How can you make sure your sunscreen is 'reef safe'?
Sunscreen is the must have summer holiday item, but while it may protect your skin, there's growing research it could be harming the ocean and marine life.
Each year, about 14,000 tonnes of sunscreen ends up in the sea this way, threatening the health of marine life and coral reefs.
It's led to many people buying 'reef safe' sunscreen but there is currently no regulation of these products.
Now, a group of researchers from the University of Derby want to change that with proper accreditation of reef safe sunscreen that could be regulated globally.
So which sunscreen should you use to protect your skin and the ocean?
How does sunscreen harm coral reefs?
When we swim or shower, sunscreen can wash off our skin and enter waterways.
Each year, about 14,000 tonnes of sunscreen ends up in the sea this way, threatening the health of marine life and coral reefs.
As the sunscreen breaks down, the coral absorbs these chemicals and it can harm its reproduction and growth and contribute to bleaching.
"It just directly kills it as well," Professor Michael Sweet from the University of Derby told ITV News.
"Sometimes in the tests we've undertaken, we put the sunscreen in the water and within a few hours you can see tissue completely sloughing off the coral skeleton."
What is the 'toxic' sunscreen?
Oxybenzone and octinoxate are chemical compounds found in many common sunscreens and are known to have a more significant impact on coral health.
Sunscreen containing these ingredients is often dubbed 'toxic'.
While oxybenzone is approved globally as a sunscreen ingredient, it has been banned in seven places including Hawaii, the US Virgin Islands and parts of Thailand in a bid to reduce the impact on reefs.
What sunscreen should I buy?
Several sunscreen companies market their products as 'reef safe' or 'reef friendly', but there is no regulation of these claims so you'll have to check the ingredient list on the packaging.
It's best to look for mineral active ingredients, like zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, and to avoid any products containing oxybenzone, octinoxate and octocrylene.
Lotions are also better for the environment than spray or mist products, as the aerosol particles often end up on the sand and washed out to sea .
The other option is to wear your SPF protection instead. Swim shirts and rash vests protect your skin from UV and can last longer than a bottle of sunscreen.
How would 'reef safe' regulation work?
Professor Sweet said 80 per cent of sunscreen marked as 'reef safe' had never been tested.
He said it was very difficult to actually determine whether a product is 'reef safe' from ingredients alone and the industry needed "a shake up".
Researchers at the University of Derby want to create a Reef Protection Factor (RPF) certification to help people buy products - including sunscreen, cosmetics and surf wax - that have been proven to be safe for use in the ocean.
Under the proposal, products would have to have undergone rigorous testing with adult corals at an accredited independent testing centre to receive RPF creditation.
If there was any evidence of tissue loss in any of the coral tested, the product would not pass and could not be branded 'reef-safe'.
The university has developed a facility that can test a sunscreen's impact on coral and have used that to create their own reef-safe sunscreen.
Professor Sweet said there should be a visible reef safe trademark on items so consumers could easily identify safe products on the shelf.
"Bronze standard is as good as nothing in the water, silver means you're having a positive impact to some degree but gold is your gold standard where you're having a clear positive impact," he said.
"In the concept of things like climate change, many people would say it's a relatively small drop in the ocean.
"But it's something that in theory that we can change overnight."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
2 days ago
- ITV News
RRS Sir David Attenborough central to discovering Antarctica's changing climate
For all the wildlife, wilderness and wonder in Antarctica, ITV News has been on a journey of scientific discovery through unchartered waters. The scientists aboard the RRS Sir David Attenborough are getting the data which drives global climate science. The team have collected a certain type of moss they can share with scientists back in the Netherlands - just one example of scientists across the world working together. Samples collected will be kept in a freezer to be analysed later. What might look like mud to the average person is to Marine Chemist Dr Rhiannon Jones a gold mine of data. 'What we've previously seen is that glaciers are really important in the summer providing food to the ocean nearby through meltwater. But what we've seen in winter this time is it looks like there are different drivers of that food supply.' During this journey, the RRS Sir David Attenborough has been mapping the sea floor, often passing through unchartered waters which used to be solid glaciers. Measurements show walls of ice can stretch up to 200 metres underwater, making them even more susceptible to warming waters than previously thought. Professor Mike Meredith, from the British Antarctic Survey, told ITV News that scientists have learned more about global warming during the journey. 'We've learnt a lot about how the ocean impacts the glaciers in Antarctica and how that works differently in the winter rather than the summertime.' This new information will help forecast how Antarctica will change as climate change progresses.
ITV News
2 days ago
- ITV News
'My head swelled instantly': Hull woman claims Botox mix-up could have left her blind
A woman who was injected with dermal filler instead of Botox says the botched procedure could have left her blind. Lisa Smith, from Hull, went for routine Botox - a procedure designed to reduce the appearance of lines - in December 2023 at Blu Aesthetics. But halfway into the treatment, she said she was in excruciating pain and told the practitioner, Abigail Lawson, to stop. Lisa, 34, said she instantly developed a lump in her forehead, which Ms Lawson claimed may have been the result of an infection. It was only when she sought a second opinion that she was told she had been injected with what appeared to be dermal filler - a treatment not advised in the forehead because of the high risk of complication. Lisa said: 'I found out from several practitioners since that this could have caused necrosis, which is death of the tissue, pulmonary embolism, strokes, even blindness. 'I realised how big this was.' Botox injections are shots that use a toxin to prevent a muscle from moving for a limited time and are often used to smooth wrinkles on the face. Dermal fillers are injections that plump up wrinkles and smooth lines, usually in the areas around the eyes, mouth and nose. Lisa added: 'I'd had Botox two or three times before with Abi. No issues, no pain or anything. But this time, it was just significant pain from the off. 'I believe she only did three injections before I asked her to stop and my head was just swelling instantly and I ended up leaving the appointment without getting the things that I'd paid for.' Ms Lawson denies having having injected filler and said she would never have carried out the treatment had she been asked. But ITV News showed the pictures of Lisa's treatment to retired plastic surgeon Paul Baguley, who confirmed that Lisa lumps appeared to have been caused by filler. He said such issues are increasingly common because the practice of non-surgical treatments like Botox and filler are unregulated in England. 'It's like the wild, wild west out there," he said. 'You could go and set up yourself as a practitioner and inject botulinum toxin and filler and do injectables and not be registered. 'It's so easy to call yourself an aesthetic practitioner when you're not trained to do it.' After Lisa posted about her experience online, a number of other women contacted her to share their negative experiences with Ms Lawson. Leah Rushworth said she paid hundreds of pounds to complete a dermal filler training course with her in February and received a certificate claiming she was accredited by Beauty Industry Approval (BIA). But the BIA has confirmed Ms Lawson is not accredited and the certificates are invalid. Leah said: 'It's just confusing, really, and quite hurtful. 'I've got two young children and I was just trying to make a better life for me and the children. And now it's just gone downhill. Can't do that now.' ITV News has seen evidence from four further clients who have all been given the same certificates. Many claim Abigail has since blocked them from getting in contact and has not issued refunds. Ms Lawson's lawyers, Pepperells Solicitors, told ITV Calendar their client denied Lisa's claims she had been injected with dermal filler by Ms Lawson. In a statement they said: "If she had been asked to perform that treatment, she would have said that it was not possible and should not be done. This would be based on her training and seven years experience since qualifying. "It is therefore suggested that perhaps [Lisa] may have approached another practitioner with the same request and gone ahead with that process and been mistaken that it was our client who undertook that treatment." Pepperells said that the certificate provided to Leah Rushworth had shown the BIA accreditation due to a "printing error". 'Our client is CPD accredited, not BIA," the spokesperson said. "This is a printing error in the requested logo on the certificates created. It has been an unfortunate error that has only recently come to light which has been addressed as soon as it arose. "Our client has emailed the marketing/printing company regarding this, however as of yet are still waiting upon a response. 'These certificates were not deliberately created to be misleading. No refunds have been issued for completed courses as our client maintains that these are valid qualifications. Our client will replace them as soon as she is able to do so.' Blu Aesthetics has since been dissolved as a company.
ITV News
3 days ago
- ITV News
MPs to cast final vote on assisted dying bill
MPs will cast their final vote on the assisted dying bill when it returns to the House of Commons on Friday. The crucial vote will see the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill either clear the House of Commons and move to the Lords, or fall completely. The proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. Kim Leadbeater, the architect of the bill, told ITV News' Talking Politics podcast she was 'positive and optimistic' that a majority of MPs would support 'the most robust assisted dying bill in the world', despite a growing number of MPs declaring they will vote against the legislation in recent months. Last week, MPs voted on a series of amendments to the bill, passing a clause that will stop health professionals from raising the subject of assisted dying with child patients, as well as another banning advertising the service. The final vote on Friday, following months of Parliamentary processes, will determine whether assisted dying is a step closer to becoming law, or whether it will be thrown out entirely. ITV News understands 162 MPs are so far planning to vote for it, 152 plan to vote against it, 22 remain undecided and 23 are due to abstain. This means we can share the voting intention of 359 of the 650 MPs. , while more than 20 remain undecided. What will happen on Friday? The bill is back for third reading, which is the first time MPs will vote on the overall piece of legislation since the yes vote in November. It is expected that some outstanding amendments might be voted on first thing on Friday before debate on the bill as a whole begins. MPs voted 330 to 275, majority 55, to approve the bill at second reading in November. The relatively narrow majority means every vote will count on Friday, to secure the bill's passage to the House of Lords for further debate and voting. What is in the bill? The proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death. This would be subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, a senior legal figure and a psychiatrist. The terminally ill person would take an approved substance, provided by a doctor, but administered only by the person themselves. When would assisted dying be available if the bill became law? The implementation period has been doubled to a maximum of four years from royal assent, rather than the initially suggested two years. If the bill were to pass later this year, that would mean it might not be until 2029, potentially coinciding with the end of this government's parliament, that assisted dying would be offered. Leadbeater, who put forward the extended timeframe, has insisted it is 'a backstop' rather than a target, as she pledged to 'hold the government's feet to the fire' on implementing legislation should the bill pass. The extended implementation period was one of a number of changes made since the bill was first introduced to the Commons back in October. What other changes have there been? The High Court safeguard has been dropped and replaced by expert panels – a change much-criticised by opponents who said it weakened the Bill, but something Leadbeater has argued strengthens it. At the end of a weeks-long committee process earlier this year to amend the Bill, Leadbeater said rather than removing judges from the process, 'we are adding the expertise and experience of psychiatrists and social workers to provide extra protections in the areas of assessing mental capacity and detecting coercion while retaining judicial oversight'. Changes were also made to ensure the establishment of independent advocates to support people with learning disabilities, autism or mental health conditions and to set up a disability advisory board to advise on legal implementation and impact on disabled people. Amendments added earlier this month during the report stage in the Commons will also see assisted dying adverts banned if the Bill becomes law, and a prohibition on medics being able to speak with under-18s about assisted dying.
