Is Sunscreen Dangerous? 4 Sun Protection Do's and Don'ts

I live in Florida. If you live in Florida Sunblock is only going to be healthy for you. If you live in Wisconsin that is probably not the case. If you can avoid sunlight, do so. However, if you can avoid Sunblock you should also do so.

Scott of FL 3:53PM June 10, 2010

The average American absorbs through his or her skin about 2 kilograms, nearly 4.5 pounds, of chemicals from shampoos, conditioners, fragrances, skin creams and cosmetics and, of course, sun screen. None of them are good for you and many are potentially very, very bad. Anyone concerned about his or her health should apply as little of any product to his or her skin as possible, sticking to simple unscented soap (and avoid skin contact with chemicals like household cleaners, gasoline, etc.). No one knows what the "safe" levels might be, how the chemicals might interact with each other and other natural chemicals within us. Regulators assume in the absence of any overt and near-immediate reaction that the products are "safe enough". That of course is immensely industry-friendly but equally very bad science. For sun, limit exposure, wear hats and sun glasses (yes, your eyes are vulnerable to damage), cover up, and avoid the chemical soup of sun blocks and screens.

Alan Davidson 12:29PM June 05, 2010

sunscreen tastes good

jilly of ME 11:13AM June 01, 2010

I'm not sure Ms. Kotz knew and just left it out of her piece, or she wasn't aware, but her source - Dr. Henry W. Lim - who seems ready to defend sunscreens despite the known problems in the industry such as over-inflated and misleading SPF (sun-protection) claims and who blithely dismisses the FDA's ongoing Vitamin A research is also a paid consultant for a number of companies that manufacture sunscreen products.

With regards to the ongoing FDA-NTP study of retinol palmitate (a derivative of Vitamin A found in 40% of sunscreens) as a possible carcinogenic factor when it is applied to skin and exposed to sunlight - Dr. Henry W. Lim dismissed the findings on grounds the study tested the chemical on mice. But scientists throughout the world who assess human carcinogenicity risks consider the government scientists’ methodology and NTP (National Toxicology Panel) studies in general to be the gold standard for research.

Dr. Lim told US News' Kotz: "It's dangerous to apply a finding in mice to humans, and I've spoken with a number of my colleagues about this and we all agree that it's very premature to even cast doubt about the safety of this chemical."

This seems more like a statement you'd see come from someone paid by the sunscreen industry. Oh wait, he is. In the July 2007 edition of Skin and Aging Dr. Lim disclosed that he “is a consultant for Johnson & Johnson, La Roche-Posay Laboratoire Pharmaceutique, Orfagen Laboratories, and Dow Pharmaceutical Sciences.”

Of course, as EWG president Ken Cook put it in a letter sent 5/28/10 to the heads of the Food and Drug Administration and the National Toxicology Program, urging their respective agencies to conclude their research into Vitamin A:

“As the FDA points out, “testing for photococarcinogenicity in humans is unethical; animal testing has been used as a surrogate.” As you well know, FDA, NTP and other scientific institutions are working to develop sorely needed non-animal methods for toxicity testing. Butuntil reliable non-animal models are available, animal tests are established, state-of-the-art methods for evaluating toxicity. FDA acknowledges uncertainties in applying these results to humans (FDA 2003), but nevertheless, NTP cancer studies like the RP study conducted by the center are currently considered the “gold standard” for assessing human carcinogenicity risks.” Cook’s entire letter to FDA and NTP can be found here: http://www.ewg.org/ewg-asks-fda-to-wind-up-study-of-vitamin-a-in-sunscreen

Alex Formuzis and Olga Naidenko, Ph.D

EWG

Alex Formuzis of DC 4:24PM May 28, 2010