The Marine Ecocompatibility Standard
An open, science-based testing framework for the marine ecocompatibility of personal care products — available without charge or licence to any manufacturer, regulator, or certification body, anywhere.
Nobody yet demands that the finished product be tested.
No government anywhere specifies how to test a personal care product's marine ecocompatibility. Jurisdictions that have acted — Hawaii, Palau, Key West, Bonaire — ban named ingredients; none tests a finished formula. Meanwhile UV filters, synthetic polymers, surfactants, oils, fragrances and preservatives with documented marine toxicity wash straight off the skin — at first application and again every time the wearer re-enters the water — and drain from bathrooms through inadequate wastewater treatment into the ocean on every coastline on earth.
The European Union's EmpCo Directive already requires that ecological claims be specific and evidence-based. But no regulator defines what evidence a marine claim requires, and no brand ever could test against every species in the ocean — a genuinely universal "reef-safe" claim would require testing across a multitude of species no single manufacturer could cover. A fixed, representative panel, openly tested and openly verified, is the only kind of claim that can actually be proven.
One finished formula, six bio-indicator species.
The Standard evaluates the finished product — not a single ingredient in isolation — against a fixed panel of marine organisms chosen for their established role in marine ecotoxicology: three invertebrates spanning reef, grazer, and filter-feeder life, and three primary producers spanning microalgae and two seagrass lineages from different marine regions. To comply, a formula must be tested, and pass, against at least two invertebrate species and at least one primary-producer species. Each species links to the published research that justifies its inclusion.
Coral
Larval settlement and growth under exposure — the primary bio-indicator for reef toxicity, and the organism at the centre of the sunscreen-reef debate. A further study also tested labelled "reef-safe" products against other coral species.
Sea Urchin
Fertilisation and embryonic-development assays — a long-established model organism in marine ecotoxicology, sensitive to sub-lethal formulation effects.
Mussel
Filter-feeder viability and bioaccumulation testing — representative of the benthic filter-feeders most exposed to pollutants that settle into and accumulate in sediment.
Diatom
Growth-rate inhibition assay at the base of the food web — the standard test organism for whether a formula acts as a broad-spectrum algicide.
Eelgrass
Photosynthetic yield and leaf-tissue health under exposure — a temperate meadow species and a widely used indicator of coastal water quality.
Neptune Grass
Photosynthetic yield and rhizome health under exposure — a Mediterranean-endemic, centuries-long-lived meadow species and an EU-protected priority habitat.
Open by design, verified independently.
Why Open
Commercial marine ecotoxicity testing services now exist. What doesn't exist is a free, open reference framework any regulator can point to. The Standard carries no licence fee and no single-source dependency — any final formula, patented or unpatented, from any manufacturer, may satisfy it upon independent testing against the Standard. The Foundation does not test, fund, certify, or accept compliance claims. Testing is commissioned and paid for by the manufacturer seeking compliance, and carried out entirely by independent, third-party laboratories — without the Foundation's involvement of any sort.
Why Now
The Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive — EU Directive 2024/825, EmpCo for short — became binding on 27 September 2026, requiring brands to substantiate their environmental claims with proof: a defined, testable set of parameters — which species, which protocol, what counts as a pass. EmpCo sets that requirement for every brand selling into the EU, regardless of size. This Standard builds on that landmark legislation for the marine environment, and the way is now open for it to become the one the industry adopts globally — only to be surpassed, in time, by something perhaps even more stringent.
Setting the Bar
The panel spans six bio-indicator species — coral, sea urchin, and mussel for invertebrate life; diatom, eelgrass, and Neptune grass for primary producers — tested against the finished formula using internationally recognised ecotoxicological protocols. Compliance requires passing at least two invertebrate species and at least one primary producer: a bar deliberately calibrated above the performance of any single existing product on the market today. What the Standard does not yet set is the numerical pass/fail threshold within each species assay — the actual result a formula must clear. Rather than set that bar unilaterally, the Foundation proposes it be established by open scientific consensus among the independent laboratories and researchers who conduct the testing — consistent with a Standard that has no single-source dependency anywhere in its architecture.
Compatible with & Complementary to LCAs
An LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) accounts for a product's carbon, water, and material footprint across its supply chain and lifecycle, largely from modelled data — a necessary and separate discipline. The Marine Ecocompatibility Standard tests the finished formula directly against living marine organisms. The two are complementary, and any ocean-bound brand can, and should, hold both.
What each audience needs to do next.
Adopt the Standard.
Convene, agree, and set the pass criteria.
Up their game.
Demand proof.
Launched with a dedicated special session in Guimarães, Portugal.
The Marine Ecocompatibility Standard launched with a dedicated special session at Planetiers World Gathering, under the Water, Oceans theme — convening precisely the audience capable of moving it from dialogue into adoption: governments, institutional investors, and business leaders.
The peer-reviewed literature behind this Standard.
The bio-indicator species panel is informed by this body of published marine ecotoxicology research.
- Danovaro, R., Bongiorni, L., Corinaldesi, C., Giovannelli, D., Damiani, E., Astolfi, P., Greci, L., & Pusceddu, A. (2008). Sunscreens cause coral bleaching by promoting viral infections. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116(4), 441–447.
- Corinaldesi, C., et al. (2018). Impact of inorganic UV filters contained in sunscreen products on tropical stony corals (Acropora spp.). Science of the Total Environment, 637–638, 1279–1285.
- Corinaldesi, C., Damiani, E., Marcellini, F., et al. (2017). Sunscreen products impair the early developmental stages of the sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus. Scientific Reports, 7, Article 7815.
- Dakrory, A. I., et al. (2025). Embryotoxicity and spermiotoxicity of green- and chemically synthesized titanium dioxide nanoparticles in the sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus. Biological Trace Element Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-025-04765-0
- Bordalo, D., Leite, C., Almeida, Â., Soares, A. M. V. M., Pretti, C., & Freitas, R. (2020). Impacts of UV filters in Mytilus galloprovincialis: Preliminary data on the acute effects induced by environmentally relevant concentrations. Sustainability, 12(17), Article 6852. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176852
- Deng, X.-Y., Cheng, J., Hu, X.-L., Wang, L., Li, D., & Gao, K. (2017). Biological effects of TiO₂ and CeO₂ nanoparticles on the growth, photosynthetic activity, and cellular components of a marine diatom Phaeodactylum tricornutum. Science of the Total Environment, 575, 87–96.
- Lin, Z., Harsanyi, P., & Hennige, S. (2026). The impacts of personal care product pollution on seagrass (Zostera marina) health. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 223, Article 118978.
- García-Márquez, M. G., Muñoz Entrena, S., Clément, C., & Agawin, N. S. R. (2024). Effects of sunscreen exposure on Posidonia oceanica (L.) Delile under a perspective of increased seawater temperature scenario. Frontiers in Marine Science, 11, Article 1443692.
- Sánchez-Quiles, D., & Tovar-Sánchez, A. (2014). Sunscreens as a source of hydrogen peroxide production in coastal waters. Environmental Science & Technology, 48(16), 9037–9042.
- Rücker, J., Leonhardt, J., & Wild, C. (2025). Effects of three sunscreens on the ecophysiology of hard and soft corals from the Maldives. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 219, Article 118316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2025.118316
- Fel, J.-P., et al. (2019). Photochemical response of the scleractinian coral Stylophora pistillata to some sunscreen ingredients. Coral Reefs, 38, 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-018-01759-4
- Freitas Neto, L. L., & Espósito, B. P. (2023). Toxicity of zinc oxide to scleractinian corals and zooxanthellae: a brief review [literature review]. Química Nova, 46(3), 266–272.