Subject(s)
Food Assistance , Nutritionists , Humans , United States , Nutritional Status , Food , Agriculture , Food SupplyABSTRACT
Recent legislative measures restricting the sale of sunscreens containing certain ultraviolet light filtering ingredients (UVFs) have been based on a perception of risk to aquatic life despite the lack of a robust data set to support these decisions. Concerns were focused on the potential for recreational swimmers' and divers' sunscreen use to result in exposures to coral already stressed due to climate change, disease, and other local conditions. In published environmental risk assessments for UVFs, exposure estimates were based on episodic environmental monitoring or estimates of typical sunscreen use, arbitrarily assuming the portion rinsed off from skin in seawater. To improve the accuracy of exposure estimates and thereby develop more robust risk assessments, we measured the amount of the UVFs, avobenzone, homosalate, octisalate, octocrylene, and oxybenzone released to seawater from four sunscreen products (two lotions, one spray, one stick) in a novel porcine skin model of typical human sunscreen use. Sunscreen was applied to porcine skin, allowed to briefly dry, then exposed to four rinse cycles in artificial seawater. The mass of each UVF in seawater, partitioned from seawater onto glassware, and extractable from skin after rinsing were determined. The proportion rinsed from skin varied by UVF, by formula type, and by application rate. Less than 1.4% of applied octisalate, homosalate, and octocrylene was detected in seawater samples (independent of formula) increasing to an average of 4% and 8% for avobenzone in stick and lotion forms, and to 24% for oxybenzone in lotions. The initial data show substantial differences in rinse-off among formulation types and sunscreen application rates, and stress the importance of using UVF-specific rinse-off values rather than a single value for all UVFs. This new method provides a tool for more robust exposure estimates, with initial data supporting lower rinse-off values than adopted in published risk assessments. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2021;17:961-966. © 2021 Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).
Subject(s)
Sunscreening Agents , Ultraviolet Rays , Animals , Environmental Monitoring , Humans , Seawater , Sunscreening Agents/analysis , Sunscreening Agents/toxicity , SwineABSTRACT
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a highly effective program, vital to our nation's health and well-being. SNAP's entitlement funding structure allows it to provide benefits to anyone who meets the program's eligibility requirements, and this structure also enables SNAP to respond quickly when need increases. Research shows that SNAP reduces poverty for millions, improves food security, and is linked with improved health.Despite SNAP's successes, there is room to build on its considerable accomplishments. Evidence suggests that current benefit levels are not adequate for many households. Some vulnerable groups have limited SNAP eligibility, and some eligible individuals face barriers to SNAP participation.Policymakers should address these shortcomings by increasing SNAP benefits and expanding SNAP eligibility to underserved groups. The federal government and states should also continue improving policies and procedures to improve access for eligible individuals.
