According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit, environmental advocacy group, we should all be wary of retinyl palmitate. This compound is commonly added to a range of skin care products, including sunscreens, because of its ability to give skin a more youthful appearance. Actually, retinyl palmitate itself doesn’t have much physiological activity, but enzymes commonly present in the skin convert it first to retinol (vitamin A), then to retinaldehyde ,and finally to retinoic acid. The latter is the active agent, enhancing collagen formation and increasing the rate of cell division. Since collagen is an important structural protein in skin, and since more rapid turnover of cells leads to a larger number of more youthful cells, retinoic acid can be instrumental in improving the appearance of the skin. What then is the fuss all about? It all starts with some animal studies that have indicated an enhanced cancer causing effect of ultraviolet light when retinoic acid was applied to the skin. Because retinyl palmitate is a precursor for retinoic acid, and because it is used in so many skin care products, it does merit scrutiny for possible carcinogenicity.
According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit, environmental advocacy group, we should all be wary of retinyl palmitate.
The National Toxicology Program in the U.S. mounted a study to this end, and it was the preliminary results of this study that caused members of the Environmental Working Group to go into mental gyrations. The study compared two groups of ultraviolet light exposed mice, one treated with retinyl palmitate, and the other not. The retinyl palmitate group experienced a higher incidence of skin tumours. This was enough for EWG to crank up the fear-spewing machinery and trigger newspaper headlines that queried whether sunscreens protected against or caused cancer. “Sunscreen or smokescreen” others asked in response to EWG’s allegation that FDA was not forthcoming about the results of the carcinogenicity studies. First of all, the study in question has not yet been published and has not been subjected to peer review, so drawing any conclusions from it is premature. Furthermore, the comparison was not between sunscreens that contained retinyl palmitate and ones that didn’t. A cream that contains only retinyl palmitate is not an appropriate model. I’m no advocate for retinyl palmitate in sunscreens. Frankly, I can’t find much evidence that in the amounts used it does much good. But I am an advocate for proper scientific methodology and for making sure that the animal at the door is properly identified before crying wolf. Perhaps the people at the Environmental Working Group should take up zoology.
