Yesterday several news outlets published the results of a study that said “four out of five brand-name sunscreens either provide inadequate sun protection or contain chemicals that may be unsafe.” The report comes from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and has been heavily criticized by sunblock makers, although their complaints are of the general sort (“they don’t understand sunblock!”) or vaguely hysterical (“they’ll convince people to stop using sunblock!”). We don’t know how valid the study ultimately is, but here are the basics—and regardless of the more sensational claims, their list of the best sunblocks may help you when choosing a product.
First, the controversy seems to center around whether sunblocks protect against UVA radiation, which the current labeling system doesn’t take into account:
For the first time, manufacturers would have to test and label their products for protection against ultraviolet A (UVA) radiation, which does not cause sunburns but can damage collagen and cause wrinkles and sunspots. Research suggests that UVA is a cause of skin cancer.
The labeling upgrade was proposed by the FDA last August, but the changes have not been finalized.
The current sun protection factor (SPF) labeling system, which was implemented three decades ago, measures only protection from UVB rays – the ultraviolet rays that cause sunburns.
“You can buy a high SPF product and still have no assurance that you are being protected from UVA, as well as UVB rays,” EWG research director Jane Houlihan tells WebMD.
The next issue concerns how long the protective ingredients last in sunblock. Here’s where industry claims run up against the EWG’s study, although the industry responses in this CBS News article are entirely devoid of factual arguments against the study’s claims, which makes them sound an awful lot like spin.
The EWG analysis suggested that nearly half of the products contained ingredients known to become inactive in strong sunlight.
Finally, the EWG study raises the question of whether the chemicals used in many sunblocks are safe:
Many sunscreens contain nano-scale ingredients that raise potential concerns. Micronized and nano-scale zinc oxide and titanium dioxide in sunscreen provide strong UVA protection, and are contained in many of our top-rated products. Repeated studies have found that these ingredients do not penetrate healthy skin, indicating that consumers’ exposures would be minimal. Powder and spray sunscreens with nano-scale ingredients raise greater concerns, since particles might absorb more easily through the lungs than the skin. Studies of other nano-scale materials have raised concerns about their unique, toxic properties. FDA has failed to approve effective UVA filters available in Europe that, if approved here, could replace nano-scale ingredients.
Some sunscreens absorb into the blood and raise safety concerns. Our review of the technical literature shows that some sunscreen ingredients absorb into the blood, and some are linked to toxic effects. Some release skin-damaging free radicals in sunlight, some could disrupt hormone systems, several are strongly linked to allergic reactions, and others may build up in the body or the environment. FDA has not established rigorous safety standards for sunscreen ingredients that fully examines these effects.
On a related note, and to make things more complicated, there was a widely circulated report earlier this year that certain chemicals used in some sunblock formulas may be killing off coral reefs, by waking dormant viruses within the symbiotic algae that lives within the coral. I know, crazy! Others, however, say this is an untested theory and that certain pertinent factors have been overlooked. At any rate, the possible reef-killing chemicals are:
- Butylparaben
- Methylparaben
- Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate
- Benzophenone-3
- 4-methylbenzylidene camphor
Bottom line: if you really want the maximum protection against ultraviolet radiation, go with a broad-spectrum sunblock—the products suggested by the EWG are a good place to start. If you’re in the store and don’t have the list with you, look for something that contains zinc oxide and doesn’t contain oxybenzone. If you’re a real worrier, stick with creams and lotions over inhalable sprays.
Skin Deep Cosmetic Safety Database [Environmental Working Group]
“Many Sunscreens Ineffective, Group Says” [CBS News]
RELATED
“Swimmers’ Sunscreen Killing Off Coral” [National Geographic]
“Are Sunscreens Bad for the Environment?” [BeautyBrains]
(Photo: Getty)
More From Consumerist
-
Drugs Approved Due To Fraudulent Research Still On Market, FDA Shrugs
-
White House Cancels Public Tours As Of March 8, Citing Effects Of Sequestration Budget Cuts
-
Facebook Decides It Does Want Access To Your Under-13 Children After All
-
Florida Library Gives In To Public Demand For "Porn" Reverses Ban On 'Fifty Shades Of Grey'
-
NHTSA Says Automakers Issued 650 Safety Recalls In 2012, Affecting 17.8 Million Products
The best sunblock is the one I get in Paris, and the one our FDA protects us from getting in the United States, except at Zitomer Pharmacy, where they sell it for an outrageous sum of money. It’s Anthelios #50+, creme pour la visage (cream for the face), and it’s with Mexoryl. The FDA recently allowed Anthelios #15 only. Now, a #15 is pretty much worthless for anyone who wants serious sun protection, but Mexoryl is the best ingredient out there on the market. The Europeans have been using it for years and nobody, far as I know, has been reported convulsing and dying from it. Thanks, FDA!
You can get products with Mexoryl in them in Canada, and more than 15 percent. But this Anthelios is really the best I’ve found out there, and I have a face like a newborn baby’s ass…uh, or something like that…anyway, people are always amazed that I’m an old bag with such young skin.
If you want to get Anthelios cheap in Paris, try Pharmacie de la Marie on rue des Archives in the fourth arrondissement (district) — aka The Marais. Foukety Pharmacy on rue du Four, in the sixth arrondissement has it for more. Get some undereye stick as well. Vichy makes the best one.
@JoeTan: “Just don’t act surprised when your bones shatter cause you can’t absord calcium without Vitamin d.”
As I live in a first-world country, my milk comes fortified with Vitamin D for just this reason.
And you have been drinking the Scientology water, my friend.
@no.no.notorious: “Have there really been an increase in skin cancer rates over the last 50 years that this awareness has to be so in-your-face?”
Yes, and some of it has to do with the depletion of the ozone layer. And some of it has to do with the fact that we wear a lot less clothes these days than people did before WWII. (Or before the 70s, really.) Your lifetime skin exposure is a lot higher than it used to be.
Even if your skin is not burning, tanning is a reaction to damage. People with darker skin tend to damage less quickly, as they have more natural protection, but even low exposure over many years adds up — if not in cancer, than in wrinkles and aged-looking skin. (Which, again, shows up a lot faster on folks who are naturally pale, but still.)
My obsessive use of sunscreen is partly because I’d prefer not to die of cancer, but it’s also partly because I’d prefer not to look 70 when I’m 40.
Funny 24 years of experiences dictates that Banana Boat & Coppertone products protect me better and longer than any other brands I have access too. (For the record, I’m fair skinned & a redhead.) I feel bad about the coral reef thing, and that needs to be looked at. But I can’t go outside for more than five minutes without burning on a bright/lightly cloudy day.
“Just don’t act surprised when your bones shatter cause you can’t absord calcium without Vitamin d.”
I, too, am a fair-skinned redhead (with skin about the color of a fresh piece of typing paper). In addition to wearing sunblock with Mexoryl (about 10 euros a 50 ml. tube at the Paris pharmacy I recommended above), I live like a bat and take vitamin D, calcium, and Nordic Naturals fish oil capsules. I also have clear film on my car windows to block out UVA and UVB rays.
If you live in California, or some sunny climate, look at people who’ve lived in the state a while. They’ll often have something I call “carface,” lots of wrinkles on the driver side of the face. Scary.
And what’s scarier is the treatment for malignant melanoma. And, on a less severe level, looking like an alligator handbag at 40, which I don’t.
If you can’t afford to get sunblock with Mexoryl, use something with Titanium Dioxide in it. Word has it they have one at Whole Foods in which the chemists were somehow able to make all those white particles “lie down” so you don’t look like a big snowman.
Anyone taking fish oil capsules, by the way, should see that they are IFOS (International Fish Oil Standards) certified not to have mercury. The website for that is below:
[www.nutrasource.ca]
“Even if your skin is not burning, tanning is a reaction to damage. “
No it isn’t. It’s your body’s way of adjusting to the amount of sun light it desires. Sorry white folks, as much as you’ll HATE to hear it we started DARK SKINNED and as we migrated north and south our skin had to adjust to the lack of sun light by lightening itself.
Your body knows best and has very nice indicators to tell you if you are getting too much of something or too little. In the case of skin, yeah, it’s even easier. Just look at yourself. Pale skin is skin gasping for sunlight. You covering it with SPF is like waterproofing your lawn so it doesn’t drown from the rain. Well, IT NEEDS SOME RAIN!!
Your skin lightened cause it is gasping for sunlight. If you don’t believe me, go ask some old person in a dark corner of her old age home and take a look at the color of her skin and ask her how she’s feeling these days.
This is the scariest post I’ve read so far
“My obsessive use of sunscreen is partly because I’d prefer not to die of cancer, but it’s also partly because I’d prefer not to look 70 when I’m 40.”
This is a PRIME EXAMPLE of misinformation. First off, SPF does NOT prevent wrinkles period. Good health prevents wrinkles. Also, this is superficial and has NOTHING TO DO WITH GOOD HEALTH.
Your body produces it’s own natural color and you think that covering it with cosmetics is better for it. Unreal.
And I missed this scary post too!!!!
“As I live in a first-world country, my milk comes fortified with Vitamin D for just this reason.”
Fortified? As in added to?
First off, no adult should have to drink milk period. Second, 50% of the population and almost 100% of the black population is lactose intolerant so forget that one.
Third, in NO OTHER CASE UNLESS IT’S A VERY RARE ONE will a doctor recommend a supplement over the natural alternative except for Vitamin D and here’s the “strange” part, Vitamin D is NOT A VITAMIN. It’s a hormone your body makes when exposed to the sun.
Why would your body make something if it didn’t need it? And it’s making it from the sun! And a doctor wants you to BUY his pills and cover your skin so you don’t get a wrinkle with products he doesn’t even know works just BUY them cause they paid their $10000 for their “seal of approval”.
Yeah, good luck with that.
Your body produces it’s own natural color and you think that covering it with cosmetics is better for it. Unreal.
I’m on deadline, so I don’t really have time to reply to all the ridiculousness in Joe Tan’s comment, but there’s something called the “naturalistic fallacy,” the (wrong) notion that because something is natural it’s good. Poison mushrooms are natural. I don’t recommend sauteeing a bunch up and eating them on your hamburger with melted swiss.
Somebody might look up some of the identical twin studies done by Nancy Segal and others and see if there is one where one twin was raised in a climate like that of Australia and another in a Northern place without a lot of sun.
Or leave a towel out in the sun over the weekend and see what happens to it.
And what about what I called “carface”? Look at somebody who’s been in California a long time and see the side of their face most exposed to sun and see the difference in wrinkles and sun damage. Here’s a story about that:
[www.wsoctv.com]
Now, I haven’t personally read the studies on this, but I’m guessing the guy referenced in the article probably has, as he’s the chairman of dermatology at St. Louis University School of medicine, and here’s a quote from him:
“When the skin gets tanned, it’s a sign of damage to your skin as it is trying to protect itself. If you are getting a tan, it’s your skin reacting to the sun damage, Fosko said.”
So…Joe Tan…are you a dermatologist? Biostatician? Epidemiologist? A guy who stocks shelves on the weekend at Staples?
Did you get your information from studies you pulled from journals? Do you know the first thing about reading studies? Do you know, for example, as I was taught by an epidemiologist, that you can’t just read one study, but have to look at the whole literature on a topic before you can really make sense out of what’s going on?
I’ll stop now, but I can’t wait to read your reply.
Ahah! Found a twin study showing monozygotic (identical) twins, one with sun damage. Scroll down to Figure 1 and Figure 2, under “Discussion” to see the photos for yourself.
[www.antell-md.com]
In the author’s words:
“a 59-year-old woman with a long history of sun exposure. Note the advanced signs of aging as compared with her twin, shown in Figure 1″
[www.vitamindcouncil.org]
Again, wrinkles are SUPERFICIAL and nothing to do with good health.
I’m not a hippie or some fool that thinks everything natural is good for you for the same reasons you post here.
My problem is everything that everyone says is bad about the sun is also caused by USING SPF CREAM.
Also, instead of trying to discredit me why don’t you answer the questions I posted as in WHICH SPF is good and which is bad? You cannot say that a $2 bottle is just as effective as a $200 bottle. Doing so would mean you have no clue as to what you speak about.
Mineral oil is in 99% of over the counter SPF. Mineral Oil is a petroleum product. If you are trying to say that rubbing a motor oil on your skin is a better approach than using a umbrella then you need your head examined.
See the difference in MY approach is it doesn’t involve A SALE OF A SNAKE OIL with a promise of reduction of getting skin cancer. That’s a LIE. Still think Iraq had WMDs too?
You are basing your point of view on “wives’ tales”.
Also, if any of you “pro spf” users are smokers then PLEASE back out of this discussion now. You need all the sun you can get to counter what you’ll be dealing with.
Bottom line,
Your body produces a HORMONE when exposed to the sun. If you think it’s not important then don’t go out in the sun. Old people get no sun and suffer from brittle bones and major health problems that have been linked to lack of Vitamin D which is produced by the sun.
Vitamin D is NOT a vitamin when it’s produced in your body. The supplement form of Vitamin D is NOT THE SAME as what your body produces. It’s a plant version of the “vitamin” and is not the same thing.
The supplement form of Vitamin D CAN BE TOXIC at high doses BUT your body can and does not produce a toxic amount of the Vitamin.
Our skin started out dark and faded as we migrated from the sunnier parts of the world to absorb more light.
There is more cases of skin cancer in less sunny climates. This alone is enough to put a halt to the Derm’s scare tactics.
Again, use an umbrella not chemical nonsense if you need to cover up. If you are REALLY light skinned then that just too bad. Not everyone is perfect.
I can’t hold my breath for very long so I don’t go in the ocean. I don’t start a anti water campaign cause I have a problem. That’s nonsense.
“When the skin gets tanned, it’s a sign of damage to your skin as it is trying to protect itself. If you are getting a tan, it’s your skin reacting to the sun damage, Fosko said.”
This “doctor” need to have his head examined sorry to say.
“And what about what I called “carface”? Look at somebody who’s been in California a long time and see the side of their face most exposed to sun and see the difference in wrinkles and sun damage.”
What does this have to do with the sun? That’s called a break down of collagen in the skin. Could be caused from POLLUTION, high heat, the sun, bad diet, all of the above. SPF creme doesn’t help any of this. BEING IN CALI doesn’t help any of this!
But it’s SUPERFICIAL! Nothing to do with good overall health.
I’m based out of Boston home to the head of the Dermatology whatever and maybe you should read up on how they FORCED Dr Michael Holick out of his job for coming out against their cash cow that is scaring people out of the sun and selling the spf.
This man DISCOVERED the active form of Vitamin D. He knows more than everyone and it cost him his job (well as head of the dermatology at BU).
[www.vitamindcouncil.org]
Again, wrinkles are SUPERFICIAL and nothing to do with good health.
I’m not a hippie or some fool that thinks everything natural is good for you for the same reasons you post here.
My problem is everything that everyone says is bad about the sun is also caused by USING SPF CREAM.
Also, instead of trying to discredit me why don’t you answer the questions I posted as in WHICH SPF is good and which is bad? You cannot say that a $2 bottle is just as effective as a $200 bottle. Doing so would mean you have no clue as to what you speak about.
Mineral oil is in 99% of over the counter SPF. Mineral Oil is a petroleum product. If you are trying to say that rubbing a motor oil on your skin is a better approach than using a umbrella then you need your head examined.
See the difference in MY approach is it doesn’t involve A SALE OF A SNAKE OIL with a promise of reduction of getting skin cancer. That’s a LIE. Still think Iraq had WMDs too?
You are basing your point of view on “wives’ tales”.
Also, if any of you “pro spf” users are smokers then PLEASE back out of this discussion now. You need all the sun you can get to counter what you’ll be dealing with.
sorry about the double post.
Ahah! Found a twin study showing monozygotic (identical) twins, one with sun damage. Scroll down to Figure 1 and Figure 2, under “Discussion” to see the photos for yourself.
[www.antell-md.com]
In the author’s words:
“a 59-year-old woman with a long history of sun exposure. Note the advanced signs of aging as compared with her twin, shown in Figure 1″
Who is talking about a LONG HISTORY OF SUN EXPOSURE? Why can’t anything be done in moderation? You are talking about IN EXCESS which ANYTHING can be made deadly if it’s in excess.
Hell, you can die from breathing in an ounce of water. Should we sell anti water pills and warn people of the dangers of water death?
The reason we have life on earth is cause of the sun. TO say it’s dangerous is just treating people like infants with out a clue….not that they aren’t but in this case the #1 is to SELL SPF CREMES not save people from skin cancer. The numbers just aren’t there. They are in the same range as the dangers of falling out of bed, and dying from a stubbed toe.
I’d say Darwin Award at best.
I’m fairly sure my mother used to buy California Baby products, never imagined they’d rank higher than a lot of larger brands.
I noticed they do not have a review of Headhunter Suncare products. Headhunter and Bullfrog are two name brands which have a following with surfers because of their supposed heavy water resistance, apparently it holds up against the crashing surf quite nicely or so they say.
With that said, I was in Target a couple months ago looking at various sunscreen products and this female dermatologist recommended the Coppertone Sport product line. She laughed by the ingredients in Bullfrog, proclaiming Coppertone the best choice Target had because of it’s heavy Zinc content. Plus I think she was trying to pick me up, but being corrected about my web research on sunblock wasn’t winning over a date with me. So I humbly thanked her for her input and walked away.
What bothers me with the bullfrog (went to the site) is that they don’t post their ingredient list.
“Plus I think she was trying to pick me up, but being corrected about my web research on sunblock wasn’t winning over a date with me.”
That’s pretty funny right there. Again, personal agenda over someone’s well being. Never fails.
Again, YOU can use the SPF. I’ll stick to good ol shade.
Progression of malignant melanoma is associated with reduced 25-hydroxyvitamin D serum levels
[www3.interscience.wiley.com]
“…90% of all requisite vitamin D has to be formed in the skin through the action of the sun – a serious problem due to the fact that new scientific findings convincingly demonstrate vitamin D deficiency to be associated with a variety of severe diseases including various types of cancer (e.g. colon, prostate and breast cancer). According to recent reports sun exposure is associated with a relatively favorable prognosis and increased survival rate in various malignancies, including malignant melanoma…”