Why?  Because Environmental Working Group (EWG), a Washington-based research group, has found that 4 out of 5 of the nearly 1,000 sunscreen lotions analyzed offer inadequate protection from the sun or contain harmful chemicals.  The biggest offenders, the EWG said, are the industry leaders: Coppertone, Banana Boat and Neutrogena.

Sunscreens do not offer blanket protection from the sun and do little to prevent the most deadly form of skin cancer; reliance on them instead of, say, a hat and protective clothing, might be contributing to skin cancer; and the Food and Drug Administration has yet to issue any safety standards, mysteriously sitting on a set of recommendations drafted 30 years ago. [...]

Notions of all-day protection, as some sunscreen products claim, or even several hours of protection are ludicrous, the EWG said, because most sunscreens start deteriorating in as quickly as 15 minutes. This doesn’t even account for sweat and casual rubbing, further reducing protection.

 

Also, few sun-worshipers use the recommended shot-glass-amount of lotion with each application. We merely think we are protected; few really are. [...]

The EWG also trashed any lotion containing harmful chemicals that can easily penetrate the skin. Oxybenzone, which blocks UVA, is a main offender. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found oxybenzone in the urine of just about everyone tested.

This chemical can promote DNA damage in the presence of sunlight. Oxybenzone and similar cancer-causing chemicals in sunscreens contribute to the minority view that sunscreens actually cause more and deadlier cancers than they prevent. Several small studies have found an increased risk of malignant melanoma, by far the deadliest form of skin cancer, among regular users of sunscreens.

 

Many zinc-based protects appear to be safe, according to the EWG. Until the FDA breaks its silence and offers some guidance, there’s the EWG list of recommendations at http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/special/sunscreens2008. Or you can move to Seattle. [or Saskatoon, heh]

 

I have been leery of sunscreens for a while now.  The benzophenones are absorbed systemically following skin application and are excreted in the urine – fabulous.  Also, these chemical sunscreens have estrogenic activity and no one can guess the long term effects of low level exposure to these compounds.  Bonus – some sunscreen chemicals are known to cause coral bleaching…and,well, that just can’t be good.  The early forms of sunscreen protected only against injury caused by UVB rays and did not protect against UVA.  This meant that people were able to stay out in the sun longer without getting a sunburn…but the UVA rays were still causing damage.  UVA radiation is suspected to be the cause of the most serious form of skin cancer, ie. melanoma.  Great.  So here we have a whole generation of kids allowd to run around in the sun all day, with lots of sunscreen slathered on them, denied the natural warning sign of sun injury…sunburn.  So now we are being told to wear the new and improved sunscreens that contain UVA and UVB filters…and we are supposed to trust “the man”?  I don’t think so.  I think a hat, protective clothing and moderate, sensible sun exposure is probably just fine for me and for my children.  Afterall.  Australia has had a very aggressive sunscreen campaign and their incidence of skin cancer has not decreased and in fact has continued to rise.