Saturday 19 December 2015

BREAKING NEWS: KILLER SUNSCREEN MURDERS INFANT CORALS IN COLD BLOOD!

During my somewhat shameful evening routine of trawling through Daily Mail online, I came across a rather dramatic article on how sunscreen lotions are “killing off” coral reefs. Having previously explored the impacts of recreational tourist activity on coral reefs this immediately caught my attention. My initial thoughts were pretty sceptical – the language was highly sensationalist (posing sun lotions as an “existential threat”), and after all, it is the Daily Mail. But I eventually found the original, much more academic (and, I must say, rather dense) article that has since received heavy press coverage. Hence, not only am I able to further use my blog to name-and-shame tourism for killing off corals, but I was presented with a tantalising opportunity to compare the Daily Mail’s (and other news outlets) translation of hard academic science to, well, chain-procrastinators like me.

Oxybenzone is an chemical ingredient that shields against ultraviolet radiation, often present in sunscreen lotions. The specific oxybenzone studied in the article is benzophenone-3 (BP-3). An estimated 6 thousand - 14 thousand tonnes of sunscreen is released into areas surrounding coral reefs annually, both directly through swimmers, and indirectly through wastewater discharges from coastal development, e.g. hotel sewerage systems. Many of these lotions contain 1-10% BP-3, putting roughly 40% of coral reefs at exposure.

The experimental results of the study identified several toxicity mechanisms resulting from exposure of juvenile corals to BP-3, including DNA damage to coral larvae, reducing juvenile survival and resilience to other stressors, such as rising sea-surface temperatures under climate change. This changed the larvae of the coral species Stylophora pistillata from being healthy and mobile, to deformed and sessile - as shown in Figure 2. Furthermore, corals exhibited increased susceptibility to bleach at lower temperatures with rising concentrations of oxybenzone. 




Figure 2. Panel A is a healthy juvenile planula, approxiamtely 5 mm in length. Panel B is a sessile deformed, sessile coral exposed to oxybenzone for 8 hours. Source (although originally used from Source1).

The study identified 62 parts per trillion of BP-3 as (arguably) the lowest concentration required to see any toxicity effect on corals. Worryingly, many popular coastal tourist areas far exceed this amount, for example 1.4 parts per million were detected in Trunk Bay of the Virgin Islands National Park.

Having read both the original paper and numerous related press articles, besides the significant dramatizing of language in media outlets (damage to juvenile corals became “fatal to baby coral” in this expressive Guardian article), I noticed that a lot of them failed to mention a key part of the experimental study – that different coral species responded differently to BP-3 exposure. In other words, each of the 7 tested coral species exhibited differing levels of tolerance. For this study, slower growing coral species were naturally more tolerant than faster growing species. In fact the species Porites astreoides was about 38 x more tolerant to DP-3 than the most sensitive species, suggesting that not all coral species are being “killed off” by sunscreen lotions - in fact some may be more tolerant than we’d expect.

Nevertheless, given the results of the study, I would still argue that reducing coral exposure to BP-3 is critical for sustaining the resilience of coral reefs, especially given the global coral bleaching event predicted with this year’s El Nino. Even with varying tolerance levels, exposure would still encourage a community shift to a less diverse and thus less resilient coral community. Furthermore, being a photo-toxicant, Oxybenzone's toxicity is exacerbated in strong light, making tropical regions where coral loss is already in a critical state even more vulnerable. With shocking figures such as at least 80% of all corals reefs already lost in the Caribbean, we really can’t afford to lose anymore from these places whose economies depend on tourist-income from coral reefs. Already, concerns in some areas have resulted in banning of products containing oxybenzone in managed marine areas. In Akumal Bay for example, the study site discussed in my previous post, visitors are encouraged to use either no sunscreen or sunscreen without BP-3. Furthermore, public relations campaigns such as “Protect Yourself, Protect the Reef!” have been set up specifically to reduce chemical contamination by suncreen-wearing swimmers in high-tourism areas.

Downs, the leader of the original paper’s research team, stated:

Any small effort to reduce oxybenzone pollution could mean that a coral reef survives a long, hot summer, or that a degraded areas recovers. Everyone wants to build coral nurseries for reef restoration, but this will achieve little if the factors that originally killed off the reef remain or intensify in the environment.”

Downs makes two important points in this quote. Firstly, that coral reefs experience numerous stressors, both anthropogenic (e.g. trampling, climate change) and natural (ENSO events). Oxybenzone in your sun lotions may not seem like too big a problem, but it reduces the resilience of coral reefs to much more acute large-scale stressors, such as ENSO events that cause mass, global-scale coral bleaching events. Secondly, instead of trying to fix the problem through technical schemes (such as breeding “super corals” (!), perhaps we should firstly try and reduce our destruction of corals reefs in the first place.

So, in reply to the Daily Mail article’s questioning title ‘Is your sunscreen killing off coral reefs?’ we can turn to one of the aptly put answers of the avid commenter ‘BirdMail’: “Along with all the other crap we put in our oceans, yes, yes it is.”

One Guardian article states that oxybenzone is present in ~3500 brands of sunscreen worldwide, including Coopertone and L’Oreal. As conscious consumers, we should read the product labels and opt for coral reef-safe sunscreen, as well as wearing rash guards/scuba wetsuits rather than sunscreen.

7 comments:

  1. Hi Shruti, this is a really fascinating post!
    I had no idea that sunscreen was so bad for corals! It is a bit ironic that the tourist areas dependent most on the coral reefs will also have the highest amounts of sunscreen. I think it's particularly worrying that our use of sunscreens with oxybenzone could change the structure of reef communities, leaving only the more tolerant species. So, even as some coral species have a higher tolerance to oxybenzone than expected this is still no reason at all to continue using oxybenzone. I also think it was really important that you mentioned that a relatively small stressor such as sunscreens will decrease resilience to larger stressors. Finally, it's interesting that you came across this via a Daily Mail article. I had no idea about this issue. For me, and other non-readers of Daily Mail, how do you think the issue can be brought to the publics attention more? Perhaps, the 'toxic to aquatic life' symbol should be put on sunscreens? That would certainly make me think again about buying certain types of sunscreens!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Lucy, thanks so much for your comments! I agree, before coming across the Daily Mail article, I'd pretty much never heard of the problem! I think that it is preventable, but I would probably go one step further than you and say oxybenzone should be banned from sunscreens altogether! Oxybenzone is only one of the active UV filters in sunscreen, and it seems silly to make the consumers have to look out for it when there are alternatives. Having said that, until that time arrives (if it does!) I definitely think there needs to be an easier way of identifying sunscreens with the contaminant. A universal sign would be good, instead of people having to first know about the issue and then trawl through all the product ingredients!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, good idea. It should just be banned outright!

      Delete
  3. I enjoyed this incredibly dramatic headline - although I can't believe you trawl the Daily Mail every evening!!
    This is an incredibly important issue that (sadly) has not been given enough attention in the press. I agree - it definitely needs to be banned outright! I think oxybenzone has actually been proved to be a harmful ingredient for humans too, so I have no idea why it's still being used!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Celia! I'm glad you enjoyed the blog post! I agree, it seems silly that it's still being used, but I guess it's a trade off between protecting against UV radiation and human/coral health benefits. I think there definitely needs to be more research into alternatives, as the presence of sunscreens without oxybenzone clearly shows it's possible to remove it from sunscreen products completely!

      Delete
  4. Who knew that the Daily Mail could provide you with such a great story for a blog post! A really interesting study and the as the data show (and as we all know) resilience is key! But again as most tourism impacts how do you reckon we can best inform tourists on the harmful impacts of sunscreen? Its surely impossible to monitor and make sure that everyone wears a eco-friendly sunscreen and most manufacturers won't change their ingredients unless there's a cheaper alternative or reasonable pressure from consumers. Plus a policy on banning them will take time to come into effect and again will be hard to monitor.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Vasu! What an insightful comment, thank you! I agree, this is the issue. It's one thing locating the problem through science and research but then to implement the removal of the problem in practice is another challenge entirely. This seems to be a wider problem with translating scientific research into real world solutions. I agree there are a lot of barriers to removing oxybenzone from sunscreen lotions but I think that laws are the best way forward here. That would mean manufacturers were forced to use alternatives even if they're more expensive. As coral reefs are an important resource to so many sectors, it would justify the banning of the chemical on an industrial scale.

    ReplyDelete