The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0771.454 2020-2022 Co cl( Oil 1 (0 From: ted bohlen Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 11:34 AM To: Council Testimony L J ;f .a49 Subject: Bill 167 sunscreens Aloha Chair David, Vice Chair Chung, and members of the Council: I served as a Deputy Attorney General representing the Department of Health on water matters for fifteen years. I am writing as a volunteer on behalf of the Hawai'i Reef and Ocean Coalition (HIROC) in STRONG SUPPORT of Bill 167 banning non-mineral sunscreens! HIROC is a group of coral scientists, educators, local environmental advocates, and others formed in 2017 to address the crisis facing Hawaii's coral reefs and other marine life. Scientific studies have shown that chemicals contained in non-mineral sunscreens typically wash off in the water, inhibit coral growth and reproduction, and harm reef health, contributing to coral bleaching and death. They also can harm other ocean wildlife. This ordinance (in proposed amended form) would help preserve the health of our precious coral reefs, with resulting protection of our shorelines and beaches, by allowing only mineral sunscreens to be provided, sold, or offered for sale in the County. The Council should pass Bill 167 to protect Hawaii's reefs, other ocean life, and shorelines! Non-mineral sunscreens also can harm human health. Because non-mineral sunscreens are biased toward preventing sunburn and require reapplication every couple of hours and after swimming to continue protection (which most people do not do), they may wrongly encourage more time in the sun, which may lead to more skin damage and skin cancers! These non-mineral sunscreens have not prevented skin cancer rates from rising over the past seventy years. This may be because they were designed to absorb the ultraviolet light that causes sunburn (UVB), not to reflect the sun's rays as mineral sunscreens do (excluding the tiny "nano" particle ones). Mineral sunscreens protect better than non-mineral ones, mainly because mineral sunscreens reflect the broader spectrum of ultraviolet light (UVA) that penetrates deeper and damages the skin more. In addition, non-mineral sunscreens are absorbed into the body and persist in the blood at levels far beyond safety thresholds. Studies indicate numerous harms from the absorbed chemicals, including hormone disruption, which may lead to reproductive problems and cancers. For example, one commonly used non-mineral chemical, octocrylene, degrades into a chemical (benzophenone) that is known to cause cancer. Another known carcinogen, benzene, has been detected in many non-mineral sunscreens. In short, mineral sunscreens (with zinc oxide or titanium dioxide) are better (less toxic) for the corals and other marine species because they do not wash off as easily and are better for human health because they are not absorbed into the body through the skin. The Council should pass Bill 167 to protect corals and human health. Here are answers to a few concerns raised previously by Council members: There already is a State law that prohibits the sale of sunscreens containing two active ingredient chemicals, oxybenzone, and octinoxate. What other active ingredient the icals would be prohibited from sale under Bill 167? Sales of non-mineral sunscreens containing twelve other chemical active ingredients would also be prohibited. None of these twelve chemicals are "Generally Recognized As Safe and Effective" -7(GRtAS`E) by Comm.No. t t•`1 !C___ 1 Pef.1'o: PS unu[.. the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In contrast, the FDA does consider mineral sunscreens with zinc oxide or titanium dioxide as active ingredients to be CRASE. —Would prohibiting sales of non-mineral sunscreens leave people urotected from skin cancers` No. There are ample mineral sunscreens on the market to protect people from skin cancer. As explained above, mineral sunscreens provide more protection against cancers than non-mineral ones. It is even better to wear protective clothing and stay out of the midday sun. Is there a legal ree tion problem with this bill's No, there is no preemption or other legal problem with Bill 167. State law authorizes counties to adopt ordinances or rules relating to water pollution control as long as the Department of Health has not adopted a rule, and DON has not done so. HRS Sec. 342D-19(b).The temporary preemption of county ordinances in the State oxybenzone law has expired. HRS Sec. 342D-21.There is currently no State preemption of county sunscreen ordinances. Indeed, the County of Maui recently passed an ordinance similar to Bill 167. Reference has been made to an anticipated report on sunscreens by a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel Will the NAS parcel report clarify the scientific evidence onsunscreens? No. Unfortunately and disturbingly, the NAS panel is heavily biased, with the majority of its members closely tied to the chemical sunscreen industry. It is a sham. No report by such a biased group could counter the hundreds of worldwide studies indicating risks associated with non-mineral sunscreens. The FDA, not the NAS, is the primary regulator for sunscreens. The FDA has found these twelve non-mineral sunscreens to be not CRASE at this time. Below are numerous scientific papers written on the risks of non-mineral sunscreens. h## sa// rive. oo e.co 1 rive/fo ers/1 ar 7zsio c C b gc3rusp=sharinq ##�sa1/drive, 000le.co / rive/fol stat E 1S 9ia� e vd2 Lx?usp-s haing https://drive.ci000le.com/drive/folders/I EdAl ick 9e7 v 22 JZ2 YLx?us =s ari ci ## s // rive oo e co / rive/folders/1cv b ex e Yr7 A3 7usp®sharing Article on sunscreen protection. h#tis:// con#e rare ediariics.co lve /sunscree - plotection-for-children Mahalo for considering HIROC's testimony in strong support and for passing Bill 167111 would be happy to try to answer any questions you might have. Ted Bohlen (for Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition) 2