Do sunscreens give a false sense of security? [Updated]

Something strange is happening in the sunscreen aisle. Shelves that had been stocked with bottles claiming SPF, or sun protection factor, ratings of 30 now have products that trumpet SPF ratings of 55, 70, even 110+. But a new study of 500 beach and sports sunscreens recommends just 8% of the products tested.

According to the 2010 Sunscreen Guide from the Environmental Working Group, the issues involve ingredients, inadequate sun protection and application methods.

The report from the Washington-based environmental research group says 60% of beach and sport sunscreens contain the chemical oxybenzene, which is linked to hormone disruption. About 40% include retinyl palmitate, a type of vitamin A that the group says may hasten the development of skin cancer.

"We also don't recommend sprays and powders because of the inhalation risk," said Sonya Lunder, an EWG senior analyst. Nor does the group advocate products with SPF ratings greater than 50 because they may protect from sunburn but provide a false sense of protection from UVA, the ultraviolet light that causes damage to the skin, including premature aging and skin cancer.

The Personal Care Products Council responded to the EWG Sunscreen Study with a statement, calling the study "unscientific," "unsubstantiated" and "baseless."

"For more than 30 years, consumers have trusted and relied on sunscreen products ... The safety and efficacy of sunscreen products have been thoroughly studied and tested by scientists and regulatory authorities throughout the world," said John Bailey, chief scientist for the Personal Care Products Council, a national trade association representing 600 member companies that manufacture, distribute and supply most personal-care products marketed in the U.S.

"We test all of our products and we stand by the testing of our products," said Beth St. Raymond, director of sun care for Energizer Personal Care, maker of the Banana Boat and Hawaiian Tropic sun-care products. "We adhere to Food and Drug Administration guidelines, so when we see a report like EWG's, our concern is that people will feel uncomfortable about using sun protection. We have the right products, they're effective, they're safe and we want to make sure people are using them to protect themselves from any sort of damage from the sun."

-- Susan Carpenter

[For the record, 9:24 a.m. June 16: An earlier version of this post was missing its text, which has now been restored.]

Comments

[Dan]

Great topical article now that summer is officially here. I've been hearing a lot about deficient sunscreens lately. I think habitually using a reliable sunscreen combined with limiting exposure regardless of sunscreen is the best practice. I'm using at least a small handful of sunscreen (recommended dose) and would recommend this free UV detector app for my iPhone that gives me UV forecast and alerts http://bit.ly/aOVgNQ , or at least remember to check your UV forecast online daily, even on cloudy days.

[Fair Guy]

I'd say writer Susan Carpenter should stick to motorcycles, but she doesn't know much about them either.

[YoGabba]

This article is worthless without examples, or even pictures...

[JLuke]

EVEN SCARIER: A new report from Friends of the Earth says that using nanoparticles in sunscreens provides a "risk without benefit." The group has urged manufacturers to stop using the tiny particles in the products. See full article here: http://www.aolnews.com/nanotech/article/more-bad-news-about-sunscreen-safety-nanoparticles/19500193

[Megan B]

Dear LA Times, you are the newspaper. You are supposed to answer our health questions, not simply pose them. Am I supposed to be concerned or not? With all the information thrown at us every day, I have to rely on experts--those whose job it is to find out the truth--to tell me whether or not this study from a group I've never heard of is accurate. Sadly, this newspaper is apparently not that source.

[Not George Hamilton]

My Coppertone contains OxybenzOne, not benzEne. Is that the same thing?

[CLS]

Sun screens and sun blocks failed miserably to reduce melanoma in a country wide public health measure in Australia. In fact it had the horrendous effect of INCREASING melanoma rates, especially amongst those who were most compliant. That compliant group was as a rule better educated, wealthier, and much more likely to follow the "Slip Slap Slop' protocol.

This is not an opinion but an irrefutable fact. Melanoma cases increased measurably and no attempt to explain away the use of sun blocks in the increase will ever be successful. This leads everyone involved fearing for their collective hides and brings serious doubt to the health aspects of common sun blocks.

It is further factual to state that many, if not most of the common ingredients in sun screens and blocks have had little testing prior to incorporation. Several particularly suspicious compounds were quietly removed less than 5 years ago after shocking and disturbing reports of their danger on human skin began to surface. Incredibly, in a nightmarish scenario, for the first time in the history of humanity almost all of the children of a large country were literally dipped in potential carcinogens. To make matters even worse they were tuned out to the glaring sun in midday where the most nefarious and profound damage may occur with mutated DNA.

The outcome of the "Slip Slap Slop" public health initiative also showed clearly that those who used the least sun screens had the lowest incidence of deadly melanoma. It is thought that good old fashioned sun exposure- in modest amounts- allows the body to create healthy levels of all important vitamin D (NOT vitamin at all). The protective effects of healthy doses of vitamin D are only now being understood. Blocking it completely by johhny-come-lately advice from dubious medical research and recommendations may prove one day to be the most iatrogenic directive in the history of medicine.

After millions of years in the sun it is now completely bad for us?

Sun blocks do not past the taste test- literally- and we must not fool ourselves about where that goo is going. It is absorbed by the skin and travels unadultered to the bloodstream. This simple fact is one that makes all asked very, very uncomfortable. No research there - or at least none released- but sipping sun block to me seems about as healthy as licking Gulf oil from a beach.

[Anu]

I read the results of this study and checked out the ratings, and none of the retail-shelved products were near the top. Really weird brands took the top rankings (where the heck can anyone find these anyway?). I would actually feel much more insecure buying product I didn't know the brand of.. I feel much more secure buying J&J product, Neutrogena, etc. I found the study really confusing and alarming, but it didn't make me want to run and buy the weird, strang-branded products. PS. Once I bought some 'green' sunscreen that was sold at RA, and it was HORRIBLE. It stank, it was thick and application was very difficult. Needless to say, that one went straight to the trash can.