SUN PROTECTION MYTHS: FACTS VERSUS FICTION

INTRODUCTION

Media and “experts” continue to misinform consumers about sunscreens and UV protection. Facts need to be separated from fiction. This blog is dedicated to Nikiforos Kollias PhD (biophysicist, photobiologist, medical physicist, bioengineer, Professor of Dermatology at Harvard and UBC). He spent the last 20 years of his life trying to dispel the first myth –  that there is a difference in the way “mineral or natural” and so called “chemical” sunscreens protect against UV radiation.

FICTION

The words “natural” versus “chemical” are used deceptively to imply that some sunscreens are not chemicals, and that a natural or mineral product might be preferable because it acts as a physical barrier  that bends or reflects light, compared to chemical sunscreens that absorb light. This has misinformed the consumer since the last century. It is repeated ad nauseam by every “expert” like a recent CBC program hosted by Heather Hiscox, where another “expert” physician said “physical or barrier” sunscreens reflected or blocked UV radiation and “chemical” products absorbed harmful rays.

FACT

All sunscreens are CHEMICALS – fundamental Chemistry. A chemical is  a  substance in any form : ionic, molecular, organic or inorganic – that is generated by or utilized in a chemical process. Some are organic – meaning carbon based with complex carbon chains and rings in their structure.  Mineral UV filters are inorganic compounds (contain no carbon atoms) like zinc oxide, titanium dioxide, iron oxide, and others. Their individual atoms all occur on the Table of Chemical Elements.

FICTION

The labels physical and chemical as applied to sunscreens are inappropriate (Professor N. Kollias, Archives in Dermatology, Feb 1999). Minerals like titanium dioxide (TiO2), zinc oxide (ZnO), and others, remain as particles in a sunscreen because of low solubility. These substances are ‘physical’ since they have a predetermined particulate size but are chemicals by any definition. Even soluble organic filters will form physical crystals as the carrier base evaporates. Consumers are blitzed with the fallacy  that “natural” (mineral) filters reflect or bend light like a barrier- whereas the so-called chemical agents absorb light in a chemical reaction.

FACTS

  • Photoprotection from scattering or reflection of light occurs only if a very thick optical barrier prevents  light from passing through to the skin, similar to a thick coat of paint not seen in commercially available sunscreens. This would not be acceptable to any consumer. A thick mineral  based  make-up will achieve some reflection or a “barrier” effect but all sunscreens absorb photons of light in reducing sun damage.
  • The word chemical is a misnomer as ALL UV FILTERS ARE CHEMICALS. At The Sunscreen Company TM we condemn small Molecular Weight soluble organic filters that reach blood and tissue. Organic does not mean natural or safe – only carbon based. Many of these synthetic filters contain the 6-carbon benzene ring so inimical to humans and the environment. The mineral filters zinc oxide and titanium dioxide ARE STILL CHEMICALS  – albeit inorganic –  made by a geologic system (mother earth) – hence the tendency to think of them as natural.  Mineral filters are now so processed, highly refined, milled, doped and coated that they are really “naturally derived” but so altered that  they are semi-synthetic and hardly natural.
  • New and more efficient nanoscale mineral sunscreens < 1 micron in size only scatter < 10% of incident light. Even older pigment grade forms of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide with larger molecules over 1 micron in size did not reflect more than 15% of the UV rays. All mineral or insoluble UV filters act as semi-conductors and absorb photons with electron shifts to a different valence band, so a harmful wavelength is converted to a less harmful or innocuous wavelength. New particle type filters are synthetic organic compounds that are also insoluble.
  • The only accurate classification of UV filters is soluble versus insoluble and definitely not natural versus chemical. Both types mostly act by absorbing photons. The mechanism of action in mineral UV filters involves the use of photon energy to excite electrons. For example, rutile TiO2, has a band gap energy of 3.06 eV corresponding to a wavelength of 412.5 nm. Light at or below this wavelength will have enough energy to excite electrons from the valence band to the conduction band. Any photon with a wavelength longer than the band gap will not be absorbed by the sunscreen. Each substance has its unique semiconductor properties and band gap, accounting for the filtering activity at different wavelengths.
  • Filters are safer and preferable not because of “natural” versus “chemical” but Insoluble filters like zinc oxide (inorganic) or bisoctrizole (organic) are safer since  their large size prevents entry through skin into blood, avoiding all the issues with hormone disruption and adverse effects. They are not photocontact allergens like the soluble organic filters. The best UVA filters belong to this group and provide the broad spectrum protection and high UVA shielding required to prevent skin cancer and photoaging.

FICTION

Consumer Reports suggested recently that SPF retesting done by them shows which brand name sunscreens are better. They recommended as best products, several with soluble organic UV filters like avobenzone and oxybenzone, since their tests showed better agreement with the label value for SPF. The same report suggested that mineral based sunscreens like zinc oxide with or without titanium dioxide were not to be recommended as the retest SPF did not meet label claims. This is a dangerous recommendation as it may influence consumers not to use mineral sunscreens. In the right concentrations mineral products are the safest sunscreens for humans and the environment.  Along with other new insoluble UV filters, mineral agents deliver better UVA protection required for truly BROAD SPECTRUM shielding to prevent sunburn, skin cancer, and photoaging.

FACTS

  • The laboratory SPF test with a solar lamp emitting a limited light spectrum compared to sunlight is useless in predicting how a sunscreen performs in Real Life sunlight for many reasons. Studies confirm  products labelled SPF 50-100 tested in sunlight are actually SPF 10-15. Professor Brian Diffey – a physicist – showed that based on laws of  biometrics and physics – most sunscreens cannot achieve a SPF above 25. FDA and Health Canada have been advised by scientists that SPF lab tests and others are accurate for lotion formulations using soluble organic filters, but are erroneous for products containing particulates like zinc oxide or titanium dioxide. The tests require modifications to accurately assess the true performance of these and other particulates. Ask any consumer if they have ever had a sunburn with mineral sunscreens using proper concentrations like 22-25% zinc oxide or 15-20% zinc oxide with a filter like titanium dioxide 7.5% or special particle dispersions. Yet 70% of fair skinned consumers may return from vacation with sunburn after applying high SPF brand name sunscreens using soluble organic filters, despite re-application every 2-3 hours and label claims of water resistance. The SPF is a fallacious test and bears no relation to outdoor performance in actual sunlight– repeating it in a different lab and comparing values just gives another useless result and cannot be used to assess the quality of a product.
  • This Consumer Report suggesting  that the best sunscreens are those using  soluble organic filters is untrue and detrimental to the consumer. The ability to prevent sunburn is one thing and the SPF may be a rough guide, but the prevention of skin cancer and photoaging depends on UVA shielding. The soluble small sized filters all enter your blood, including oxybenzone,  just banned in Hawaii because of the toxicity to coral and marine wildlife leading to severe reef degradation. The entire group are suspected hormone disruptors and may be linked to some cancers like thyroid and prostate. Worse, they give UVB-BIASED protection where the sunscreen transmits 10 times or more UVA than UVB radiation.  The UVA filter used in most sunscreens is avobenzone. It is not photostable, has a similar structure to the Hawaii banned oxybenzone – likely has similar effects – and at 3-4% in a SPF 30-50 sunscreen has a UVA-PF (UVA Protection Factor) < 10 , inadequate to prevent sun damage.
  • Proper protection approaching indoor shade and dense textiles comes from the degree of UVA protection – a UVA-PF > 10.  Higher is better and high UVA shielding usually means high UVB as well, but not vice versa. Use zinc oxide in the right concentrations and in CLEAR particle dispersions for the best UVA and BROAD SPECTRUM protection available in N. America.

THE BEST SUNSCREENS TO PREVENT SKIN CANCER AND PHOTOAGING

Safety is the prudent first principle in selecting a sunscreen. Use ONLY combinations of these filters where  available :

  • Zinc oxide, titanium dioxide, encapsulated octinoxate, ecamsule (Mexoryl SX™), bemotrizinol (Tinosorb S™), bisoctrizole (Tinosorb M™), polysilicone -15 (Parsol SLX™), iscotrizinol, octyl triazone, and bisdisulizole disodium (Neo Heliopan AP™). None are hormone disruptors and only octyl triazone is a photoallergen.
  • Avoid them if they are combined with “undesirables” – oxybenzone, avobenzone, homosalate, octisalate, octocrylene, regular octinoxate (not encapsulated), and 4-methyl benzylidene camphor – all small molecular weight filters that pass into blood, are suspected hormone disruptors, photocontact allergens, and likely degrade coral through hormone disruption.

Good filters like bemotrizinol, bisoctrizole, ecamsule, drometrizole, and bisdisulizole are of limited availability in Canada and the USA, and even abroad are usually combined with the “undesirables” and best avoided. Adequate filter levels is the second selection principle to ensure enough UVA protection and truly BROAD SPECTRUM protection.  Zinc oxide is the only safe and effective UVA filter widely available in N. America. Look for 15-25% with or without UVB filters like encapsulated octinoxate or titanium dioxide. Any sunscreen with < 15% zinc oxide hardly achieves the UVA shielding needed to prevent skin cancer and photoaging. My next blog describes:

  • How to ensure your sunscreen has good UVA protection
  • Why high UVA shielding mimics ideal protection from indoor shade and tightly woven clothing.
  • Why high UVA shielding will prevent skin cancer and photoaging.
  • Why CyberDERM sunscreens provide the best UVA shielding in very transparent esthetic products with the best sensory feel on your skin.

© Denis K. Dudley MD 2018. All Rights Reserved.

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “SUN PROTECTION MYTHS: FACTS VERSUS FICTION”

  1. I love how clearly with facts you have explained the myths on “Chemical”.
    Its a huge scare these days and without understanding the actual meaning we tend to discard anything that has the word Chemical in it.
    Thanks again for some great information Dr.Dudley.
    Keep up the awesome work!!!

    Like

  2. Interesting read, very informative. The focus needs to be on proper UVA shields, and avoiding small molecular weight filters that absorb into our bodies via the skin and become hormone disruptors .There needs to be more consumer education focusing on these components as well as the benefits of insoluble filters.

    Like

  3. All great information. Thanks for informing the public about the importance of sun safety.

    Like

  4. Very interesting read….I was especially interested to learn about the difference between ‘soluble’ and insoluble’ filters. The fact that soluble filters absorb UV rays and insoluble filters reflect rays makes switching to a zinc sunscreen a NO BRAINER!!

    Like

  5. In order to protect the skin of my children, my husband and I, we all began using the Every Morning Sun Whip. This product is exceptionally effective at protecting our skin. It is not limited to UV protection; it also serves as a soothing moisturizer. As I began using this sunscreen, I found myself drifting away from the old moisturizer that I used. As an individual with very dry skin, this sunscreen has kept my skin constantly moisturized consistently throughout the whole day from just applying it once in the morning. My family is the kind that likes to take fishing trips. For this, we are outside in the sun for most of the day. The Every Morning Sun Whip makes our weekly fishing trips much more enjoyable. This sunscreen will surely improve your lifestyle.

    Like

  6. I only use high percentage zinc on myself and my loved ones. Why take risks with chemicals that are absorbed into the blood? Just logical.

    Like

  7. Excellent post! Here’s what I have learned:

    The amount of sunscreen misinformation and unreliable testing in North America is atrocious! The SPF tests that we are taught to rely on in order to make an informed decision for our families are biased and (in my opinion) dangerous.

    The reports being published are giving us, the consumer, the illusion of safety while dissuading us from using a safe, mineral sunscreen that will actually work. All this due to the testing facility’s own lack of ability to test mineral options properly – why is it possible in Europe but not here?

    What is the point of having an SPF value on a sunscreen if the parameters of the test are not set with actual human application techniques? Do YOU paint yourself with a thick layer of sunscreen? NO…so why are the tests not performed with this in mind?

    Most manufacturers are relying on the public’s lack of knowledge regarding SPF testing methods and the true meaning of buzz words such as ‘chemical’, ‘organic’ and ‘natural’ as Dr. Dudley said. This is not acceptable business practice. The sunscreen is either safe or unsafe. In the vast majority of cases in North America, the large box store brands are NOT safe. Check the labels and compare them to the ‘undesirable’ filters listed in the article, it is disappointing to say the least.

    Please read this article and do research when buying your products. If nothing else, read the final 2 paragraphs so that you know which filters are safe and which are potentially harmful. In this case, what you don’t know, can hurt you. Protect yourselves!

    Like

  8. I had NO idea that SPF testing with solar lamps doesn’t properly replicate real sunlight. That explains why I’ve seen many people still get sun damage, even when using a “high SPF” sunscreen!

    I’m looking forward to your next blog post. In the meantime, I will definitely check out CyberDERM’s products and spread the word. Thanks for the info!

    Like

  9. Thank you, Dr. Dudley for this informative post.

    Could we hear about the pros and cons between zinc oxide and titanium dioxide:

    1) Zinc could theoretically be metabolized in the unlikely event it makes it into the bloodstream. Titanium, on the other hand, is simply a toxic metal that doesn’t belong in the body. Why risk it?

    2) Titanium dioxide, I read many years ago, releases free radicals upon exposure to UV rays potentially negating any benefit as a sunscreen active.

    If there is truth to these points, why bother including titanium dioxide in any sunscreen?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s