Ć
First read the "Sun Essentials" article, click here ==>
SUN ESSENTIALS
by Paula Begoun
Reference: Begoun, Paula. Sun essentials.
Paula Begoun The
Cosmetics Cop.
http://www.cosmeticscop.com/sun-care-essentials.aspx
(November 2008).
Ć
Then see Dr. H's summarizing
TABLE
below, followed by her additional comments.
NOTE: Paula Begoun's
site
is a commercial site, but it has a very good summary of some key
information that is difficult to find elsewhere. (Begoun, aka the "Cosmetics
Cop" has spent her career examining the scientific basis underlying the
ingredients and performance claims of thousands of skin care products.
Read more about her to evaluate her trustworthiness as a source for yourself
HERE)
Click here for more useful
info from Paula Begoun
From Dr H:
The following TABLE was complied by Dr H based on a
variety of sources including the Sun Essentials article linked above:
The range of
protection for the following sunscreen ingredients is summarized in the
following table:
(Note
that the boundaries of UVA, UVB & UVC differ slightly in different sources. The
UVA-UVB boundary is usually reported as 315 nanometers, but is rounded to 320 nm
in the IGC text & the UVB-UVC boundary is usually reported as 280 but is given
as 290 nm in IGC Table 17-1.)
|
UV wavelength bands
|
UVC
|
UVB
|
UVA
|
|
wavelength band range in nanometers
according to
IGC, Table 17-1 p
344
|
200-290
(100-280
in other sources)
|
290-320
(280-315
in other sources)
|
320-400
(315-400
in other sources)
|
|
|
|
|
Padimate O,
290-315 nanometers
|
|
(X)
|
|
|
Benzophenones,
250-350 nanometers
|
(X)
|
X
|
(X)
|
|
Octyl
methoxycinnamate, 290-320 nanometers
|
|
X
|
|
|
Avobenzone,
320-400 nanometers
|
|
|
XX
|
|
Oxybenzone
270 to 350 nanometers
|
(X)
|
X
|
(X)
|
|
Titanium
dioxide, 290-700 nanometers
|
|
X
|
XX
|
|
Zinc oxide,
290-700 nanometers
|
|
X
|
XX
|
NEW!
Ecamsule (Mexoryl SX )
***
max absorption 345 nm |
|
X |
XX |
X means the ingredient protects over
the entire band,
(X) means the ingredient protects over part of the band
XX means the ingredient
protects over the longer wavelength UVA band, now known to be harmful
Check the active
ingredients. Titanium
dioxide, zinc oxide,
or avobenzone
(also called butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane) are the only***
ingredients authorized
for use in U.S. products that protect you from the entire UVA spectrum.
Therefore, if one of those isn't listed as an active ingredient on the label,
the product should not be used for sun protection by anyone.
|
For more information about sun care and
sun care products:
More info from Paula Begoun:
APPLYING SUNSCREEN & THE EXTRA
HAZARD OF HIGH ALTITUDES
http://www.cosmeticscop.com/bulletin/081105-full.htm#2
|
Dear Paula,
Thank you so much for revolutionizing my skin-care routine! Even
though I have much faith in your research and your dedication to
consumers, I keep getting hung up on the issue of sunscreens and how
to use them. I keep reading that reapplying sunscreen is essential,
usually every 2 hours. If a sunscreen with SPF 15 is designed to let
me be out in the sun all day, why should I have to reapply? Do
sunscreens lose their effectiveness on the skin after 2 hours (for
example, if I apply at 8 a.m. but am not exposed to the sun until 4
p.m., will it still provide protection?), or is it depleted after 2
hours in the sun? Reapplying so often makes my skin feel too slick
and laden with product, not to mention it disturbs my makeup.
Jesse, via email
Dear Jesse,
If you are spending long periods of time in the sun, especially
under extreme sun exposure conditions, there is research showing
that frequent application of sunscreen, every two hours as you
mentioned, does have validity. According to information on the
American Academy of Dermatology's Web site (www.aad.org), "a study
followed 105 skiers in Vail, Colorado over a one-week period in
January. Each participant was given an unmarked bottle of sunscreen
(either SPF 15 or 30) and instructed to maintain a log of the amount
of time they spent outdoors as well as the amount of sunscreen
applied.... The study concluded sunscreen, when used correctly, was
an effective defense from sunburn when in an open aired, highly
elevated, sun exposed and sun reflective environment." However,
those who applied the sunscreen after 2.5 hours or longer "were five
times more likely to sunburn compared to those who applied sunscreen
every two hours or more."
What is important to keep in mind about this information is that
this study was done on skiers who were exposed to about 40%
additional UV intensity than most people due to the reflection of
sunlight off the snow. Also, "[UV] intensities at altitudes of 8,000
to 11,000 feet have been shown to be 60% to 80% higher than at sea
level."
If you are not experiencing sun exposure under those conditions, you
can follow the standard time guideline for an SPF rating, which is
the SPF number multiplied by the amount of time you can usually be
in the sun without burning (turning pink). For those with lighter
skin tones, the formulas look like this-SPF 15 X 15 minutes = 225
minutes (or 3.75 hours) of protection or this-SPF 15 X 10 minutes =
150 minutes (2.5 hours) of protection. Whether or not that means
continuous time in direct sun exposure or simply time of wear from
the moment you apply sunscreen isn't clear. Having spoken to a
number of dermatologists they each seem to have different opinions
(even some who just said to "wear an SPF 50 and you'll be fine,"
which is bad advice because it doesn't address the issue of liberal
application, UVA protection, and sun behavior). Even the FDA has
varying explanations on its Web site.
Bottom line, it is without question safer to frequently apply a
well-formulated sunscreen if you are planning to spend long periods
of time exposed to the sun, especially if you aren't able to comply
with other sun-smart behavior, such as avoiding deliberate tanning
with indoor or outdoor light; seeking shade; wearing protective
clothing; limiting exposure during peak hours; and covering up with
hats, sunglasses, and UV-protective clothing whenever possible.
|
ON "WATERPROOF"
SUNSCREENS
http://www.cosmeticscop.com/bulletin/072105-full.htm#review1
|
Dear Paula,
I have read from several sources that you should always use a
water-proof sunscreen, and that anything that isn't water-proof is
wasting your time and money. While I know that the label
"waterproof" doesn't always mean "100% waterproof," I still wonder
about this. Do lotions that contain a sunscreen but that are not
water-proof really protect skin? When is water-proof appropriate and
when is it not needed (if ever)? Up until now, I have always looked
for water-proof sunscreens for daily use, but they tend to be
thicker and more gooey than other types of sunscreens, and they
don't sit well under my makeup. I have been hesitant to use anything
else, however, because I want the best protection I can get. Help
clear this up for me so I can enjoy my summer without feeling overly
slathered!
Pamela, Rochester, New York
Dear Pamela,
I'm not sure where you got your information, but there are several
problems with the advice that you need to wear only "waterproof"
sunscreens. First, the term water-proof is no longer allowed by the
FDA, so your sources obviously weren't well-informed. Water-proof
was replaced with water-resistant and very water-resistant (the
water- prefix in the previous terms can also be replaced by sweat-
or perspiration-). This significant change in sunscreen regulations
took place a few years ago because, in truth, no sunscreen can be
water-proof. Eventually all sunscreens will break down and become
ineffective when you become wet, whether from swimming, showering,
sweating, or rinsing your hands. The sunscreens formulated to hold
up under water immersion are time-limited, lasting up to 40 minutes
for water-resistant and 80 minutes for very water-resistant (Source:
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, volume 5, April 1, 2004,
CITE: 21CFR352, www.fda.gov ). When
you become wet, you must reapply sunscreen in a relatively short
period of time.
A sunscreen designated as water-proof or water-resistant provides no
added benefit over and above some amount of tenacity if you become
wet. If you are not planning to exercise, swim, or in any other way
become moist, there is no reason to use a water-resistant sunscreen
or one mislabeled as water-proof. Regular sunscreens stay in place
for the appropriate amount of time indicated by the SPF number.
Personally, because I know my hands are in water frequently during
the day while the rest of me stays dry, I do use a water-resistant
sunscreen on my hands and arms.
One more point: while some water-resistant sunscreens do tend to
feel a bit sticky on skin, there are definitely those that do not.
You might want to experiment a bit to find one that has the texture
you prefer. Regardless, the most important things to remember about
sunscreens are: use an SPF 15 or greater (and greater can be better
for long days of sunlight), apply it liberally (more is better), and
check for the UVA-protecting ingredients of titanium dioxide,
zinc oxide, or avobenzone (often listed as butyl
methoxydibenzylmethane or Parsol 1789). |
ON TANNING
|
. . . . A recent survey of over 500 teens by the American Academy of
Dermatology revealed that although 80% of them know tanning is
dangerous and that sunburns increase the risk of skin cancer, the
majority believe tans look healthier, and 60% of respondents
reported getting a sunburn during the past summer (Source:
ABC news Health wire story 7-20 -05 link no longer active:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=720505).
Dermatologists (and sunscreen advocates like me) are disappointed
with this information, because it means that although teens seem to
understand that tanning is dangerous, they opt to ignore the
information for the sake of vanity. But don't give up! Please do
whatever you can to impress on your teens that tanning beds are
nothing more than cancer beds. The proliferation of tanning salons
is believed to be partly responsible for the increase in the
incidence of melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, which has
doubled in the past 30 years (Source:
http://skin-savers.com/Information/Newsletter_-_March_2005/ ).
In related news, the Dermatology Nurses' Association agreed to
support the World Health Organization's (WHO) proposed ban on
sun-bed use for those under age 18. In March, WHO called for
countries to enact laws to reinforce this protective measure, citing
that most tanning-salon beds emit ultraviolet rays that are much
more potent than the UV rays of the summer sun, and that the use of
such tanning beds is incrementally increasing skin-cancer rates
worldwide. In the United States, 22 states already have laws
prohibiting underage tanning in salons (Source: Dermatology Nurses'
Association press release, April 1, 2005). Actually, the Dermatology
Nurses' Association, in response to the young patients with
UV-damaged skin they see every day, have proposed an even stricter
stance on tanning beds. To learn more, visit
www.dnanurse.org .
|
ON THE VITAMIN D CONTROVERSY
Paula Begoun
Website: see
http://www.cosmeticscop.com/bulletin/031705-full.htm#5
|
Vitamin D and Sunscreen
It’s hard to imagine that a vitamin could find itself in the midst of a
controversy, but that is exactly the position vitamin D is in. The
conflict is over risking sun exposure because of our bodies’ need for
vitamin D. Vitamin D deficiency can be a serious health problem, most
notably by blocking the absorption of calcium and phosphorus, causing a
chronic imbalance and bone deterioration. As luck would have it,
sunlight is the most abundant, natural source that helps our bodies make
vitamin D.
You may be unaware that, despite the name, vitamin D is not actually a
vitamin. It is a hormone known as calcitrol. When your skin is exposed
to UVB light, it converts 7-dehydrocholesterol (present in your skin and
bloodstream) into vitamin D, where the liver and kidneys activate it and
it begins regulating and enhancing the absorption of the minerals
calcium and phosphorus in the body. Since there are very few foods that
naturally contain vitamin D (your best options are salmon, mackerel, and
cod liver oil) most of us need to rely on either sun exposure or vitamin
D-fortified foods (such as milk and cereals) to ensure we get enough.
Where the controversy takes place is that exposing our skin to the sun
without sunscreen is dangerous, but there are those that believe
sunscreen will cancel out the body's ability to manufacture vitamin D
from sun exposure. This concern has been expressed from several
seemingly reputable resources (Sources:
http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/325/20932/230636.html?d=dmtContent;
http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/diet.fitness/10/28/vitamin.D.ap/;
http://www.umm.edu/patiented/articles/what_sunscreen_guidelines_000020_4.htm;
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, December 2004, 80
(Supplement 6):1678S-88S; and Archives of Dermatology, December
1988, pages 1802-1804).
On the other side of this argument are proponents for sun avoidance
(myself included) who encourage maintaining adequate levels of vitamin D
through dietary sources and supplements without skimping on the
sunscreen because sunscreen does not block the amount of UVB radiation
needed to help the body manufacture vitamin D.
An article reprinted in PCI Journal, Volume 12, Number 4,
November 2004, refers to comments by dermatologist Darrell S. Rigel,
M.D., clinical professor, New York University Medical Center in New York
City. He reports that as someone who sees and treats skin cancer
patients on a daily basis, it is appalling to him that anyone in good
conscience would claim that intentional sun exposure, regardless of
length of time, is beneficial. It is a fact that skin cancer rates are
rising and solid science supports the daily application of sunscreen as
the best defense against the damaging effects of sunlight. The same
article also mentioned a 1997 study published in the Journal of the
National Cancer Institute. It concerned patients with xeroderma
pigmentosa (a disease that causes multiple skin cancers in persons
exposed to even small amounts of UV radiation). The study demonstrated
that these patients, despite avid sun avoidance and constant UV
protection, still had normal levels of vitamin D over a period of
several years. There is also the issue that no sunscreen, regardless of
active ingredients or how often or liberally it is applied, can provide
100% protection from UV radiation. The tiny amount of UVB light that
sunscreens do not shield is enough to begin the synthesis of vitamin D
(though depending on your skin color and climate, supplemental vitamin D
will likely still be necessary).
Further, several large, controlled studies have shown that vitamin D
deficiency does not result from ongoing regular sunscreen use. Vitamin D
supplementation is a good idea because most people’s diets are naturally
deficient in it, not to mention as we age our bodies’ ability to produce
vitamin D naturally diminishes due to the decrease in
7-dehydrocholesterol (a component in skin that begins the conversion
process for vitamin D) (Sources: The Journal of the American
Osteopathic Association, Volume 103, Number 8, August 2003, pages
3-4; American Journal of Clinical Dermatology, March 2002, pages
185-191; Dermatology, January 2001, pages 27-30; British
Medical Journal, October 1999, page 1066). Before beginning any new
vitamin supplement program, make sure to consult your physician.
ON BLAMING CHEMICAL SUNSCREENS FOR THE
RISE IN SKIN CANCER RATES
(NOTE THE MENTION OF THE DEPLETION OF THE OZONE LAYER)
Source:
http://www.cosmeticscop.com/bulletin/091406-full.htm#2
Dear
Paula,
According to one of the cosmetics catalogs I received in the mail,
"despite decades of sunscreen use in this country, melanoma and other
skin cancers are on the rise. Recent medical research indicates this is
due more to the increased use of traditional sunscreens (with all their
toxic chemicals) than to the depletion of the ozone layer. Birth
defects, lower sperm counts, and a plethora of other medical problems
are also now being linked to the ingredients found in typical
sunscreens." Huh? Why haven't I heard about this "research" before?
Paula, I trust your opinion in these matters. Have you heard anything
about the dangers of chemical sunscreens?
Kim, via email
Dear Kim,
I have written about this issue before but it is easy to have missed all
that. What I find so disturbing about this is that such misleading,
disingenuous information is used by companies to sell their products.
Scare tactics definitely don't help the consumer, but they do benefit a
company whose major selling point is that everyone else's products are
hurting your skin except theirs. First, note that the information you
cited is not sourced; rather it's just some nebulous reference to
medical research. Without a source who knows what that means?
I, too, have seen random comments concluding that the rise in skin
cancer over the past 30 to 40 years is related to sunscreens. Well,
think about it. Before the 1960s, no one used sunscreen, even when they
were at the beach and exposed to the sun all day; thus, you could think
that it must be the use of sunscreens that is causing the problems.
After all, weren't the beaches crowded in the 1930s and '40s, and no one
was using sunscreen then either, and yet there were very few reported
incidences of skin cancer during that period? Beaches were crowded at
that time because that's when tanning became fashionable (Source:
Journal of Aesthetic Science, May 1998, pages 6–7). But remember, the
effects of sun damage take at least 30 to 40 years to show up on skin,
so that's why the occurrence of skin cancer began rising precipitously
in the ‘60s and '70s.
Many people have also misinterpreted an epidemiological study done by
Sloan-Kettering that found regular use of sunscreen between 1975 and
1995 corresponded with increased risk of skin cancer. While that
initially sounds like it is related to sunscreen ingredients, the issue
had more to do with the way sunscreens had been formulated in previous
decades. Before 1995, sunscreens rarely, if ever, contained ingredients
that could filter UVA rays, which are considered to be the sun's more
dangerous, cancer-causing radiation. Sunscreens at that time were
developed to protect skin only from sunburn, which is caused by UVB
rays. So using sunscreens with UVB protection (and minimal to no UVA
protection) meant you could stay out in the sun longer without burning,
but it also meant you would be receiving intense UVA damage. People who
didn't use sunscreen (to protect themselves from sunburn) tended to keep
out of the sun more, thus reducing their exposure to both UVA and UVB
rays, and as a result saved their skin. The invisible, intense damage
caused by UVA rays is why the use of sunscreens (which at that time
protected the skin only from UVB rays) was correlated with increased
risk of melanoma. Only recently have sunscreens begun to use UVA filters
along with UVB filters. Even Dr. Marianne Berwick, author of
Sloan-Kettering's study, didn't say that people shouldn't use sunscreen.
Also complicating matters is research showing that some sunscreen
ingredients have estrogenic effects (Source: Toxicology and Applied
Pharmacology, July 2006, pages 1–7, and February 2006, pages 246–256).
This research has also been taken out of context because these studies
were done either in vitro (test tubes) or on animals. How does feeding
mice or rats pure octyl methoxycinnamate or benzophenone translate into
a cancer risk for humans using it topically at infinitely smaller
concentrations?
I'll also bet the catalog you received didn't mention that the European
Union's Scientific Committee on Cosmetic and Non-Food Products conducted
several evaluations of the research on octyl methxoxycinnamate and other
UV light-filtering ingredients. Their conclusion? UV filters "have
[extremely] low estrogenic activity with no risk to human health." The
Committee reaffirmed their recommendation of daily use of sunscreen to
"protect humans from excessive exposure to sunlight" (Source:
Environmental Health Perspective, 2001, pages 239–244).
It is true that melanoma (the deadliest form of skin cancer) rates are
on the rise. According to a report in the June 2006 issue of Cosmetics &
Toiletries magazine, the death rate from melanoma in the United States
rises 4% every year, with 1.5 million new cases reported annually. But,
there is no research showing that the 4% increase has anything to do
with the active ingredients in sunscreens. Instead, research and
controlled population studies have shown that it has everything to do
with consumers not applying sunscreen liberally, not reapplying it at
regular intervals during long days outdoors, not using sunscreens that
supply sufficient UVA protection, and the depletion of the atmosphere's
protective ozone layer (Sources: Journal of Surgical Oncology, July
2004, pages 236–245; Annals of Epidemiology, July 2003, pages 395–404;
Photochemistry and Photobiology, July 2001, pages 61–63; and Archives of
Dermatology, October 2002, pages 1319–1325). It is theorized that the
present frequency of new melanoma cases has nothing to do with the
ingredients of the broad-spectrum sunscreens that are now available.
Rather, it has to do with the fact that these sunscreens have been
available for only a short time relative to the 40-year development
period for melanoma.
For some, it is easier to blame strange-sounding chemicals in active
ingredients for the increasing skin-cancer rates than to honestly
evaluate their sun behavior and the amount of time they spend in the sun
without proper sunscreen protection. It is true that the active
ingredients used in sunscreens are not completely without negative side
effects. However, to view them as dangerous rather than as essential to
preserving the health and appearance of your skin is a far bigger error
because the amount of cumulative DNA damage unprotected skin receives
from sun exposure leads to a host of problems, including those with
potentially fatal results.
|
|