|
Wear sunscreen! It has been the advice of the medical profession, governments, and parents everywhere for several years. But, a report published this summer by the Environmental Working Group suggests that many popular sun protection products are at best ineffective, and at worst hazardous to health. The EWG has investigated almost 1000 branded sunscreen products in the US, many of which have widespread international markets, for their ability to protect human skin from the sun's ultraviolet rays. Their researchers found that four out of five products tested do not adequately protect skin from sunlight, while others contain chemicals, such as oxybenzone, that they claim may pose a health risk themselves. The organisation suggests that among the worst offenders are leading brands such as Coppertone, Banana Boat, and Neutrogena. In June 2007, EWG released its first in-depth analysis of the safety and effectiveness of several hundred sunscreen brands. It highlighted the safest chemicals, those most effective at protecting against sunburn, and those that help prevent long-term damage caused by UVA. Jane Houlihan, Vice President for Research at EWG says we should "Always use sunscreen" but asserts that, "not all sunscreens are created equal, which means some products are far more effective than others, while presenting fewer safety concerns." EWG has, this summer, expanded its database enormously and revealed in July that none of the 41 sunscreens produced by the market leader Coppertone meet the EWG's safety and effectiveness standards. The EWG also criticized Neutrogena and Banana Boat, which are the second and third largest brands, recommending only one of their 103 products. Similar warnings from the UK consumers' association, known as "Which?" were published this month. "Most sunscreens are designed to protect your skin from two types of ultraviolet (UV) radiation emitted by the sun - UVA and UVB. But our tests found that a sunscreen that protects well against UVB doesn't necessarily protect well against UVA, and vice versa," the organisation says. Of the products that organisation tested three that had a claimed sun-protection factor (SPF) of 15 were in fact SPF 7, 10, and 12. EWG says it was forced to create the database and to name and shame manufacturers because of an ongoing reluctance on the part of the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to tackle the health issues associated with sunscreens; something the FDA first promised to undertake three decades ago. "We've been waiting 30 years for the FDA to come up with adequate safety standards, and we're still waiting," says Houlihan. The US industry trade body, the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC) (formerly the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association) says the EWG accusations are unwarranted and questions their data sources. Chief scientist at PCPC, John Bailey, is on record as stating: "Sunscreens are over-the-counter (OTC) drugs subject to rigorous scientific and regulatory oversight by the FDA. The safety and effectiveness of sunscreens is also ensured by FDA's drug advisory panel, a committee of independent scientific and medical experts that advises the agency, the dermatological community, and the companies that invest significant time and resources to provide consumers with safe and effective products." "Sunscreens are an important tool for consumers and health professionals in the fight against skin cancer and other harmful effects of the sun. Consumers can have a high level of confidence that sunscreen products are safe and effective when used as directed," Bailey adds. One of the active ingredients flagged by EWG as potentially unsafe is oxybenzone. Bailey points out that this compound has FDA approval and is considered safe and effective by regulators in the European Union and Canada. "These reviews have been based on the most current science available," says Bailey, "conducted in a public forum and provide clear support for the safety of this important ingredient." He suggests that EWG's questions about the safety of oxybenzone lack the same level of rigor and reliability and unnecessarily alarm consumers. Related links:
|
|
.jpg)