Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Key West Moves To Ban Sunscreens That Could Damage Reefs (miamiherald.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the environmental-protection dept.

Yesterday, the Key West City Commission unanimously voted to ban the sale of sunscreens that contain two ingredients -- oxybenzone and octinoxate -- that a growing body of scientific evidence says harm coral reefs. The measure must now be reviewed again by the commission before it becomes law. The second vote is scheduled for February 5th. Miami Herald reports: Environmental researchers have published studies showing how these two ingredients, which accumulate in the water from bathers or from wastewater discharges, can damage coral reefs through bleaching and harming the corals' DNA. In some instances, the corals can die. A Feburary 2016 study in the Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology examining the impact of oxybenzone in corals in Hawaii and the U.S. Virgin Islands concluded that the sunscreen ingredient "poses a hazard to coral reef conservation and threatens the resiliency of coral reefs to climate change.''

Last year, Hawaii banned the sale or distribution of any sunscreens containing oxybenzone and octinoxate, a measure that will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2021. It was the first state in the nation to implement such a ban. In Florida, the website for the South Florida Reef Ambassador Initiative, which falls under the state's Department of Environmental Protection, tells divers to "Avoid sunscreens with Oxybenzone and Avobenzone. The benzones are compounds that are lethal to coral reproduction in very small amounts." Experts who have studied the issue say sunscreens with zinc oxide or titanium dioxide, which are minerals, also block ultraviolet rays. They create a barrier on the skin that deflect the sun's rays .

47 of 90 comments (clear)

  1. Good idea by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    While you are at it, why not also look into not selling sunscreen that is questionable for humans too...

    However I fear it may have little effect, since a lot of people bring their own sunscreen from elsewhere. But you may as well try.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Good idea by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      Require signs in stores and beach entrances to educate beachgoers -- I don't think anyone WANTS to be part of damaging something beautiful.

    2. Re:Good idea by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I dont live in an overly sunny area of the world so I dont know anything about sunscreen, so I did a quick search...

      Consumer Reports 2018, top 5 sunscreens:
      (A) La Roche-Posay Anthelios 60 Melt-In Sunscreen Milk.
      (B) Coppertone Sport SPF 50 Lotion Sunscreen.
      (C) Aveeno Protect + Hydrate Lotion SPF 30.
      (D) Banana Boat SunComfort Clear UltraMist Spray SPF 50+ Sunscreen.
      (E) Coppertone Kids Sunscreen Stick SPF 55.


      The offending ingredients named in the summary are Oxybenzone and Octinoxate

      (A) contains Oxybenzone 3.86%
      (B) neither listed
      (C) contains Oxybenzone 5%
      (D) contains Oxybenzone 3%
      (E) contains Oxybenzone 6%

      All of them (including B) listed an active ingredient with a similar sounding name to Octinoxate called Octisalate.

      Given that apparently the best sunscreens use this stuff, it would be no surprise that people would just go ahead and ignore the law.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    3. Re:Good idea by Jesus+H+Rolle · · Score: 2

      I don't think anyone WANTS to be part of damaging something beautiful.

      As soon as the government shut down, people drove into Joshua Tree National Park and started cutting down Joshua trees. People would pulverize coral with sledgehammers and then dissolve it in acid if it weren't so inaccessible. A certain portion of humanity is simply shit.

    4. Re: Good idea by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      However I fear it may have little effect, since a lot of people bring their own sunscreen from elsewhere. But you may as well try.

      A lot more people than you think manage to forget or simply lose their sunscreen.

      Yup, and the stuff also expires and becomes unusable after a while so a very significant number of visitors are likely to buy their sunscreen locally.

    5. Re: Good idea by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      The TSA only limits liquids that you carry on board. You can put gallons of sunscreen in your checked luggage and they wouldn't care.

    6. Re:Good idea by Agripa · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone WANTS to be part of damaging something beautiful.

      As soon as the government shut down, people drove into Joshua Tree National Park and started cutting down Joshua trees. People would pulverize coral with sledgehammers and then dissolve it in acid if it weren't so inaccessible. A certain portion of humanity is simply shit.

      Before coral was protected, people would collect and cut it up to make things like coffee tables.

  2. Re:One "giant stride"for coral by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    Great news. There are a lot fo quality mineral-based sunscreens that don't kill coral.

    Hawaii did it first. These sunscreens were banned there last year.

  3. Re:Key West should ban cock-gobblers by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

    Sounds like you haven't found the courage to come out yet ... you need a Grindr account.

  4. Spitting into the wind by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't help but think this is just spitting into the wind. There are lots of chemicals which potentially harm reefs. Oxybenzone and octinoxate just get picked on because there was already a large conspiracy theory-ish movement to get those two banned, which quickly latched on to any alternative reason to ban them.

    if you look at all chemicals we add to the water which potentially harms coral, fertilizer would seem to be the biggest culprit. And we dump probably a trillion times more fertilizer into the oceans (via agricultural runoff) than sunscreen. These sunscreen bans are like making a fuss over a tiny crack in the road, while ignoring the smoking mile-wide crater.

    1. Re:Spitting into the wind by jpaine619 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just because something has a small effect doesn't mean it should not be treated. If we tackle all the small components it will eventually add up.

      It's like when you get a small cut or abrasion.. It's small. No big deal.. But if you don't tend to it, there is the possibility it can get infected.. That can kill you..

      i.e. Tackle the small problems first.. Then you can tackle the big problems down the road when you can.. But you don't just stare at the huge problem and say "Too big.. Me go home now"...

      I'm a pretty strong conservative, but I don't see a lot of this as being liberal/conservative.. I like nature. I like visiting it on the weekend and maybe killing some shit and then eating it.. But I can't do that if we don't have a fucking nature in the first place..

    2. Re:Spitting into the wind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So if my arm is partially amputated causing massive blood loss and I have an obvious melanoma growing on my other arm I should make sure to stop and clean and dress a small scratch on my leg first? Then I can worry about the massive trauma on one limb and deadly cancer on another? Because "Tackle the small problem first."

      That's what you are saying. We should temporarily ignore the thing that is killing coral and creating dead zones larger than entire states in the gulf of Mexico and other river outlets into oceans around the world. While we make people stop using sunscreen that is 0.0001% of what is damaging coral?

      I'm 100% fine with banning sunscreens with these ingredients but you need to pull your head out of your rear if you really buy the crap you are spewing.

      You focus on the most immediate threat. Fertilizer runoff is an extreme problem. A few thousand tourists wearing sunscreen in the Florida keys is insignificant in comparison. Stopping 0.1% of farm runoff would do more than banning those sunscreen ingredients across the entire world.

      In the end completely removing chemicals won't save coral. The main killer of coral that likely can't be stopped no matter what is ocean warming and acidification.

    3. Re:Spitting into the wind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Translation: ban all the other (potentially) harmful things before you ban my $favorite_sunscreen.

      Go put on a hat.

    4. Re:Spitting into the wind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're right, but there are different degrees of harm.

      The problem with these sunscreens specifically is that first and foremost, we don't need these types of sunscreen. Honestly, you don't need sunscreen at all if you're sensible, my experience of diving is that many divers just don't use it despite being out on boats or in the sea, sometimes with long surface swims with the sun glaring down in some of the hottest parts of the world. Just wear something like a rash guard and a hat, or keep yourself in the shade when you can. If you really have the need to go and cook yourself intentionally then just use a reef safe sunscreen.

      The second problem is that the effect of these chemicals is pretty trivial to demonstrate, lab experiments mirroring the concentrations found in popular tourist areas of these chemicals trivially highlight how rapidly coral can be bleached and killed with these chemicals.

      Finally, whilst you're right, other chemicals like fertilizers are problematic in that they suffocate reefs by causing algae blooms, there is at least some natural counter to this. Some of the islands I've been diving to we've seen the reef recede away from the island for exactly this reason, BUT we've also seen increased numbers and sizes of algae eaters like Parrot Fish which in turn have now in some areas started to cull the algae growth back and allow the reef to return. It looks like we'll just see a new equilibrium point, and whilst that doesn't mean we can pour more and more fertiliser in indefinitely, it does at least mean the damage is to some degree reversible by nature. That's not the case with harmful sunscreen where there's no natural counter to the bleeching and death of coral that it causes.

      As an aside I also don't have any sympathy for the sunscreen industry on this one, in large part because one of the most harmful sunscreens on the market is branded "Reef Safe" but most certainly isn't. That's equivalent to the whole "Tobacco is good for you" scandal IMO and should be treated as criminally misleading. Lying to consumers to that degree deserves jail time. It's not like this was an industry that's accidentally caused a problem and deserves some sympathy for being caught out, when you knowingly market sunscreen that isn't reef safe as reef safe, then you're being criminally negligent.

      This ban is a good thing, and it genuinely does help reefs. It's a low impact change where the only impact is on a criminally negligent industry who deserves no sympathy. The fact that there are other problems as well doesn't mean that we shouldn't tackle this one, tackling it just means there's one less problem, and that's a good thing.

    5. Re:Spitting into the wind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just because something has a small effect doesn't mean it should not be treated. If we tackle all the small components it will eventually add up.

      If you waste your time on insignificant trivialities while ignoring the giant elephant in the room, you're just doing that: wasting your time.

      i.e. Tackle the small problems first

      That's the wrong way to go about. If you cannot tackle the big problems that are so much worse they're not even on the same scale than what you're doing, you've failed before even starting.

      Then you can tackle the big problems down the road when you can

      No you can't, because you're too busy wasting your time on nonsense. You could do countless of these small projects and still not make a difference. Time is finite.

      But you don't just stare at the huge problem and say "Too big.. Me go home now"...

      But that's exactly what you are advocating for: do what's easy, be content with that, have no effect on anything but virtue-signal the hell out of it. "At least we started a conversation ..."

    6. Re:Spitting into the wind by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Just because something has a small effect doesn't mean it should not be treated.

      That depends on if that something has a benefit. The GP's crack in the road doesn't have a benefit. The mixture of chemicals in sunscreen however dramatically help reduce skin cancer rates.

    7. Re:Spitting into the wind by KerryBoehm · · Score: 1

      The town council of Key West is very limited in what they can do to control fertilizer runoff. From what I can tell there is not a whole lot of farming going on there. Banning the sale of certain sunscreens is something they can do. Sure, it doesn't move the bar much but it's something they CAN do. More importantly though it does create awareness and maybe folks with consider other things which actually will make a difference.

    8. Re:Spitting into the wind by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Good point. When my car started leaking brake fluid I just ignored it. It wasn't worth fixing, there was petrol leaking out of the tank anyway. I knew it was probably going to crash and catch fire and burn to the ground soon no matter what I did.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Spitting into the wind by ghoul · · Score: 1

      More fertilizer runs off from lawns than farms. Farmers are businessmen. They dont want to waste money by adding more than needed whereas homeowners are amateurs. Ban fertilizer at Home Depot et al and you fix the runoff issue.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    10. Re:Spitting into the wind by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      That's what you are saying. We should temporarily ignore the thing that is killing coral and creating dead zones larger than entire states in the gulf of Mexico and other river outlets into oceans around the world.

      #1. Don't tell me what the fuck I'm saying. I know what I'm saying. You can ask if you're understanding my point correctly.
      #2. I was saying the exact opposite.

      I am saying "deal with the small shit like crap in sunscreen. That's an easy quick fix". I was responding to the idiot that claimed that changing sunscreen was such a small effect it was pointless. All the small effects add up. If we fix them we end up fixing a lot.

      To your arm point: Don't be an asshole. I specifically said "If you start with a scratch and don't tend to it, it can turn into a big problem." I didn't say "ignore the missing limb". Not every analogy is perfect, but I think I did a good job of making my point. You lose points for reading comprehension and having a stick up your ass.

    11. Re:Spitting into the wind by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      If you waste your time on insignificant trivialities while ignoring the giant elephant in the room, you're just doing that: wasting your time.

      We live in democracies (republics) here in the west. If the public doesn't support the big changes, then what are you going to do? Or, are you going to wreck your economy with your big fixes?

      Why is it you people have such small minds? Who says you have to fix 1 small thing at a time? Hell, you could be fixing 100 small things that add up to having a greater impact than one giant fix of something else.

      Use your fucking minds people...

    12. Re:Spitting into the wind by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Must irritate the shit out of you that the biggest proponents of natural conservancy are conservatives. (Ironic eh?) I can't hunt if there's no nature.

      What's the impact to a liberal? One less view to take a snapchat of?

      Once a month I drive down to the closest federal wilderness, to me, and for an hour or two I walk along the road picking up all the trash. I like nature. I like visiting it. Can't do that if it's not there.

      Equating "Trumpism" with nature/hunting/conservancy just shows you're an idiot (who doesn't even have the balls to post as a non-ac). Hypocritical liberals.. Act like hunting your own food is somehow "redneck" but you're just fine with going to the store and eating animals that lived in tiny cages for their brief miserable lives.

      FUCK YOU

    13. Re:Spitting into the wind by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      That depends on if that something has a benefit. The GP's crack in the road doesn't have a benefit. The mixture of chemicals in sunscreen however dramatically help reduce skin cancer rates.

      Are you suggesting that only this particular set of ingredients, in the sunscreen, work? "cause I'm pretty sure that if these two chemicals are being banned, there is a goddamn alternative. It is highly unlikely that Key West is attempting to cause people to get skin cancer.

    14. Re:Spitting into the wind by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No. I'm saying these two are by far the most effective. The alternatives are not as good at protecting against UVB and don't last as long.

      Your argument also makes no sense. Humans in general don't focus on collective good of their medical fitness alone, and decisions are imperfect targeting a specific and often changing purpose. Key West's decision had nothing to do with cancer, much less causing people to get it (that is also a really dumb stretch of logic since the type of sunscreen used doesn't "cause" anything). Key West made an environmental decision, nothing more.

      Now in other leaps of logic Donald Trump ran on a campaign of causing cancer and lung disease, clearly not on keeping coal jobs or appeasing interest groups. See how silly it sounds?

  5. Do they look like zinc oxide, or wear them to wor? by raymorris · · Score: 1

    I know zinc oxide is a good sunscreen, but you can't really wear that all the time if you're fair-skinned or have risk factors for skin cancer. Are there good ones, that protect from the cancer-causing wavelengths, affordably? Do they look like zinc oxide sunscreen aka clown make-up? I'm not really familiar with this topic. I suppose maybe Florida fashions could adapt and it could be considered normal to sit in a business meeting painted like Bozo the Clown.

    I rarely use sunscreen, so this doesn't affect me enough for me to research it more.

    It's interesting. I'm a bit surprised that parts-in-a-billion concentration of sunscreen would have a significant affect on coral. I almost wonder if this isn't based on research where they applied sunscreen to coral at a million times the concentration that is found in the ocean. If I cared more I'd read the study. I'm not saying the study is bogus, just that it smells funny because of the amount of sunscreen vs water - it seems like it would be so dilute that couldn't have any significant affect. Surprising things happen, though. Could be legit.

  6. Re:Key West should ban cock-gobblers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    With the amount of protesting you do "I SWEAR I'M NOT GAY!!! I SWEAR I'M NOT GAY!!" one has to assume you have a penis in your asshole at this exact moment... Saying, to you, "Thou doth protest too much", seems like a colossal understatement..

  7. Re:What kind of volume does it take to have an aff by jpaine619 · · Score: 2

    If you take a drum of poison down to the beach and dump it into the water, dead shit is gonna float up.. The end may be that it is diluted into the entire ocean, but at the moment it hits the water it's being diluted into whatever small volume it's in.

  8. Time to Sleep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I read this as "Kanye West" and was blown away by his sudden charitable foresight, yet highly confused.

    1. Re:Time to Sleep by lgordon · · Score: 1

      Reddit thought the same: https://www.reddit.com/r/Uplif...

  9. Re: Next up by pete6677 · · Score: 1

    Well they already took muh dishwashing detergent. That phosphate-free shit doesn't get dishes anywhere near clean.

  10. Re: Next up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Except for it's still a detergent. Just like using a handwashing dish soap, it doesn't necessarily have Phosphates but the surfactants get dishes clean and even clothes if sufficiently concentrated. These chemicals that Key West wants to ban are in almost every variety of "PABA-free" sunscreen. Might as well go back to PABA that provided superior sun protection at lower SPF numbers. (No need for SPF 30, 40, 50... PABA was adeqate at SPF 8 and the maximum necessary was SPF 15.)

  11. Titanium dioxide, really? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

    Lets slather ourselves with non biodegradable nanoparticles which are known photo-catalysts, can penetrate cells and go sit in UV light ... what could possibly go wrong?

    1. Re:Titanium dioxide, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're a moron.

    2. Re:Titanium dioxide, really? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      When I was growing up in California (early Sixties) TiO2 was why all the surfers had white noses.

    3. Re:Titanium dioxide, really? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Was probably zinc oxide, but even if it wasn't it was made from big particles. They can make it transparent now by using nanoparticles, nice sharp rod shaped nanoparticles.

    4. Re:Titanium dioxide, really? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Zinc oxide was used also, yes, and it looked the same.

  12. Safer for clothing too by ShoulderOfOrion · · Score: 1

    I switched to the vanishing zinc oxide sunscreen because the Oxybenzone stuff creates terrible stains on my clothing due to the iron in my water (which runs through a cast iron pipe from the water company). I haven't noticed any decrease in sunscreen effectiveness, but there is certainly a significant increase in price for the zinc oxide stuff. Since I live 3000 miles from Key West I guess I'm doing my part for the coral reefs too.

    1. Re:Safer for clothing too by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      I've found for me that the zinc oxide gets reduced by my sweat, I end up covered in gray, reduced zinc which does not interact with light, and a lovely burn. I guess I'll have to try the titanium oxide, but at that point I may as well stop at Sherwin Williams on the way to the beach.

  13. At least it's Key West by maroberts · · Score: 1

    ..and not Kanye

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  14. Re: Next up by LostMyAccount · · Score: 1

    Switch to the little pod style dishwashing detergents. I've found that in a modern dishwasher with a rinse aid dispenser that they do a great job cleaning dishes. The pods get the right combination of detergents and surfactants without too much total detergent. Supposedly the idea is that dishwashers work based on chemistry, not hydrology.

    The only thing to maybe worry about is that I had an appliance repair guy tell me that since the removal of phosphates, they've been using extremely fine mineral abrasives in automatic dishwasher detergent. I think he might be wrong or exaggerating, because I haven't seen any scoring or etching of my glassware like you used to see.

  15. More Cancer is irrelevant by sproketboy · · Score: 1

    :)

  16. Re:One "giant stride"for coral by hawkfish · · Score: 1

    Great news. There are a lot fo quality mineral-based sunscreens that don't kill coral.

    Hawaii did it first. These sunscreens were banned there last year.

    I was just there. They banned the listed chemicals, but there were sunscreens for sale everywhere that had essentially the same chemicals with slight modifications. Banana Boat in particular did this, and even had the gall to put "Reef Safe!" stickers on everything.

    Bottom line: if it isn't mineral-based, its bad, mmkay?

    --
    You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
  17. How do you enforce? by ghoul · · Score: 2

    It would be way too labor intensive to check every person's luggage to see if they had a sunscreen with a banned ingredient. You would need a DEA sized workforce. "War on Sunscreen" just doesnt have the ring to it that "War on Drugs" has.
    The ban is more of a suggestion.

    --
    **Life is too short to be serious**
    1. Re:How do you enforce? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      You enforce it by randomised checking of the shops selling sunscreen in Key West and fining the living fuck out of any breaking the law.

      That someone can buy sunscreen in Australia, carry it through nine countries and use it in Key West (as I will tomorrow) doesn't break the law or stop it being effective in reducing harm to the coral.

    2. Re:How do you enforce? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      But think of the potential for civil assets forfeiture.

  18. Re:So? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

    Someone got probed by aliens on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

  19. Sunscreen thoughts by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

    Current sunscreen products wash off fairly quickly, thus the admonition to re-apply regularly.

    There are some dyes that are fairly indelible on skin, inks and such. The upper layer of the skin is permanently stained, and the stain doesn't go away until the stained layers wear away.

    Is there (or could it be synthesized) such a dye that is opaque in UV but otherwise colorless? Apply once, good for a couple of days? (Actually, even if it did have some garish color in visible light, it might become a fashion statement. But I'm shooting for invisible to normal vision.)

    For those who plan on spending a whole lot of their life in the sun, what about UV-protective tattooing? I'm not sure if tattoo pigments are too deep, and would be below the layers of skin that need protection, but maybe all-over tattooing with that transparent titanium dioxide sunscreen could be permanent protection.