Sunscreen-Derived 'Forever Chemicals' Affect Human Reproduction
'Residues of a harmful plasticiser…[were] detected in 92 per cent of the samples' in Germany, and (drum roll) 'the source was sunscreen'
Today, we’ll look once more at the harms induced by toxic chemicals in our everyday environment, such as kindergartens and schools.
This posting also doubles as an update on the EU’s quest to ban so-called ‘forever chemicals’, which is hard™ to do as Big Chem desires quite a few exceptions to the blanket ban envisioned by some.
Be that as it may, this posting comes in three parts: first, a brief legacy media piece about the stuff in the title; second, a brief discussion of the underlying science™; and, thirdly, an update on the EU’s quest to ban these so-called ‘forever chemicals’.
Note that these ‘forever chemicals’, or PFAS, are very toxic, persist in the environment (hence their name), bioaccumulate, and increase the odds of you and your loved ones to developing a ton of bad conditions, ranging from cancers to ill effects on reproductive health.
Non-English content comes in my translation, all emphases and [snark] mine.
Harmful to Reproductive Health: Sunscreen as the Cause—Harmful Plasticiser Detected in Children
Plasticisers Detected in Children’s Urine: although the substance in question is not approved in the EU, stricter regulations will not take effect until next year.
Via Die Welt, 17 Feb. 2026 [source; archived]
According to the German Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt, or UBA), residues of a harmful plasticiser have once again been found in the urine of children and adolescents. A breakdown product of a plasticiser, considered harmful to reproduction and not approved in the European Union, was detected in 92 per cent of the samples collected between April and July of last year, the agency announced on Tuesday in Dessau. As in previous studies, the source was sunscreen.
Mono-n-hexyl phthalate was found in 238 of the 259 urine samples from children and adolescents between the ages of six and 17 that have been examined so far. MnHexP is a breakdown product of di-n-hexyl phthalate, a plasticiser not approved in the EU. Two of the urine samples, or one per cent, exceeded the assessment threshold set by a commission. Up to this value of 60 micrograms per litre of urine, no adverse health effects are expected.
Two years ago, MnHexP was detected in urine samples from kindergarten children in North Rhine-Westphalia and simultaneously by the German Federal Environment Agency (UBA) in samples from adults. Sunscreen was identified as the source at that time as well. The plasticiser can be produced during the manufacture of the UV filter, but the levels vary. The UBA emphasised that people are also exposed to other plasticisers that can be harmful to reproduction. Therefore, ‘every avoidable source should be eliminated’ [I’m all for doing so—and the EU is, of course, working™ very hard on this (terms & conditions apply, on which see below)].
Stricter rules for the maximum permitted DnHexP content in sunscreens containing this UV filter will only apply in the European Union from January 2027, as reported by the newspaper Bild. Although the substance itself is not approved in the EU, it can be produced as an impurity during the manufacture of the UV filter DHHB—the limits for this will be tightened from next year [see, the system™ is working™ as intended™: we have identified an issue, and we are working on this].
An Update on the EU’s Proposed Ban of PFAS
While neither Die Welt nor Bild listed or linked their source on the sunscreen-is-bad-for-you, here’s where I think (meaning: I’m unsure if) they got their information from:
Ralph Pirow et al. (2024), ‘Mono-n-hexyl phthalate: exposure estimation and assessment of health risks based on levels found in human urine samples’, Regulatory Toxicology, vol. 98, pp. 3659–3671; here’s the abstract (though the paper is fully available; emphases and [snark] mine):
Mono-n-hexyl phthalate (MnHexP) is a primary metabolite of di-n-hexyl phthalate (DnHexP) and other mixed side-chain phthalates that was recently detected in urine samples from adults and children in Germany. DnHexP is classified as toxic for reproduction category 1B in Annex VI of Regulation (EC) 1272/2008 and listed in Annex XIV of the European chemical legislation REACH; thereby, its use requires an authorisation. Health-based guidance values for DnHexP are lacking and a full-scale risk assessment has not been carried out under REACH [see, this crap requires authorisation but the regulation doesn’t come with any further particulars]. The detection of MnHexP in urine samples raises questions about the sources of exposure and concerns of consumer safety. Here, we propose the calculation of a provisional oral tolerable daily intake value [which apparently doesn’t exist as of 2024] (TDI) of 63 µg/kg body weight/day for DnHexP and compare it to intake levels corresponding to levels of MnHexP found in urine. The resulting mean intake levels correspond to less than 0.2% of the TDI, and maximum levels to less than 5%. The TDI was derived by means of an approximate probabilistic analysis [i.e., it’s a model, yet somehow™ I fail to understand why we need such a model to figure out we shouldn’t ingest/apply/otherwise take in toxic crap] using the credible interval from benchmark dose modelling of published ex vivo data on reduced foetal testosterone production in rats. Thus, for the dose associated to a 20% reduction in testosterone production, a lower and upper credible interval of 14.9 and 30.0 mg/kg bw/day, respectively, was used. This is considered a conservative approach, since apical developmental endpoints (e.g. changed anogenital distance) were only observed at higher doses [in other words: the higher the exposure, the worse off one’s reproduction system gets]. In addition, we modelled various scenarios of the exposure to the precursor substance DnHexP from different consumer products, taking measured contamination levels into account, and estimated systemic exposure doses. Of the modelled scenarios including the application of sunscreen (as a lotion or pump spray), the use of lip balm, and the wearing of plastic sandals, and considering conservative assumptions, the use of DnHexP-contaminated sunscreen was highlighted as a major contributing factor [sunscreen is bad for your potential offspring]. A hypothetical calculation using conservative assumptions for the latter resulted in a margin of safety in relation to the lower credible interval of 3267 and 1007 for adults and young children, respectively. Most importantly, it was found that only a fraction of the TDI is reached in all studied exposure scenarios. Thus, with regard to the reported DnHexP exposure, a health risk can be considered very unlikely [and this is where, I submit, the authors are signalling to Big Chem that they are ready for research grants™].
So, they found such plasticisers in children’s urine—and noted that ‘with regard to the reported DnHexP exposure, a health risk can be considered very unlikely’.
But—is this the same with all such chemicals labelled ‘forever chemicals’?
You bet it is, which is why the EU is working tirelessly to band them all (terms & conditions apply); for background—and a timeline of events—see the below-linked content:
Here’s why this is done, according to the EU back in 2024:
The basis for the proposed restriction is the fact that PFAS and their degradation products may persist in the environment for a very long period, longer than any other man-made chemical.
Further concerns are their bioaccumulation, mobility, long range transport potential (LRTP), accumulation in plants, global warming potential and (eco)toxicological effects. The EU-wide risk arises from the continued emissions of PFAS into the environment during manufacture, the use phase, and the waste stage.
Care to learn how this is going?
From the horse’s mouth:
ECHA has the firm objective to deliver the final RAC and SEAC opinions to the European Commission in 2026. RAC and SEAC plan to conclude their discussions on the 14 sectors covered by the original restriction proposal plus PFAS manufacturing and horizontal issues by the end of 2025. This is to allow ECHA to finalise the RAC opinion and the SEAC draft opinion and to carry out the consultation on the SEAC draft opinion in the first half of 2026. This approach will ensure that more than 90% of PFAS emissions and volumes are covered by the opinions, which will be sent to the European Commission for decision making.
As mentioned above, terms & conditions apply, such as desired limits on the total-universal ban on PFAS, or ‘forever chemicals’ used in (drum roll):
printing applications, sealing applications, machinery applications, other medical applications, military applications, explosives, technical textiles, broader industrial uses
A brief visit to the ECHA’s dedicated website shows the following results of a the RAC and SEAC meetings in mid-December 2025:
Helsinki, 17 December 2025 – In their December meetings, RAC and SEAC continued evaluating the EU-wide proposal to restrict per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Both committees reached provisional conclusions on PFAS manufacturing, while SEAC also concluded on electronics and semiconductors.
Both committees also continued examining the horizontal issues relevant to the entire restriction. These include, for example, concentration limits above which PFAS could be restricted; PFAS management plans; recycling; spare parts; practicality - including enforceability - and monitorability, and whether the proposed restriction is the most appropriate EU-wide measure to address the risks from PFAS.
Fun factoid: the stuff that was recently found in German children’s urine—deriving, apparently, from sunscreen—is not contained (as in: remains un-listed) in the ECHA’s Background Document for the ban of PFAS in the EU.
The next steps, as outlined on the above-linked news item on the December meetings:
The tentative plan for the Committees’ March 2026 meetings includes:
Final discussion and adoption of RAC’s opinion; and
Discussion and agreement on SEAC’s draft opinion.
The 60-day stakeholder consultation on SEAC’s draft opinion is expected to begin soon after the draft opinion has been agreed at the Committee’s March meeting.
There’s also a 27-odd minute podcast on ‘safer chemicals’ linked on that page.
Bottom Lines
Isn’t it absurd that we’ve known about the harms of these products for such a long time? And that these shit products are found virtually everywhere, such as (drum roll) in make-up and other so-called personal care products.
Take a look at, e.g., the paper by the name of ‘Personal care product use and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in pregnant and lactating people in the Maternal-Infant Research on Environmental Chemicals study’, Amber M. Hall et al., Environment International, vol. 193, Nov. 2024, 109094 (doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.109094),
Results
In 1st trimester pregnant
people[women], we found higher use of nailcare products (≥once a week vs. never: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA): 21 % [9.7 %, 32 %]; perfluorooctane-sulfonic acid (PFOS): 11 % [0.3 %, 23 %]), fragrances (daily vs. never: PFOA: 14 % [7.8 %, 21 %]; PFOS: 7.8 % [1.3 %, 15 %]), makeup (daily vs. never: PFOA: 14 % [5.8 %, 23 %]), hair dyes (never vs. 1-2 times during pregnancy: PFOA: 8.3 % [2.4 %, 15 %]), and hair sprays or gels (daily vs. never: PFOA: 12 % [5.0 %, 19 %], PFOS: 7.1 % [0.2 %, 15 %]) were associated with higher plasma PFAS concentrations [these highly toxic ‘forever chemicals’ enter the bloodstream]. Similar results were observed for 3rd trimester PCP use and 2 to 10 weeks’ postpartum human-milk PFAS concentrations [these highly toxic ‘forever chemicals’ also enter breastmilk]. In addition, we also found thatpeople[women] using colored-permanent dye 1 to 2 days postpartum had higher Sm-PFOS (18 % [2.7 %, 35 %]), PFOA (16 % [4.3 %, 29 %]), and perfluorononanoic acid (17 % [3.6 %, 33 %]) postpartum human-milk concentrations [which isn’t that surprising, isn’t it?].Conclusions
Our results show that PCP use may [my Italics] be a modifiable source of PFAS exposure in pregnant and lactating populations. These results along with growing scientific evidence can help inform PFAS regulation and guide individual choices to reduce PFAS exposure.
Plus—these PFAS also get transmitted via breast milk to infants:
PFAS have been associated with a wide range of adverse health effects, including liver disease, adverse cardiometabolic and cardiovascular health, and various cancers (Bassler et al., 2019, Hall and Braun 2023, Meneguzzi et al., 2021, Steenland and Winquist, 2021). When exposed during pregnancy, PFAS may also contribute to adverse offspring health, including decreased birth weight, preterm birth, some neurodevelopmental disorders, and diminished vaccine response [oh, look at that: do PFAS induce pre-partum autoimmune disease?] in children (Gao et al., 2021, Gui et al., 2022, Hall and Braun 2023, Ho et al., 2022, Jeddi et al., 2022, Lee et al., 2021, Liu et al., 2024, Qi et al., 2020, Steenland and Winquist, 2021, Zhang et al., 2022). These health effects in offspring are in part due to the transplacental and lactational transfer of PFAS, facilitating exposure during gestation and infancy, respectively (Bloom et al., 2022, LaKind et al., 2022b).
Please find out ‘more’ in the below, dedicated posting:
This posting also contains a fun™ legacy media piece warning pregnant women about excessive make-up use due to PFAS exposure harms:
Those who used make-up during pregnancy had 14% more of the harmful substances in their blood and 17% more in their breast milk…
A small study based on 144 Norwegians in 2017 showed that there was a link between forever chemicals in the blood and the use of sunscreen and lip gloss.
Oopsie, I submit.
Now you know how much gaslighting is in that above-linked, brief piece about PFAS in children’s urine deriving, most likely, from sunscreen.
Speaking of sunscreen, by the way, it’s not just toxic (as if that wasn’t bad enough on its own), it’s also cancer-inducing because people use it wrongly and stay in the sun much longer than their body would otherwise tell them to seek shade:
We learned that sunscreen is pretty ineffective and, on top of it, may decrease vitamin D production; moreover, long-term safety profiles of sustained application (use) have not (ever) been established. Read up on this here:
And if you’re up for it, read up on snail serum from East Asia, which is now found quite commonly on drug store shelves in the ‘personal care section’ to reduce wrinkles etc. (but they, too, come with added chemicals you cannot pronounce):
