EWG Sunscreen Report Misleading, Skin Expert Says (Go Ahead, Slather It On)

7

sun tan

After reading the Environmental Working Group's 2010 Sunscreen Guide released today, I did what millions of others probably did -- I panicked. According to the EWG, only a few dozen of hundreds of sunscreens on the market actually protect us like they should. After plugging in the two products I use regularly on myself and my kids, only one made the cut. The other was on the "avoid" list because it contained "harmful chemicals" and didn't live up to its claims.

Five hundred sunscreens on the market using the latest technology and only 39 work. Really?

Dermatologist Dr. Zoe Draelos, a consulting professor at the Duke University School of Medicine and spokesperson for the American Academy of Dermatology, who also tests sunscreen products in her laboratory, applauds the EWG for looking at the safety and effectiveness of sunscreens, but feels the group is making unfair "sweeping generalizations."

"I think it's very sad," Draelos says. "A lot of their sunscreen recommendations are based on very old technology, and some of the best sunscreens on the market have newer chemicals that are much more effective. A lot of their opinions are not keeping pace with technology and an understanding of the science of these formulations. The nuances of sunscreens are very important."

You also have to consider the source. The EWG is a research and advocacy group that tries to change public policy and industry standards, largely through consumer-friendly tools and databases similar to the sunscreen report. The EWG's critics, largely members of industry, have argued that they often over-exaggerate data to promote its political agenda, which it does explicitly through a separate lobbying group.

The bottom line is they don't like manmade chemicals and would never recommend a product containing a chemical with "unknown" health effects. That's why you won't find sunscreens containing anything other than zinc and titanium, from brands such as Badger, California Baby, and Loving Naturals, on its list. Among its most hated: oxybenzone, an ingredient common to many sunscreens that in some studies has been linked to cancer. But there's no consensus on that.

I don't like the idea of my body absorbing chemicals with unknown health effects either, but I dislike the idea of skin cancer even more, and until they can prove the former risk outweighs the latter, I'll need a little more convincing. And truly, doesn't everything we do, use, and eat have unknown health risks these days?

Draelos noted that zinc and titanium, when made into very small concentrations as is common for skin care products, can be absorbed into the skin, as well. No one is sure what the long-term health effects from them are, either.

The other really awful sunscreen ingredient that the EWG alerts us about is vitamin A and its derivatives, specifically retinol and retinyl palmitate. You've probably seen the anti-aging claims on many sunscreen products; these probably claim to contain "vitamin A."

The EWG will tell you that these ingredients could actually promote cancer.

Another misspoken claim, explains Draelos.

Retinol or Retin-A is a skin peeler -- it removes dead skin cells from the outer layer of the dermis, and by virtue of that, your body's ability to block cancer-causing UV rays is decreased. That's why people who use it are told to wear sunblock and to use it only at night, because the sunlight deactivates it. In other words, it does nothing.

Retinyl palmitate, an anti-oxidant used strictly as a preservative to help the product retain its creaminess, is likely the retinol derivative found in these products, and it is completely safe, Draelos says.

I wanted to know if I should continue using my current sunscreens and Draelos said yes. Despite the EWG's claims that products with really high SPFs drastically overstate their sun protection claims, Draelos still suggests a product of at least 50 or more.

Like the EWG, she agrees the FDA needs to get on the stick and finish up their set of standards for measuring UVA rays, the deeply penetrating ones, that they've been working on for years. I agree that we won't really know if the products are protecting us as well as they claim until then. Draelos says that will eliminate a lot of confusion the EWG has over many of these sunscreen issues.

Meantime, there's no good reason to stop doing what we've been doing.

"You're going to be fine," says Draelos, who has faith in these companies and the testing they put their products through. "These sunscreen makers have a lot of resources riding on their products, customer service is important to them, and they want to be the leaders in this area for many years to come."

Did the EWG report scare you off your current sunscreen?

politics

7 Comments

To add a comment, please log in with

Use Your CafeMom Profile

Join CafeMom or Log in to your CafeMom account. CafeMom members can keep track of their comments.

Join CafeMom or Log in to your CafeMom account. CafeMom members can keep track of their comments.

Comment As a Guest

Guest comments are moderated and will not appear immediately.

nonmember avatar momandwife

I completely agree with you!  As you say, the EWC "over-exaggerates data to promote its political agenda"--right on!  They are just like PETA and the Physicians Committee for Responsible medicine.  You have to read between the lines.  There's no way I'm letting my little 4-year old Snow White outside with no sunscreen on a blazing 90 degree day...even if it's not on the "safe" list.  She would be a lobster is less than an hour---now how can that be better than wearing "toxic" sunscreen???

nonmember avatar Tanya

Draelos "has faith in these companies" and says retinyl palmitate is "completely safe?" Those are two clues right there not to trust a thing she says. The large skin care companies are not looking out for us or protecting us from harmful ingredients -- they are focused only on their bottom lines. 

MVOrg... MVOrganics

Why slather on toxic chemicals when there are safe and effective alternative??? The 2010 EWG Guide gives some effective options without nanoparticles: http://www.ewg.org/2010sunscreen/finding-the-best-sunscreens/?search=&brand_id=&ptype=moisturizer

nonmember avatar Toni

I'll admit I freaked out when I read the report from EWG and went to three different stores to find a sunscreen without retinyl palmitate.  I'm not usually one to jump on the band wagon but I have two children ages 4 and 1 and we spend a lot of time outdoors.  I would rather be safe than sorry when it come to their health.  I found water babies pure and simple and I'll continue to use that product until the FDA comes up with something more concrete.

nonmember avatar Lois

I discovered the EWG website after wondering whether my Banana Boat SPF 50 sunscreen was really doing the job.  I had gone to the beach with a friend.  He didn't wear any sunscreen and he did not get a sunburn; I wore the Banana Boat and got a sunburn!  So through EWG I found out that Banana Boat is not an effective sunscreen.  I'm glad I discovered the EWG website.  Now I use a sunscreen that really prevents sunburn.

nonmember avatar sue ingram

Excellent queries on the political agenda aspect connected to the credibility of EWG and their sunscreen report. I guess if it all were that simple - making effective sunscreens that is - then we wouldn't be left with such a dilemma. The FDA would have been able to make their decision long ago too. I like the information EWG provides and the challenges they make but then I do a whole lot more research where necessary before making my own decision. I find there are some holes - like their Skin Deep database where many ingredients are listed as a zero but yet have a 100% data gap. Not sure how they could change this, and I understand that the DB must be really massive, but it can be misleading.
Ultimately I recommend choosing a physical sunscreen over chemical plus high UVA protection and if possible an SPF of 30 or more. Plus none of the other baddies like the parabens and propylene glycol.

amand... amandasmomma

Yes, the EWG report did scare me off one of my current sunscreens-- Hawaiian Tropic Baby Sunscreen Stick-- which was #1 on their hall of shame list...I was already concerned about sunscreens based on some reports that the chemicals in sunscreens may cause cancer.


I agree with Tanya above and "I don't like the idea of my body absorbing chemicals with unknown health effects either, but I dislike the idea of skin cancer even more"...what about if those chemicals cause skin cancer?


 

1-7 of 7 comments
F