, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 231–240 | Cite as

Sunscreen Safety: The Precautionary Principle, The Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration and Nanoparticles in Sunscreens

  • Thomas FaunceEmail author
  • Katherine Murray
  • Hitoshi Nasu
  • Diana Bowman
Original Paper


The ‘Precautionary Principle’ provides a somewhat ill-defined guide, often of uncertain normative status, for those exercising administrative decision-making power in circumstances where that may create potential risks to human health or the environment. This paper seeks to explore to what extent the precautionary principle should have been and was in fact utilised by the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) in its decision to approve the marketing of sunscreens containing titanium dioxide (TiO2) and zinc oxide (ZnO) in nanoparticulate form. In particular, this article assesses to what extent better application of that principle might have altered the TGA’s decision that TiO2 and ZnO ENPs in sunscreens do not require new safety testing, because they are considered to be functionally equivalent to their bulk counterparts.


Nanoparticles Precautionary principle Sunscreens Therapeutic goods administration 


  1. 1.
    Advanced Nanotechnology Limited (2005) ZinClear—the choice is clear for cosmetic clarity and broad spectrum UV blocking. Advanced Nanotechnology, PerthGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cameron J (1999) The precautionary principle: core meaning, constitutional framework and procedures for implementation. In: Harding R, Fisher E (eds) Perspectives on the precautionary principle. Federation Press, Sydney, pp 29–58Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity (2000) Int Leg Mater 39:1027Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Commission of the European Communities (2000) Communication from the commission on the precautionary principle. Brussels, 2 February 2000), available at <> (last visited 1 October 2004)
  5. 5.
    Commonwealth of Australia (1989) Therapeutic Goods ActGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Commonwealth of Australia (2000) Gene Technology Act (169)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cross FB (1996) Paradoxical perils of the precautionary principle. Wash Lee Law Rev 53:851–925Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Department of Health and Aging (2001) Environmental health risk assessment guidelines for assessing human health risks from environmental hazards. Department of Health and AgingGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dussert AS, Gooris E (1997) Characterisation of the mineral content of a physical sunscreen emulsion and its distribution onto human stratum corneum. Int J Cosmet Sci 19:119–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    European Community (1992) The Maastricht TreatyGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    European Community (2001) Treaty Establishing the European Community, (EUR-lex)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Faunce T (2008) Toxicological and public good considerations for the regulation of nanomaterial-containing medical products. Expert Opin Drug Saf 7(2):103–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fisher E, Jones J, von Schomberg R (2006) Chapter 1: Implementing the precautionary principle: perspectives and prospects. In: Fisher E, Jones J, von Schomberg R (eds) Implementing the precautionary principle: perspectives and prospects. Edward Elgar, UK, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Flinders Consulting Group (2006) A review of the potential occupational health and safety implications of nanotechnology. Department of Employment and Workplace Relations: Office of the Australian Safety and Compensation CouncilGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Food and Drug Administration (2007) Nanotechnology—a report of the U.S. food and drug administration nanotechnology task force. FDA, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Graham JD (2001) Decision-analytic refinements of the precautionary principle. J Risk Res 4:127–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gurr JR et al (2005) Ultrafine titanium dioxide particles in the absence of photoactivation can induce oxidative damage to human bronchial epithelial cells. Toxicology 213:66–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heads of Government of the Commonwealth, States and Territories of Australia, and representatives of Local Government in Australia (1992) Intergovernmental agreement on the environment. Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Water ResourcesGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Holm S, Harris J (1999) Precautionary principle stifles discovery. Nature 400:398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    International Centre for Technology Assessment et al (2006) Citizen petition to the United States Food and Drug Administration. CTA, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jordan A, O’Riordan T (1998) The precautionary principle in contemporary environmental policy and politics. Paper given at Wingspread Conference on ‘Implementing the Precautionary Principle’, Racine, Wisconsin, 23–25 JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kertesz ZS, Sikszai Z, Kiss AZ (2003–2004) Quality of skin as a barrier to ultra-fine particles. Nanoderm EU 5-Project in 2003–2004Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kimbrell GA (2006) Nanomaterial consumer products and FDA regulation: regulatory challenges and necessary amendments. Nanotech L & Bus 3(3):329–338Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lademann J et al (2001) Investigation of follicular penetration of topically applied substances. Skin Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol 14:17–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lademann J et al (1999) Penetration of titanium dioxide microparticles in a sunscreen formulation into the horny layer and the follicular orifice. Skin Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol 12:247–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lademann J et al (2006) Nanoparticles—an efficient carrier for drug delivery into the hair follicles. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpb.2006.10.019
  27. 27.
    Lansdown ABG, Taylor A (1997) Zinc and titanium oxides: promising UV-absorbers but what influence do they have on the intact skin. Int J Cosmet Sci 19:167–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lawson A (2005) The Therapeutic Goods Administration will investigate the safety of a new sunscreen technology due to concerns it could damage skin cells. The Sydney Morning Herald, sec. Health and Fitness, 18 DecemberGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Maier T, Korting HC (2005) Sunscreens—which and what for. Skin Pharmacol Physiol 18(6):253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Majone G (2006) The internationalisation of regulation. In: Minogue M, Carino L (eds) Regulatory governance in developing countries. Edward Elgar, London, p 51Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Marchant GE, Mossman KL (2004) Arbitrary and capricious: the precautionary principle in the European Union Courts. AEI Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Marchant GE, Sylvester DJ (2006) Transnational models for regulation of nanotechnology. J Law Med Ethics 34:714–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Miller G (2006) Nanomaterials, sunscreens and cosmetics: small ingredients big risks. Friends of the EarthGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nohynek GJ, Lademann J, Ribaud C, Roberts MS (2007) Grey goo on the ski? Nanotechnology, cosmetic and suncreeen safety. Crit Rev Toxicol 37:251–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    NIOSH (2005a) NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards: Zinc Oxide. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human ServicesGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    NIOSH (2005b) NIOSH Current Intelligence Bulletin: Evaluation of Health Hazard and Recommendations for Occupational exposure to Titanium Dioxide. NIOSHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nollkaemper A (1996) “What you risk reveals what you value”, and other dilemmas encountered in the legal assaults on risks. In: Freestone D, Hey E (eds) The precautionary principle and international law: the challenge of implementation. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 73–94Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Peel J (2006) Precautionary only in name? Tensions between precaution and risk assessment in the Australian GMO regulatory framework. In: Fisher E, Jones J, von Schomberg R (eds) Implementing the precautionary principle perspectives and prospects. Edward Elgar, London, pp 203–220Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pflucker F et al (1999) The outermost stratum corneum layer is an effective barrier against dermal uptake of topically applied micronized titanium dioxide. Int J Cosmet Sci 21(6):399–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Randall A (2008) Taking the precautionary principle seriously, Seminar presented at the Crawford School of Economics and Governance, The Australian National University, Canberra, 15 April 2008, the audio recording available via <> (last visited 23 April 2008)
  41. 41.
    Rip A (2006) The tension between fiction and precaution in nanotechnology. In: Fisher E, Jones J, von Schomberg R (eds) Implementing the precautionary principle: perspectives and prospects. Edward Elgar, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rouse JG et al (2007) Effects of mechanical flexion on the penetration of fullerene amino acid-derivatized peptide nanoparticles through skin. Nano Lett 7(1):155–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ryman-Rasmussen JP, Riviere JE, Monteiro-Riviere NA (2006) Penetration of intact skin by quantum dots with diverse physiochemical properties. Tox Sci 91:159–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sandin P (1999) Dimensions of the precautionary principle. HumEcol Risk Assess 5:889–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Schulz J et al (2002) Distribution of sunscreens on skin. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 54(1):157–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Scientific Committee on Consumer Products (2005) Scientific Committee on Consumer Products—request for a scientific option: safety of nanomaterials in cosmetic products. Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General, European Commission, Brussels,
  47. 47.
    Scientific Committee on Consumer Products (2007) Opinion on safety of nanomaterials in cosmetic products. Brussels: Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General, European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sunstein CR (2005) Laws of fear: beyond the precautionary principle. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Tan MH et al (1996) A pilot study on the percutaneous absorption of microfine titanium dioxide from sunscreens. Australas J Dermatol 37:185–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    The Hon. Justice Paul L Stein AM (1999) Are decision-makers too cautious with the precautionary principle? Paper given at Land and Environment Court of New South Wales Annual Conference, Peppers Hydro Majestic, Medlow Bath, Blue MountainsGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1992) Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. United Nations Environment ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Therapeutic Goods Administration (2003) Australian regulatory guidelines for OTC medicines. Department of Health and AgingGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Therapeutic Goods Administration (2004) Medicines Regulation and the TGA. Department of Health and Aging, Commonwealth of AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Therapeutic Goods Administration (2006a) Regulation of therapeutic goods in Australia, <>, accessed 24/09/2006
  55. 55.
    Therapeutic Goods Administration (2006b) Safety of sunscreens containing nanoparticles of zinc oxide or titanium dioxide. Department of Health and Aging, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Tinkle SS et al (2003) Skin as a route of exposure and sensitization in chronic beryllium disease. Environ Health Perspect 111(9):1202–1208Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Tsuji JS et al (2006) Research strategies for safety evaluation of nanomaterials, part IV: risk assessment of nanoparticles. Toxicol Sci 89(1):42–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Trouwborst A (2002) Evolution and status of the precautionary principle in international law. Kluwer Law International, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Vogt A et al (2006) 40 nm, but not 750 or 1,500 nm, nanoparticles enter epidermal CD1a+ cells after transcutaneous application on human skin. J Invest Dermatol 126:1316–1322CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Faunce
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Katherine Murray
    • 1
  • Hitoshi Nasu
    • 2
  • Diana Bowman
    • 3
  1. 1.Australian National University Medical SchoolCanberraAustralia
  2. 2.Australian National University College of LawCanberraAustralia
  3. 3.Monash Centre for Regulatory Studies, Faculty of LawMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations