Sun Safety Gets Easier With EWG’s
2014 Guide to Sunscreens
Every year, more than 2
million Americans find out they have skin cancer. At a time when most other
cancer rates are in retreat, the rate of newly diagnosed cases of melanoma —
the most deadly skin cancer — has tripled since the 1970s.
What
is responsible for this epidemic? Though there’s no single or definitive
answer, most experts attribute many of these new cases to widespread
overexposure to sun. Paradoxically, while increasing numbers of Americans say
they are aware of the dangers of the sun’s ultraviolet rays, they are still
reporting a worrisome number of sunburns, according to the federal Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention.
For
these bad sun safety habits, much blame falls on poor-quality sunscreens and
misleading sunscreen advertising that leads people to believe, wrongly, that
their products protect their skin from too much sun.
For
busy shoppers faced with a sea of beautifully-packaged bottles and tubes, the
trick is figuring out which sunscreen represents the best value – and will get
used by the whole family. EWG’s 2014 Guide to Sunscreens is designed to empower
consumers with a user-friendly searchable database that puts them in charge.
And
this year, for the first time, EWG has launched a Sun Safety
public education campaign in partnership with dermatologists and
sunscreen companies. The campaign aims to make sun safety as essential as seat
belts. At the core of EWG’s Sun Safety campaign is the shared conviction that
the American public, young people in particular, need a wake-up call about sun
safety and clear, compelling strategies to reduce the risks of skin damage and
cancer related to sun exposure and tanning beds.
Over
the past eight years, as EWG has investigated the performance of American
sunscreens, we’ve seen surprisingly few improvements in the safety and
effectiveness of sunscreens sold by mass-marketed brands.
Yet
because of increasing consumer awareness and innovation by small companies,
Americans have more good choices. More zinc- and titanium-based mineral
sunscreens are on the market, and that’s a good thing, because they do not
penetrate the skin and offer stable and lasting UV protection.
One-third
of the beach and sport sunscreens we have assessed for the current summer
season offer good skin protection and are free of ingredients with serious
safety concerns.
That
means two-thirds of the sunscreens in our analysis don’t work well enough or
contain ingredients that may be toxic. American stores are still stocked with
inferior products.
Regulations
enforced by the federal Food and Drug Administration are feeble, tardy and full
of gaps. The FDA’s first major set of sunscreen regulations, 36 years in the
making, took effect in December 2012 and proved far too weak to transform the
market. They restricted some of the most egregious claims on sunscreen labels,
among them, the patently false “waterproof” and “sweatproof. ” As well, the FDA
ended the sale of powder sunscreens and towelettes — products too thin to protect
skin from ultraviolet rays. Moreover, powders with zinc oxide and titanium
dioxide nanoparticles posed a serious inhalation hazard.
But
the FDA’s task is only beginning. The agency wants to set an upper limit on
sunscreen SPF claims, but that proposed regulation is winding slowly through
the tortuous regulatory thicket. It is considering banning spray sunscreens on
grounds they are ineffective and could cause lung damage. And it is under
pressure from Congress, advocates and manufacturers to approve some European
sunscreen ingredients. Until the agency accelerates its efforts to ensure the
long-term safety and effectiveness of sunscreen ingredients, Americans will not
have access to the best possible products.
Broad spectrum protection – Almost every American-marketed
sunscreen with an SPF of 15 or higher meets the FDA’s rules for “broad spectrum
protection,” meaning that it can claim to protect skin against both ultraviolet
A and B rays. The catch is, the FDA has set a low bar. According to our modeling
of sunscreen ingredients and their effectiveness, EWG estimates that half of
the U.S. sunscreens that meet the FDA rules would not make it to store shelves
in Europe, where, since 2006, sunscreen makers have voluntarily complied with
stricter European Union standards (European Commission 2006).
European ingredients – The most common UVA
filter in American sunscreens is a chemical called avobenzone, approved by the
FDA in 1972. The agency has not approved a new sunscreen chemical since 1999.
Beginning in 2003, U.S. sunscreen companies petitioned the FDA for approval to
formulate their products with eight chemicals used as UV filters in Europe and
elsewhere. The agency has failed to act on petitions for six of these
ingredients, including four that appear to offer stronger UVA protection than
avobenzone or other UVA screens now permitted by FDA. These chemicals – Mexoryl
SX, Mexoryl XL, Tinosorb S and Tinosorb M — could improve the effectiveness of
U.S. sunscreens if approved. The FDA has been so slow in investigating
promising sunscreen ingredients that Sen. John Reed (D-Rhode Island) has
introduced the “Sunscreen Innovation Act” to spur it to take action. Click here to see EWG’s Congressional
testimony
High SPF – Sky-high SPF numbers are no measure of sunscreen
effectiveness. A sunscreen’s sun protection factor, or SPF, measures its
ability to deflect skin burning UV rays, primarily UVB rays. The SPF value does
not reflect the product’s ability to filter out UVA rays that, according to a
growing body of evidence, cause skin damage, immune suppression and possibly
melanoma. Studies show that people who use high-SPF products are exposed to as
many or more ultraviolet rays than those who use lower-SPF products. Many
experts believe that people get a false sense of security from those big
numbers, don’t apply enough sunscreen, wait too long before reapplying and
spend too much time in bright sun.
Fully
15 percent of beach and sport sunscreens on the market this year are labeled
with SPF values greater than 50+. The FDA has proposed to limit SPF claims to
50+ but has not issued a legally binding regulation to that end. By contrast,
the European Commission rule caps SPF claims at 50+.
Sprays and powders – One in three sunscreens in EWG’s
database for this year is a spray. In 2011 FDA said it lacked data to confirm
that spray products are safe and effective. It asked manufacturers to provide
proof that sprays form a layer of sunscreen thick enough to protect skin and to
show that sprays don’t pose inhalation risks. If the agency does not receive
sufficient data to substantiate these products’ safety, the FDA can bar them.
But until the agency takes decisive action, sprays remain on store shelves, and
many shoppers buy them for ease of application
The
FDA has issued a rule barring sunscreen and makeups in loose powder form from
claiming SPF protection. But several powders are still on the market. These
contain zinc or titanium nanoparticles that should not be inhaled. Powders also
have a practical drawback; users cannot tell if they are applying a thick, even
coating essential for UV protection.
Many
of this year’s crop of sunscreen products contain potentially toxic
ingredients. Among them:
·
Vitamin A, also known as retinyl palmitate and retinol – This ingredient
is in about 20 percent of the beach and sport sunscreens and 12 percent of SPF
moisturizers in this year’s database. It is used in regular makeup as an
anti-aging ingredient. It has been shown to hasten the development of skin
tumors and lesions on sun-exposed skin. Data on the potential skin cancer risk
of retinyl palmitate have been public since 2010, but most sunscreen makers
have not abandoned this chemical as they should. EWG recommends against using
sunscreen and cosmetics whose labels disclose the presence of vitamin A,
retinyl palmitate or retinol until this chemical’s safety on sun-exposed skin
is proven.
·
Oxybenzone – This common chemical sunscreen filter shows up in nearly
half of the beach and sport sunscreens in EWG’s database this year. It has
several disadvantages: it soaks through skin, triggers allergic skin reactions
in sensitive individuals and may disrupt the hormone system (Krause 2012).
Despite evidence that oxybenzone is a hormone disruptor, the FDA has not yet
investigated it rigorously. The agency should give oxybenzone top priority
because it has been detected in urine and breast milk samples and could affect
the development of the fetus and the health of children and adults (Schlumpf
2010, Calafat 2008).
·
Moisturizers with SPF – Daily-use
moisturizers with SPF claims should offer lasting protection from both UVA rays
and UVB rays. UVA rays are especially insidious because they bombard us year
round, in contrast to UVB rays, which are more intense in the summer. Most
moisturizers with SFP don’t fill the bill. This year EWG examined the product
labels of 246 moisturizers with SPF and found that only one in four offered
strong and lasting sun protection. This is a critical shortcoming, because
moisturizers are generally designed to be applied just once a day.
EWG
did not evaluate make-up and lip products with SPF claims this year. In prior
years we have found that SPF-rated makeup and lip products do not offer
significant protection from the sun.
*
Statistics in this report are based on products in the EWG database as of May
2014.
