A non-profit group in the US claims that most sunscreens either don’t work or are hazardous to health, but the sunscreen industry rejects the charge. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) said their investigation of nearly 1,000 brand-name sunscreens showed that 4 out of 5 of them either don’t adequately protect against damaging UV radiation or contain potentially hazardous chemicals.
Leading brands like Coppertone, Banana Boat and Neutrogena were among the worst offenders, claimed the EWG in their report, “Sunscreen Summary – What Works and What’s Safe”, published on their website yesterday, 2nd July.
The sunscreen market is growing, with more Americans than ever using products to protect themselves from sun damage and skin cancer. Consumers tend to choose products with a high Sun Protection Factor (SPF), are waterproof and claim to offer “broad spectrum” protection, wrote the authors. However, few of the claims on the bottle were met.
The EWG researchers investigated 952 name-brand sunscreens, and found only 143 products that offered very good sun protection using ingredients that posed minimum health risks. They based their assessment on “a detailed review of hundreds of scientific studies, industry models of sunscreen efficacy, and toxicity and regulatory information housed in nearly 60 government, academic, and industry databases”.
They found that none of the market leader Coppertone’s 41 sunscreens met EWG’s criteria for safety and effectiveness, and only 1 out of 103 of Banana Boat and Neutrogena products, the second and third largest manufacturers, are on EWG’s recommended list.
Among the EWG’s main findings were:
- Only 15 per cent of the 952 products they analyzed met EWG criteria for safety and effectiveness, namely that the product blocks both UVA and UVB radiation, remains stable in sunlight, and contains zero or very few chemicals known or suspected to be hazardous to health.
- Many products lacked UVA protection.
- Analysis showed that 7 per cent of high SPF (at least 30) sunscreens protected only from UVB radiation (the one that causes sunburn) and contained no ingredients known to protect against UVA.
- 48 per cent of the products contained ingredients that could be unstable in sunlight, either on their own or in combination. This raised questions about whether they lasted as long as the labels claimed they would.
- Questionable product claims were widespread, with many products bearing what the researchers described as “unacceptable” or “misleading” under the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) draft sunscreen safety standards.
- Among the unfounded claims were: “all day protection,” “mild as water,” and “blocks all harmful rays”. Inflated claims by sunscreen companies have spurred class action law suits in California wrote the authors.
- Many of the products contain tiny particles, or “nano-scale” ingredients that the EWG said raised concerns. While some of them such as those made from zinc oxide and titanium dioxide do not penetrate healthy skin and pose minimal exposure hazard, when used in a cream or lotion, but when used in a powder or spray, these micro-ingredients could be more easily absorbed in the lungs.
- Some sunscreens are absorbed into the blood and are linked to toxic effects. Some release skin damaging free radicals when exposed to sunlight, some have potential to disrupt hormone balance, several are linked to allergy problems, and others can build up in the body or the environment.
UVA is the radiation that is associated with skin damage and aging, immune system problems and skin cancer. According to the EWG report, under current regulations, the FDA does not require that sunscreens protect against UVA radiation nor that they meet requirements for chemical stability. The EWG report said that some of the UVA filters approved for use in Europe that could be used instead of nano-scale ingredients have not been approved by the FDA, and the agency has not established safety standards with regard to sunscreen products building up in the body or the environment.
Spokesmen and women from the manufacturers of Coppertone (Schering-Plough), Neutrogena (Johnson & Johnson), and Banana Boat disputed the EWG claims and said that their products underwent rigorous testing.
Julie Lux of Schering-Plough told WebMD that all Coppertone products were photostable, provided UVA/UVB protection and were “routinely evaluated” by independent dermatologists and scientists for safety and efficacy.
According to CBS news, Banana Boat said in a statement that their sunscreen doesn’t break down in the sun and is officially recommended by the Skin Cancer Foundation as an effective UV screen.
Source: EWG, CBS, WebMD.
Written by: Catharine Paddock, PhD