Sunscreen safety for kids: what parents need to know about choosing a safe sunscreen for their kids this summer

Every parent wants to protect their kids with a safe and effective sunscreen this summer. Here is what every parent needs to know to make the best decision.

by: Denis K. Dudley MD, FRCS(C), Board Certified in OB-GYN, USA, Canada, Great Britain. Sub-Specialty Practice in Maternal Fetal Medicine & Reproductive Endocrinology.

Hundreds of scientific papers show that 12 petrochemical or Soluble Organic UV Filters (SOUVF) – oxybenzone, avobenzone, octinoxate, octocrylene, octinoxate, homosalate, octisalate and 6 others are:

• Neither safe nor effective – toxic to humans and wildlife while NOT preventing  skin cancer in a general population. The FDA (FEB 2019) agreed that SOUVF cannot be  Generally Regarded As Safe and Effective (GRASE), calling them “Marketed Unapproved”, while 2 mineral UV Filters -zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are categorized as GRASE.
• Fat soluble low molecular weight chemicals, ensuring their absorption through the epidermis  of humans, coral, and most wildlife species, reaching every cell in the organism (bioavailability), including your child’s brain and those in the fetus. 100% of pregnant women tested by the CDC had oxybenzone in blood and up to 3 million newborns are polluted at birth in N. America. Mineral UV Filters are insoluble larger molecular weight compounds that never permeate intact skin, eliminating any risk of systemic toxicity to most species. 
• Subject to human bioavailability (also confirmed by the FDA), and wildlife pollution is also a fact, bioavailability becomes the first step in toxicity to humans, wildlife, and the marine eco-system – permeation, then hormone disruption, DNA mutation and genotoxicity. 

Bioavailability alone is reason enough for humans to avoid SOUVF, yet there is no warning label on SOUVF sunscreens, as there is for Aspirin and many vitamins or OTC drugs.  Numerous studies show actual and potential risks for:

Reproductive/metabolic disorders and cancers :

FEMALE – infertility, uterine fibroids, endometriosis, PCOS, uterine and breast cancer, obesity, and diabetes.

MALE – infertility, prostate cancer, thyroid cancer, obesity, diabetes. 

Neurodegenerative problems:  Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease. 

Obstetric  and neonatal disorders– Early miscarriage, low birth weight infants, Hirschsprung’s Disease, neural tube defects, and hypospadias. 

Childhood disorders: Asthma, ADHD, autism spectrum disorders, disorders of puberty.  

• The contamination of the global environment is alarming. Tapwater, every stream, river, lake, estuary, coral reef, ocean – even the Arctic – are all polluted with SOUVF. They pollute the food web and bioaccumulate to damage the biology of mussels, corals, crabs, shrimps, prawns, squids, fish, dolphins, birds and their unhatched eggs. Even lettuce and broccoli are contaminated with SOUVF, and people who never use a sunscreen are contaminated by tapwater and the food web.
• SOUVF deliver no benefit to humans only human toxicity and unprecedented pollution to the environment. Many studies  including the most recent meta-analysis from Silva et al (2018) show that SOUVF do not prevent skin cancer because of their UVB-BIASED protection, where up to 10 X more UVA than UVB passes through the SOUVF sunscreen (Dudley et al 2021).  Cancer statistics provide the real proof – the unrelenting rise in global rates was 2-3 % or more/per year for the 60 years of SOUVF use, while melanoma has tripled and non-melanoma cancer has doubled in the USA since 1970. 

SOUVF are a primary source of exposure to hormone disruptors where sunscreens are used. The Endocrine Society and the American Academy of Paediatrics now recommend mineral sunscreens over the SOUVF alternatives. Nineteen island states now ban or restrict non-mineral sunscreens, The continued use of SOUVF violates Medicine’s Sacred Rule of “First do No Harm” and The Precautionary Principle, which mandates that any risk of harm requires a ban on inimical chemicals, to err on the side of caution.  Prominent dermatologists like Professor Jane Grant-Kels now question this assumption perpetuated by industry and their consultants for 50 years. Could it be that the nearly universal recommendation of dermatologists and professional societies (e.g., American Academy of Dermatology, World Health Organization) to use sunscreen to prevent skin cancer is unfounded? (JAAD 2019). She also recommended that dermatologists only provide mineral sunscreens in pregnancy (JAAD 2021). SOUVF must never be used in pregnancy http://bit.ly/3MGSd7L.

• Mineral and other insoluble filters achieve the higher UVA attenuation needed to prevent skin cancer. While lawmakers fail to act, hundreds of millions of humans and future progeny  are polluted with these pesticidal petrochemicals,  an egregious act of intergenerational injustice. Global biota are all in peril. Mineral sunscreens with the required UVA filtering, used in conjunction with UV protective clothing is very effective photoprotection, and will protect the global water supply, the environment, and support reef and marine conservation. Parents need to act and insist that any Regulatory Framework for sunscreens meet Medicine’s First Rule and the Benefit/Risk Construct to protect human health, in harmony with The Precautionary Principle to protect coral, wildlife, the global water supply  and the broader environment.”
• Parents and children MUST use ONLY 22-25% clear zinc oxide that delivers the UVA protection needed to prevent skin cancer w/o any risk. Be wary of celebrity brands that use inadequate levels of zinc oxide. 10% zinc oxide maybe enough for  dark skin but will not protect the fairest skin types. Be very wary of  pernicious chemicals in the inactive – butyl octyl salicylate (BOS), phenoxyethanol, acrylates and acrylate copolymers – just as toxic – and BOS, bisabolol, niacinamide and aspirin like chemicals used to reduce the warning signal of redness when your sunscreen has too little zinc oxide. Parental action is urgently required! Based on the Benefit / Risk Construct, for a physician to provide or recommend any sunscreen using Soluble Organic UV Filters is arguably unethical and a breach of a proper standard of care.