30
Jun
Jun
What’s wrong with the sunscreen business?
Plenty, it would appear. The Environmental Working Group‘s (EWG) 2010 Sunscreen Guide is a scathing critique of the industry, which is largely unregulated.
Here are four standout points from the report’s Hall of Shame section that you should keep in mind when deciding how to protect yourself and your family this summer.
- SPF claims are exaggerated. Banana Boat’s Baby Max Protect sunscreen claims a SPF of 100. The industry’s own sunscreen model estimates the product’s UVA protection factor at 9.3, and it is UVA radiation that accelerates skin aging and causes skin cancer.
- Loose powder, “brush on” sunscreens, two manufacturers of which–iS Clinical and Peter Thomas Roth–are named in the report, might actually cause lung cancer. Applying the sunscreen generates a cloud of airborne particles–containing zinc and titanium–which enter the lungs. The International Agency for Research on Cancer found in a 2006 study that inhaled titanium dioxide is “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”
- Some brands, including Panama Jacks Naturals Baby Sunblock, contain oxybenzone, a potential hormone disruptor. This is a concern for everyone, but this brand–and 26 other sunscreens in the 2010 season–has the word “baby” in its name.
- “Natural”, a frequently used term on sunscreens that increases their appeal to health and environmentally conscious consumers, is effectively meaningless. There are no regulations governing the use of the term, and products like Panama Jacks Naturals Baby Sunblock have “at least ten compounds that do not occur in nature.”
Fortunately, there are some good sunscreen products, and the EWG report has sections on the best beach and sport sunscreens, SPF lip balms, SPF moisturizers, and SPF makeup.
What products do you use? Will EWG’s report change your mind?
This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 30th, 2010 at 10:57 pm and is filed under health and fitness, the cancer beat.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
enjoyed this post? share with others:
The EWG must not think titanium dioxide is potentially harmful to our lungs because they rate it as of little concern and place California Baby sunblock as one of the recommended. Maybe it depends on the vehicle it’s in (spray versus lotion).
http://www.ewg.org/2010sunscreen/finding-the-best-sunscreens/323373/California-Baby-Sunscreen-Lotion-No-Fragrance-SPF/
EWG is definitely concerned about any sunscreen that delivers particles into the lungs and/or bloodstream, and I think you’re right about stressing the importance of the vehicle. For example, EWG placed all loose powder sunscreens on their 2010 Hall of Shame list, saying “Loose powder sunscreens can enter the airways and may move from the lungs to the bloodstream. Health concerns include cancer and tissue damage.” (EWG 2010 Sunscreen Guide). Titanium dioxide and zinc oxide sunscreens, in cream or spray form, are generally considered safe and can be highly effective when used properly. There is some concern, however, when companies “micronize” titanium oxide and zinc oxide particles to reduce any negative cosmetic effect (e.g., making the skin appear lighter, etc.).
If you’d like information about the health effects of titanium dioxide, take a look at this article from the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety website.
Thanks for your comment, Lori!