C hapTer 11 nanomaterials and nanotechnologies
480
between healthy skin and unhealthy and presumably more vulnerable skin (e.g., with sunburn or psoriasis or abraded), again with
findings that many find inconclusive. Actual impacts on health are
reported as unclear or suggested adverse effects are controversial
(see Further Reading).
As of this writing, most reviews suggest that particles applied to
healthy skin not subject to unusual conditions remain largely in
outer layers of so-called “dead skin,” but comments are invariably
cautionary. As noted earlier, nanomaterials is a highly general term
for a huge array of compositions, types and forms, and size distributions. There are also many skin conditions (healthy, unhealthy)
and external circumstances, such as intense pressure, that need to
be simultaneously considered. Researchers normally note that not
all possible combinatorial situations have been considered and
substantially more research is needed. There are also calls for more
transparency and openness in scope definitions and limitations
surrounding published studies, that is, less generalizing and more
specific reporting.
Issues surrounding regulatory control are also controversial. Some
representatives of the nanocosmetic industry are resistant to basic
labeling, apparently due to their perceptions of the inconclusiveness of health findings. (Keep in mind that others happily promote
nanomaterials as an ingredient, some at least presumably doing
so as a marketing device). In the United States, consumer groups
have claimed that the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
has an inadequate position since in the past it allowed the use
of nanomaterials without new health impact studies, but studies
with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and
the National Toxicology Program are under way. In the United
Kingdom, a thorough safety assessment has been suggested, along
with developing a method, including labeling, that allows consumers to make informed choices. Japan includes risk assessment and
health issues in their calls for collaborative research initiatives. Still,
specific recommendations largely remain in the future.
The preceding discussion hardly does justice to the many complex
health issues surrounding the use of nanomaterials in cosmetics. Ongoing work is serious, in depth, and badly needed. For the
moment, the watchword is undoubtedly caution.
More generally for other applications, the more direct the pathway of
nanomaterials into the body, the more should caution be observed.
Nanomaterials that are more closely bound to parent materials (e.g.,
bicycle frames) and less likely to enter the body pose considerably
480
between healthy skin and unhealthy and presumably more vulnerable skin (e.g., with sunburn or psoriasis or abraded), again with
findings that many find inconclusive. Actual impacts on health are
reported as unclear or suggested adverse effects are controversial
(see Further Reading).
As of this writing, most reviews suggest that particles applied to
healthy skin not subject to unusual conditions remain largely in
outer layers of so-called “dead skin,” but comments are invariably
cautionary. As noted earlier, nanomaterials is a highly general term
for a huge array of compositions, types and forms, and size distributions. There are also many skin conditions (healthy, unhealthy)
and external circumstances, such as intense pressure, that need to
be simultaneously considered. Researchers normally note that not
all possible combinatorial situations have been considered and
substantially more research is needed. There are also calls for more
transparency and openness in scope definitions and limitations
surrounding published studies, that is, less generalizing and more
specific reporting.
Issues surrounding regulatory control are also controversial. Some
representatives of the nanocosmetic industry are resistant to basic
labeling, apparently due to their perceptions of the inconclusiveness of health findings. (Keep in mind that others happily promote
nanomaterials as an ingredient, some at least presumably doing
so as a marketing device). In the United States, consumer groups
have claimed that the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
has an inadequate position since in the past it allowed the use
of nanomaterials without new health impact studies, but studies
with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and
the National Toxicology Program are under way. In the United
Kingdom, a thorough safety assessment has been suggested, along
with developing a method, including labeling, that allows consumers to make informed choices. Japan includes risk assessment and
health issues in their calls for collaborative research initiatives. Still,
specific recommendations largely remain in the future.
The preceding discussion hardly does justice to the many complex
health issues surrounding the use of nanomaterials in cosmetics. Ongoing work is serious, in depth, and badly needed. For the
moment, the watchword is undoubtedly caution.
More generally for other applications, the more direct the pathway of
nanomaterials into the body, the more should caution be observed.
Nanomaterials that are more closely bound to parent materials (e.g.,
bicycle frames) and less likely to enter the body pose considerably