What are the regulatory challenges of claiming your sunscreen is ‘reef safe’?
In recent years, the sun protection market has had a significant shift as concerns about the environmental impact of sunscreens on marine ecosystems have become more prevalent. This has prompted an increase in the popularity of "reef safe" sunscreens. These sunscreens are marketed as superior dual-action alternatives that protect both our skin and marine wildlife. But what does ‘reef safe’ actually mean, and what are the regulatory challenges of this claim?
First and most importantly, the term ‘reef safe’ currently has no legal definition. This lack of harmonised definition means that brands differ in their interpretation of the claim and also in the evidence that they hold to substantiate it.
There seems to be some agreement amongst industry that a lack of organic UV filters such as oxybenzone and octinoxate in formulations is consistent with labelling your product as ‘reef safe’. This is largely due to the ban of these (and other) organic UV filters in sunscreens in places like Hawaii, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Aruba, Bonaire, Key West Florida, the Republic of Palau, and more recently Thailand. However, the scientific community has not yet reached a consensus on this topic.
Regardless, this has led to an increased use in mineral (inorganic) UV filters such as Zinc Oxide in formulations for these markets and to claim, ‘reef safe’. However, this approach is not without flaws. Zinc Oxide specifically is classified under ECHA as being very toxic to aquatic life and very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects. There is little scientific evidence to suggest that these alternative UV filters do not harm marine wildlife.
While the term ‘reef safe’ sunscreen may be appealing for the environmentally conscious consumer, it's essential to recognise the lack of scientific evidence and the focus on a select few chemicals all contribute to ‘reef safe’ sunscreens being an extremely non-harmonised, grey area. This can create a confusing landscape for consumers who are navigating through conflicting information between brands and potentially making choices that are based on incomplete or misleading claims.
We know that the authorities in the UK are investigating greenwashing claims on cosmetics and there is no reason as to why this could not extend to include ‘reef safe’ claims. It is important to keep in mind that if you make these types of claims, you may be challenged if you don’t have sufficient evidence to support them.
As an industry it is especially important that we act responsibly when it comes to ‘reef safe’ claims and ensure that we are being both truthful and honest when communicating our product as ‘better’ for the marine environment. Like any other claims, substantiation should be robust and accurate as well as true and honest. Substantiation data is key but not sufficient to ensure compliance. In particular the wording of the claim and its context need to be assessed. If the claim is associated with the UV filter property, what about the finished product environmental impact?
At Bloom we are passionate about working on environmental initiatives and helping companies to build their claim dossier whilst ensuring that the wording of the claim is acceptable and not misleading. If you need further information on how we can support you please contact info@bloomregulatory.com.