Here are some prime examples of products and players that typify what’s wrong with the sun protection business:

Banana Boat Baby Max Protect, SPF = 100

Sky-high SPF protects against sunburn but leaves skin exposed to damaging UVA rays.

One of at least 79 sunscreens on the market this year with high SPFs (greater than “SPF 50+”), this product protects babies from UVB radiation and the sunburns it causes but leaves them exposed to UVA radiation that penetrates deep into the skin. UVA is known to accelerate skin aging and cause skin cancer (IARC 2009).

A standard industry sunscreen model estimates that the actual UVA protection factor for this sunscreen is only 9.3 – a far cry from 100 (BASF 2010). The best possible UVA protection in U.S. sunscreen lotions is currently about 20 (BASF 2010). Sunscreen makers are waiting for the FDA to decide whether to approve a wider selection of chemicals that could help boost UVA protection. In the meantime, high-SPF products may tempt people to stay in the sun too long, suppressing sunburns but upping the risks of other kinds of skin damage. EWG recommends that consumers avoid products labeled with anything higher than “SPF 50+” and reapply sunscreen often, regardless of SPF.

iS Clinical SPF 20 Powder & Peter Thomas Roth Instant Mineral Powder SPF 30

Loose powder sunscreens can enter the airways and may move from the lungs to the bloodstream. Health concerns include cancer and tissue damage.

These sunscreens are in a loose powder form. The particles of zinc and titanium they contain can offer strong UV protection for the skin, but they end up in the lungs, too, inhaled from a cloud of airborne particles with each use. There, they can cause damage. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies inhaled titanium dioxide as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on studies of rats and of people who work in dusty environments (IARC 2006).

Once in the lungs, the minerals may move into the bloodstream and throughout the body. In 2008 a research group based in China reported that nanoscale titanium dioxide like that used in many sunscreens can accumulate in the brain and cause lesions and other tissue damage (Wang 2008). Nano and micronized zinc oxide cause lung inflammation (Sayes 2007).

The bottom line? Sunscreen belongs on your skin, not in your lungs. EWG recommends that people stick to creams and avoid powders, pumps and sprays.

Hawaiian Tropic Baby Creme Lotion SPF 50

“Advanced UVA protection”? Not so much. Many U.S. sunscreens claim to provide “broad spectrum” protection that blocks both UVA and UVB rays, but the reality is that they don’t. Hawaiian Tropic Baby Creme Lotion SPF 50 lists “Advanced UVA protection” on its website and “UVB/SPF with UVA” on its label. But it would earn only 1 star in FDA’s proposed 4 star UVA labeling scheme, according to EWG analysis using a standard industry sunscreen model.

Hawaiian Tropic is not required to back up its claim of “advanced UVA protection,” and the fact is that no currently available sunscreen chemical has been shown to block UVA rays effectively. Regulations in Japan and Australia prohibit making such claims altogether for products that provide such weak UVA protection (Diffey 2009), but there is no such restriction in the U.S.

Based on a review of partial label information published by online retailers, EWG researchers identified 218 beach sunscreens that claim “broad spectrum” or “full spectrum” protection for 2010. Many would garner only “low” or “medium” UVA protection in FDA’s proposed labeling system.

Aveeno Baby Continuous Protection SPF 55

“Mild as water.” Sure it is.

Can a product be “mild as water to the skin” if the label warns to “Stop use and ask a doctor if rash or irritation develops and lasts”? And certainly when swallowed this product is nothing like water: “Keep out of reach of children” and “get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center right away,” reads the warning label.

Anthony Logistics for Men Sunstick SPF 15

Safe for eyes? Not really.

This product’s directions tell users to “Apply to eye area,” but the warnings advise: “Keep out of eyes.”

Since there are no regulations to ensure it, you would hope that common sense would lead sunscreen makers to formulate products for use around the eyes that are actually safe for the eyes.

No such luck!

Tip for consumers: Wear sunglasses and keep sunscreen (including from sprays) out of your eyes.

Panama Jack Naturals Baby Sunblock SPF 50

Potential hormone disruptor in baby sunblock.

Panama Jack advises users of this baby product to “apply liberally.”

Scientists who have researched a key sunscreen chemical in this sunblock, the potential hormone disruptor oxybenzone, advise the opposite: “It would be prudent not to apply oxybenzone to large surface areas of skin for extended and repeated periods of time, unless no alternative protection is available. There may be an additional concern for young children who have less well developed processes of elimination, and have a larger surface area per body weight than adults, with respect to systemic availability of a topically applied dose” (Hayden 1997).

Oxybenzone is readily absorbed through the skin; government studies have detected the compound in 97 percent of the population (Calafat 2008). In rodents, it mimics estrogen and increases the weight of the uterus (Schlumpf 2004). In people, higher maternal exposures to oxybenzone have been linked to decreased birth weight in girls (Wolff 2008).

This Panama Jack sunscreen is one of at least 26 sunscreens offered in the 2010 season with the word “baby” in their name and the chemical oxybenzone on their ingredient list. EWG advises consumers to avoid sunscreens containing oxybenzone. Plenty of safer products are available.

One more thing: This so-called “natural” sunscreen contains at least ten compounds that do not occur in nature. Most are made from petroleum.

Banana Boat Ultra Defense Sunscreen Stick SPF 50


Maybe it doesn’t break down, but it also doesn’t last forever.

“It doesn’t break down,” says the manufacturer of the Banana Boat sunscreen stick.

You might think one coat would do you for a whole day. Not so. Even though sunscreen makers like Banana Boat often use stabilizing additives to keep their ingredients from breaking down in sunlight, the product still doesn’t last forever on the skin. Sunscreens wash off in water and rub off on clothes and towels.

Tip for sunscreen users: Some sunscreen chemicals break down in the sun. They also wash off in water and rub off on towels and clothes – reapply them as directed.

Baby Blanket Tender Scalps Scalp Sunscreen Spray for Babies SPF 45+

Instant protection from sunburn, instant exposure to UVA rays.

“Instantly provides 45 times your babies’ natural protection,” claims the manufacturer. While that may be true for UVB rays and the red burns and blisters they cause, it’s not the case for UVA. This product would earn only one of four stars for UVA protection in FDA’s proposed rating system, according to EWG’s analysis. Your baby’s scalp may not get burned, but UVA rays could instantly penetrate deeply and cause skin damage and trigger cancer later in life. At least 18 other products EWG assessed claim “instant” or “immediate” protection.

The Skin Cancer Foundation

$eal of approval.

The Skin Cancer Foundation (SCF) lends its logo to hundreds of sun protection products. SCF approval is easy: just document that your product has an SPF of at least 15 and provide results of basic tests (for SPF, skin reactions and water and sweat resistance, if such claims are made). SCF also requires that companies pay a $10,000 donation by to join the Foundation’s “Corporate Council” in order to have their products approved.

SCF-approved products are not required to protect from UVA rays or to refrain from making the kinds of claims on safety and efficacy that FDA has proposed to prohibit in its 2007 draft sunscreen regulations. EWG’s review of products using the SCF seal found 45 sunscreens with SPF values exceeding the “SPF 50+” label that FDA proposed as the maximum in its 2007 sunscreen rule to avoid “misleading” consumers about how well these sunscreens protect from skin damage.

The Skin Cancer Foundation could ask its certified companies to comply with FDA’s 2007 draft regulations voluntarily – even FDA makes this request – but it apparently doesn’t, missing an opportunity to advance sunscreen protection. EWG learned from a foundation spokesperson that SCF plans to introduce a UVA requirement “in coming months” for companies seeking to earn the seal. It could not come soon enough.

The Food and Drug Administration

32 years (and counting) after its first draft sunscreen standards, still no final rule.

The FDA first issued draft sunscreen regulations in 1978 and last updated the draft in 2007. The regulations are still not final, despite multiple announcements of impending completion. Until the agency formally issues its rule, companies are not required to verify that their sunscreens work, including testing for SPF levels, checking waterproof claims or providing UVA protection. Nearly 1 in 8 sunscreens does not block UVA rays. Buyer beware!

The proposed regulations would require sunscreens to be labeled with a UVA star rating along with its SPF value. In the meantime, consumers should skip reading the claims and turn straight to the ingredient list looking for a mention of zinc oxide, titanium dioxide, Mexoryl or avobenzone. Buying products with those ingredients offers some assurance that the user will get at least some protection from UVA rays.

Source: http://bit.ly/aVOVqn

www.twitter.com/ecogreentravel

www.twitter.com/b_earths_voice

www.facebook.com/ecogreentravel

Advertisements

24 thoughts on “Here are some prime examples of products and players that typify what’s wrong with the sun protection business:

  1. Pingback: Cruising into Mats Mats

  2. Pingback: Cheap Insurance Young

  3. it is good to check reviews before going for any option, these reviews helped me to know facts and effects of p90X in a better way

  4. Yo, an impressive blogpost man. Thankx for sharing! However I’m having problem with your RSS feed. Unable to subscribe. Is there anyone having same rss feed problem? Anybody who knows please respond. TQ

  5. If I might –perhaps you should consider adding a few images. I dont mean to disrespect what youve said; its very enlightening, indeed. However, I think would respond to it more positively if they could be something tangible to your ideas. Keep it up, but put a little more into it next time.

  6. I have already been visiting your site for 3 days. absolutely love your posts. by the way i’m conducting a research concerning this topic. do you happen to know other good sites or perhaps online forums where I might get more information?

  7. Do you have any other similar blogs and/or related fields of expression. This information has caused in me some quasi-cascade effect that has resulted in a great rearangement of my knowledge almost akin to a complete paradigm shift in the way I perceive the world. Thank you so much for this and I bet you wil accumulate a ton of Karma and positive chi due to your wonderful undertaking in this blog!

  8. I’m really thankful towards the author with this post to make this lovely and informative article live here for us. We really appreciate ur effort. Maintain the good work. . . .

  9. Is there anymore information you can give on this subject. It answers a lot of my questions but there is still more info I need. I will drop you an email if I can find it. Never mind I will just use the contact form. Hopefully you can help me further.

  10. I was wondering if you ever considered changing the layout of your website? Its very well written; I love what youve got to say. But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so folks could connect with it better. Youve got an awful lots of text for only having one or two images. Maybe you could space it out better?

  11. I wanted to thank you for this interesting I definitely loved every little bit of it. I have you bookmarked your web site to check out the latest stuff you post.

  12. Definitely agree with exactly what you wrote. Your explanation was undoubtedly the simplest to understand. I tell you, I usually get irritable when individuals discuss issues that these people obviously do not know about. You managed to strike the nail on the head and explained every thing with out complication. Perhaps, others can learn from this. Will more than likely be back to learn more. Cheers

  13. Wow!, this was a real quality post. In theory I’d like to write like this too – taking time and real effort to make a good article… but what can I say… I procrastinate a lot and never seem to achieve anything

  14. This post was very nicely written, and it also contains a lot of useful facts. I appreciated your professional manner of writing the post. Thanks, you have made it easy for me to understand.

  15. This is my first time I have visited this site. I found a lot of interesting information in your blog. From the volume of comments on your posts, I guess I am not the only one! keep up the impressive work.

  16. I know this is really boring and you are skipping to the next comment, but I just wanted to throw you a big thanks – you cleared up some things for me!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s