscreen manufacturers have been given free rein to use the public as guinea pigs.

  The New Zealand Cancer Society helpfully publishes a “materials safety sheet” on the ingredients of its products. The poisons information in the sheet states the combined sunscreen and insect repellent is “not suitable for babies and toddlers”. Great advice, and it was delivered to the Cancer Society in October 2009,[27] but it does not appear anywhere as a warning on the tube of sunscreen on sale in 2012. Thousands of families are likely to have used this harmful product on and around their children. Indeed, the tube labelling in NZ states “use this sunscreen in conjunction with other sunsmart behaviour”, including “keep infants in the shade”, clearly implying to me that it is safe for children as part of a mix of precautions.

  The Cancer Council of Australia’s PBO-containing product describes itself as “Ideal for families and childcare centers” in a description for the 500ml pump-bottle version.[28]

  The Cancer Council defends its use of nanoparticles on its website:[29]

  “Nanotechnology has been used in sunscreens for many years. To date, our assessment, drawing on the best available evidence, is that nanoparticulates used in sunscreens do not pose a risk. However, we continue to monitor research and welcome any new research that sheds more light on this topic.

  “Sunscreen formulas and their components are regulated through the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). In early 2009, the TGA conducted an updated review of the scientific literature in relation to the use of nanoparticulate zinc oxide and titanium dioxide in sunscreens.

  “The TGA review concluded that:

  The potential for titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreens to cause adverse effects depends primarily upon the ability of the nanoparticles to reach viable skin cells; and

  To date, the current weight of evidence suggests that titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles do not reach viable skin cells; rather, they remain on the surface of the skin and in the outer layer of the skin that is composed of non-viable cells.”

  That review was conducted in early 2009. Evidently nothing further has been done by Australasian authorities. Yet in late 2009 this study was released:[30]

  Titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles, found in everything from cosmetics to sunscreen to paint to vitamins, caused systemic genetic damage in mice, according to a comprehensive study conducted by researchers at UCLA’s Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center.

  “The TiO2 nanoparticles induced single- and double-strand DNA breaks and also caused chromosomal damage as well as inflammation, all of which increase the risk for cancer. The UCLA study is the first to show that the nanoparticles had such an effect, said Robert Schiestl, a professor of pathology, radiation oncology and environmental health sciences, a Jonsson Cancer Center scientist and the study’s senior author.

  Once in the system, the TiO2 nanoparticles accumulate in different organs because the body has no way to eliminate them. And because they are so small, they can go everywhere in the body, even through cells, and may interfere with sub-cellular mechanisms.

  The study appeared the week of November 16 in the journal Cancer Research.

  In the past, these TiO2 nanoparticles have been considered non-toxic in that they do not incite a chemical reaction. Instead, it is surface interactions that the nanoparticles have within their environment- in this case inside a mouse–that is causing the genetic damage, Schiestl said. They wander throughout the body causing oxidative stress, which can lead to cell death.

  It is a novel mechanism of toxicity, a physicochemical reaction, these particles cause in comparison to regular chemical toxins, which are the usual subjects of toxicological research, Schiestl said.

  “The novel principle is that titanium by itself is chemically inert. However, when the particles become progressively smaller, their surface, in turn, becomes progressively bigger and in the interaction of this surface with the environment oxidative stress is induced,” he said. “This is the first comprehensive study of titanium dioxide nanoparticle-induced genotoxicity, possibly caused by a secondary mechanism associated with inflammation and/or oxidative stress. Given the growing use of these nanoparticles, these findings raise concern about potential health hazards associated with exposure.”

  How do we reconcile studies like that with marketing campaigns telling parents to use titanium dioxide sunscreens on their children? It is true that studies so far have not found penetration of zinc or titanium through the skin barrier beyond 17 layers, but those tests have been done on adult skin, not infant skin, which is much less developed. Additionally, young children and particularly babies may suck skin with sunblock on, therefore ingesting the chemicals. Given that titanium dioxide nanoparticles are also used as a whitener in toothpaste, perhaps there’s a different avenue for concern, although that’s another story!

  What it all comes back to, in the end, is that warning that nanotechnology usage has exploded into the community long before safety has been definitively proven. If sunscreens were a dead cert, 100% effective barrier to melanoma and all other skin cancers, you might look at the odds and say it’s worth using them. Sunscreens don’t prevent most skin cancers, however, and on current evidence might (either directly or indirectly) cause rather than prevent melanoma, so the risk/benefit ratio might be harder for parents to assess.

  That’s not the only concern, however.

  Virtually every one of the NZ Cancer Society sunscreens (and a number of the Australian ones) also contains Vitamin E as an antioxidant, but there are no warnings on the packs[31] about the possible dangers of Vitamin E to men at risk of prostate cancer. A recent study found men using Vitamin E suffered a significant 17% increase in risk of developing prostate cancer, meaning you would not want to be using it daily in a sunscreen as recommended by health authorities. As the study warns: “Dietary supplementation with vitamin E significantly increased the risk of prostate cancer among healthy men.”[32]

  Prostate cancer rates have – like melanoma – gone through the roof in the past three decades. Are sunscreens partly to blame? The Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology has previously reported that Vitamin E is absorbed into the human body at a level eleven times greater when applied to the skin, as compared to taking it in dietary supplement form.[33]

  This is not to pick on the Australia or New Zealand cancer societies, by the way. The formulations in their products are similar to those used by other commercial suppliers. Don’t assume that just because a product is marketed by reputable companies or charities, advertised on TV and sold in supermarkets that it is actually 100% risk-free. Do your homework.

  Then there’s the strange case of gardeners and agriculturalists, many of whom use herbicides or pesticides of some kind as part of their work. A 2004 study revealed sunscreens act like an open door for poisonous chemicals to penetrate your skin. The herbicide in question was 2,4-D – which forms one half of the deadly “Agent Orange” formula. There was a 60% increase in the amount of herbicide that penetrated the skin via sunscreen, compared with no sunscreen, resulting in what researchers called “penetration enhancement” that showed “physical damage” to the skin.[34]

  As you can see then,
there are nagging concerns about whether sunscreens might actually be toxic, and whether they open gateways for other toxins. What comes next, however, is a bigger problem for the sunscreen industry: do they actually work? What you are about to read may astound you.

  [1] “Cutaneous ultraviolet exposure and its relationship to the development of skin cancer”, Rigel DS, J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008: 58(5 suppl 2):S129-S132) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190962207024139

  [2] A 2005 study found PABA caused thyroid cancer in rats, “Promotion of thyroid carcinogenesis by para-aminobenzoic acid in rats initiated with N-bis(2-hydroxypropyl)nitrosamine”, Hasumara et al, Toxicological Sciences, 2005 Jul;86(1):61-7. Epub 2005 Apr 20

  [3] Other countries, like the UK, Europe, New Zealand and Australia, in some cases permit other compounds to be used in sunscreens that are not approved for human use in the USA.

  [4] Also known on labels as Butyl Methoxydibenzoylmethane

  [5]http://www.ewg.org/analysis/toxicsunscreen

  [6] “Metabolism of 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone in isolated rat hepatocytes and xenoestrogenic effects of its metabolites on MCF-7 human breast cancer cells”, Nakagawa & Suzuki, Chem Biol Interactions Journal, 2002; 139:115-128. See also “UV filters with antagonistic action at androgen receptors etc”, Ma et al, Toxicological Sciences, 2003; 74:43-50. See also “Additive estrogenic effects of mixtures of frequently used UV filters on pS2-gene transcription in MCF-7 cells,” Heneweer et al, Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2005; 208:170-177

  [7] American Academy of Pediatrics, http://aapnews.aappublications.org/content/32/3/32.short

  [8] “Estrogenic activity and reproductive effects of the UV-filter oxybenzone (2-hydroxy-4-methoxyphenyl-methanone) in fish”, Coronado et al, Aquatic Toxicology, Volume 90, Issue 3, 21 November 2008, Pages 182–187

  [9] “Safety of Oxybenzone: Putting Numbers Into Perspective”, Wang et al, Archives of Dermatology, 2011;147(7):865-866. doi:10.1001/archdermatol.2011.173

  [10] “Altered UV absorbance and cytotoxicity of chlorinated sunscreen agents”, Sherwood et al, Journal of Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology, 2012, January 18, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22257218

  [11] Free radicals are loose electrons within an atom or molecular structure that makes the structure “reactive” until it finds equilibrium, usually by breaking another nearby chemical bond to restore its positive or negative charge to neutral. These things are all well and good until the structure they react with is a cell within your body, because the resulting damage can cause cancer or interfere with other body functions. We use antioxidants to try and mop up these free radicals by providing them with something to bind with that isn’t part of you, but it’s hit and miss. There is no guarantee that free radicals created by UV breaking down sunscreen, will necessarily bind with antioxidants – like a lightning bolt in search of the quickest route to the ground, a free radical will break whatever is easiest and closest at the relevant moment.

  [12] “Current sunscreen controversies: a critical review”, Burnett & Wang, Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine, 2011; 27: 58-67

  [13] “Sunscreen enhancement of UV-induced reactive oxygen species in the skin”, Hanson et al, Free Radical Biology and Medicine, Volume 41, Issue 8, 15 October 2006, Pages 1205–1212

  [14] “Sunscreen – a catch 22”, Blum & Larsen, Young Scientists Journal, 2010, issue 8:11-14

  [15] Ibid

  [16] “Current sunscreen controversies: a critical review”, Burnett & Wang, Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine, 2011; 27: 58-67

  [17] “UV irradiation-induced zinc dissociation from commercial zinc oxide sunscreen etc”, Martorano et al, Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, vol 9, issue 4, Dec 2010:276-286

  [18] “DNA damaging potential of zincoxide nanoparticles in human epidermal cells,” Sharma et al, Toxicology Letters, Volume 185, Issue 3, 28 March 2009, Pages 211–218

  [19] “Ultraviolet radiation reports shine light on how pediatricians can help patients avoid skin cancer,” Sophie Balk MD, American Academy of Pediatrics, 2011

  [20] “Exploring the safety of nanoparticles in Australian sunscreens”, Faunce, International Journal of Biomedical Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, Vol 1, no. 1, 2010:87-94, doi 10.1504/IJBNN.2010.034127

  [21] “Evaluation of percutaneous absorption of the repellent diethyltoluamide and the sunscreen ethylhexyl p-methoxycinnamate-loaded solid lipid nanoparticles: an in-vitro study,” Puglia et al, J Pharm Pharmacol. 2009 Aug;61(8):1013-9

  [22] See ingredient list, Cancer Council of Australia supplier, http://www.skinhealth.com.au/site/repelplus.html

  [23] “Impact of prenatal exposure to piperonyl butoxide and permethrin on 36-month neurodevelopment”, Horton et al, Pediatrics. 2011 Mar;127(3):e699-706 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21300677

  [24] “Natural insect sprays may be as toxic to children as lead paint – Study”, InvestigateDaily, 14 Dec 2011, http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=2078

  [25] A study published May 2012 has followed the Pediatrics results up, and found PBO damages “critical neurological development”, see “The Insecticide Synergist Piperonyl Butoxide Inhibits Hedgehog Signaling: Assessing Chemical Risks,” Wang et al, Toxicological Sciences, (2012) doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfs165 http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/05/03/toxsci.kfs165.short

  [26] On the other hand, scientists now know that piperonyl butoxide is also “immunotoxic” to fish, see “Immunotoxic and cytotoxic effects of atrazine, permethrin and piperonylbutoxide to rainbow trout following in vitro exposure,” Shelley et al, Fish & Shellfish Immunology, Volume 33, Issue 2, August 2012, Pages 455–458

  [27] Based on the creation and modification dates of the PDF on the Cancer Society website, accessed June 2012. See http://www.cancernz.org.nz/assets/files/products/Insect_Repellent-MSDS-091013.pdf

  [28] See Cancer Council of Australia supplier, http://www.skinhealth.com.au/site/repelplus.html

  [29]http://www.cancer.org.au/cancersmartlifestyle/SunSmart/nanoparticles_sunscreen.htm

  [30] “Nanoparticles Used in Common Household Items Cause Genetic Damage in Mice,” ScienceDaily Nov. 17, 2009

  [31] As displayed in the ingredients lists on the NZ Cancer Society website, http://www.cancernz.org.nz/products/technical-info/ as retrieved in June 2012

  [32] “Vitamin E and the Risk of Prostate Cancer”, Klein et al, Journal of the American Medical Assn (JAMA), October 12, 2011, Vol 306, No. 14, http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1104493

  [33] “Photodamage of the skin: protection and reversal with topical antioxidants”, Burke, K E. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2004 Jul;3(3):149-55

  [34] “Active ingredients in sunscreens act as topical penetration enhancers for the herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid”, Pont et al, Toxicology & Applied Pharmacology. 2004 Mar 15;195(3):348-54

  CHAPTER 14

  MELANOMA: COULD SUNSCREENS

  BE CAUSING IT?

  “The factor most significantly associated with increased melanoma risk was the use of sunscreens. Subjects who often used sunscreens had an increased odds ratio of 3.47 (three and a half times more risk) compared with subjects who never used sunscreens”

  – Journal of Melanoma Research, 1998

  The best explanation for why melanoma rates have skyrocketed since 1935 may be a relatively simple one: there’s no hard evidence that sunscreens protect you against melanoma.

  Think about that for a moment, let it sink in.

  Numerous scientific studies have failed to find evidence that sunscreens are effective against the risk of developing the deadliest skin cancer, melanoma. In fact, in some cases, they have found sunscreen users have a significantly higher risk of developing melanoma.

  A telltale sign of growing risk are what are called “nevi” – the brownish skin lesions like moles or dark freckles that can often morph into melanoma. A Canadian study of school children using SPF-30 broad spectrum sunscreen in randomised, controlle
d conditions over a three year period found regular sunscreen users did have “a slight decrease” in the number of new nevi on their skin, “however, this effect was seen only in children with freckles”. In other words, for everyone else, sunscreen use failed to prevent the development of melanoma precursors.[1]

  “In a large European study of white school-age children,” report Jou et al in their June 2012 study, “sunscreen use was associated with an increased number of nevi.”

  In 2000, the International Journal of Cancer reported similar findings after a study involving nearly 1,500 people in Sweden.

  “Persons who used sunscreens did not have a decreased risk of malignant melanoma. Instead, a significantly elevated odds-ratio (nearly double) for developing malignant melanoma after regular sunscreen use was found.”[2]

  Even more disturbing for readers, the massive increase in melanoma risk for sunscreen users took place even though participants “did not suffer from sunburns while using sunscreens”.

  The only good news from scientific studies of sunscreen effectiveness is that the lotions are effective at helping prevent one of the main skin cancers, known as squamous cell carcinomas. These are very slow-growing cancers which, whilst they can spread, usually don’t before they are diagnosed. Sunscreens don’t protect you from the most common skin cancer – basal cell carcinoma – or the most deadly, melanoma. Sunscreens should carry warning labels to this effect, like cigarette packets, but they don’t.

  This refusal by manufacturers and health authorities to spell out the ineffectiveness is all the more inexplicable when you consider that every summer it is the sad and tragic stories of youthful melanoma victims that are trotted out to the news media and the public as the figureheads of sun safety messages urging people to buy and use sunscreen.

  These latest studies have prompted the American Academy of Pediatricians to announce recently: “Correctly using sunscreen can prevent sunburn and is believed to protect against SCC. Using sunscreen has not, however, been shown to prevent melanoma or basal cell carcinoma.”[3]