As is hopefully apparent to our readers, nanolawreport attempts to provide balanced coverage of nano-related EHS and legal issues.  Personally, I did not think the recent Consumer Reports article "Our first tests: Nanoparticles found in many sunscreens" was particularly well-balanced. 

The article implies that laboratory studies of sunscreens containing zinc oxide or titanium dioxide nanoparticles have shown that it  "damage[s] DNA of cells and possibly cause[s] other harm as well."  A clearer distinction should have been drawn between lab tests of unbound zinc oxide and titanium dioxide nanoparticles versus sunscreens containing those substances.  There are no scientific studies showing sunscreens containing zinc oxide or titanium dioxide nanoparticles can cause cell DNA damage.

Further, the article refers to inhalation studies without reminding readers that it is virtually impossible to inhale nanoparticles bound in a sunscreen lotion (please let me know if you are aware of any brands of powdered sunscreen that contain nanoparticles), and also there is no evidence to suggest such nanoparticles are ever released in respirable form from sunscreen lotions actually applied to human skin.

Finally, no sunscreen can do its job if it is rarely used.  The article essentially concluded that sunscreens containing nanoparticles are not truly needed without at least mentioning the potential benefit of more people using sunscreen containing nanoparticles more often because of cosmetic/appearance issues.  It would have been interesting if Consumer Reports had actually surveyed consumers about which product they liked better and were more likely to use more frequently.  Preferences play a huge role in whether or not a product is ultimately accepted and used.