Consumer Health Features
New study reveals the best sunscreens to buy
By April MacIntyre Jul 4, 2008, 20:12 GMT
On the Web
Advertisement
_Latest Headlines in Consumer Health
- 1. Valentine beauty must-haves, the 2012 edition
- 2. Hollywood Trender: Modern Bed of Nails rids pain naturally: Halsa Mat
- 3. Hot Valentine's Day Gift: Ravi Instant Wine Chiller a cool Canadian invention
- 4. Top Rehab Facilities in America: Promises' Dr. David Sack talks Recovery
- 5. America the Booty-ful: How Dr. Mendieta's Bottom Line is reshaping the country
Older Talkback
page: 1
As someone that is HIGHLY allergic to titanium dioxide and other metals I must use sunscreens that do not contain that ever present ingredient. I hope that the FDA does not ban alternate sunscreens.
Look at the source, The Environmental Working Group. I did and came away with doubts as to the accuracy of their study.
After last year's high rating of Badger, I ordered two tubes from their internet site. I applied it fairly heavily before tennis one day, and stayed outside for about an hour. I do not feel that the sunscreen worked well at all, because I ended up being noticably pink a few hours later. A week later I tried the Badger again, and the same thing happened.
My Dermatologist recommended a Neutrogena product (SPF 70) and it worked extremely well. I don't know if it has any dangerous side effects, but I can't imagine anything working better to prevent sun burn.
I was told by lots of people that La Roche-Posey the Anthelios XL is one of the best sunscreens along with Ombre. Most derms just do not research what is out there and go by what free samples are given out by pharm sellers. One Derm in NYC that is supposed to be oe of the best in the biz gave me some lame cream for a cut on my lip. After not heaing and 350.00 out, I went to someone else, who actually looked at the cut, gave me a script and within 2 weeks the cut was healed. I realy didn't have confidence in either. My friend's derm tod her about the above sunscreen 6 years ago. of course to get an appt. with her takes now months. wonder why. Because she actually pays attention, does not just accept routie information but actually wants to read and find out about things.
who has that much confidence in the FDA anyway?
This study seems to be influenced by the manufacturers rather than
by the any kind of Dermatology people. There are compounds that are
definately better for UVB and UBA protection..
The Arbonne 15 Save face and body works very well. And it's not bad to burn you eyes. The 30 sun block works very well also. Both are easy on your skin.
I highly recommend Blue Lizard. It's been studied extensively and it works. As a nurse I recommend it to people all the time.
I've been using Alba Botanica for 2-3 years and am very happy with it. I put it on my face all summer and my arms when I plan to be out in the sun. I spend so much time outdoors that my arms still get brown, but my face tends to stay white. Almost looks weird sometimes. I do wear a straw hat at times. However, I have very fair skin and have not been burned in ages.
Alba Botanica is organic and has a light lavender scent which is supposed to be somewhat insect repellent also.
The Blue Lizard stuff kept me from burning-- good news. The sensitive skin version left my face bumpy and rashy-- not so good news.
I surf everyday in the warm California sun. Growing up surfing as a kid we spent years in the sun with no protection (sunscreen wasn't around yet)Now it is something that we take very seriously. Zinc Oxide is the only sunscreen that protects you from UVA & UVB rays yet it seems to be left out of the list. Maybe the manufacture didn't sweeten the deal enough to make the list. This kind of seems like a press release with a hidden agenda. (advertising)
'The best blocker will include ingredients like opaque compounds titanium dioxide or zinc oxide, which come in skin colors other than old school surfer boy white. Micronizing technology makes both appear more transparent on the skin.'
CVS Sunscreen with Zinc Oxide, SPF 45+
What about my favorite, Bull Frog?? Why wasn't it in the study??
from the EWG:: LIST STUDY
• Bull Frog
Displaying 1-9 of 9 sunscreens
score key -- 0-2: low hazard | 3-6: moderate hazard | 7-10: high hazard
product overall score sorted in increasing order concerns
1. Bull Frog Surfer Formula Gel, SPF 36 water resistant 3 oxybenzone, fragrance
2. Bull Frog The Quick Stick, SPF 36 water resistant 3 oxybenzone, fragrance
3. Bull Frog Superblock Lotion, SPF 45 water resistant, titanium 7 oxybenzone, fragrance
4. Bull Frog The Quik Gel Sport Spray, SPF 36 water resistant 7 oxybenzone, spray, fragrance
5. Bull Frog The Quik Gel, SPF 36 water resistant 7 oxybenzone, fragrance
6. Bull Frog Mosquito Coast, Sunblock with Insect Repellent, SPF 30 7 oxybenzone, fragrance
7. Bull Frog Kids UV Defender Fast Blast Spray, SPF 36 water resistant 7 oxybenzone, spray, fragrance
8. Bull Frog Marathon Mist Continuous Spray Sunblock, SPF 36 7 oxybenzone, spray, fragrance
9. Bull Frog Marathon Mist for Kids Continuous Spray Sunblock, SPF 36 7 oxybenzone, spray, fragrance
Wow! Guess I'll have to find a new favorite.
For the benefit of your readers, you need to add Anthelios to your 'best sunscreens' post.
Adequate protection against skin cancer requires a minimum SPF of SPF 30 and >3% Mexoryl. [If you want more details, do a search under 'why anthelios sunblock is a great choice for you']
Taking advice given by a member of the water buffalo intelligencia, I coat my sun exposed skin daily with a thin layer of organically processed wallow mud. Not only am I 100% protected from UVA and UVB, I am never troubled biting insects. Moreover, when the earthly casing is showered away at the end of a long day of athletic, agroeconomic, and culturally relevant activities, my skin has enjoyed a tremendous firming and cleansing rejuvenation. Admirers who claim that I appear no older than 30 years are shocked to learn that I am, in fact, 97. No cosmetic or pharmaceutical company has made a thin dime on my integument nor upon my non-existent vanity. Consider becomming a mudder-ficianado. Just be careful about the pronunciation.
This article is complete garbage with too many factual errors to count. The EWG it a looney left new age political group with its own idealistic agenda and no interest in the facts. There are few sources for the up to date truth about sunscreen ingredients. One good one is Paula Begoun's www.cosmeticscop.com and Paula doesn't agree with the conclusions the EWG. Since I thought their study seemed suspicious, I had written to her over this very issue last week. The only decent aspect of this article is the after comment left by the mud wallower. A rare example of a person with wit trawling around the cybersphere.
For those who go diving and wear sun screen newer studies seem to show a detrimental effect by most products on living coral. The zinc compounds have the least effect on the coral polyps. I am sure there will be more information about this in the future, but while you are protecting your skin, protect our reefs as well!
The article isn't complete garbage, the EWG makes good points regarding the toxicity levels of chemicals in the sunscreen products people slather all over themselves.
AND the EWG insists on UVA and UVB protection combined which is why the biggies like Coppertone failed so miserably.
Re-read, the author promotes the use of common sense, no sun during the worst hours,and other physical barriers.
The visual of Magda is worth a thousand words to young girls who think sunbathing is a good idea.
However, that said, mud baths do work nicely for the water buffalo and elephants. Hilarious.
The EWG has a natural cosmetic agenda for sure, but their study is most certainly not 'garbage'
Maybe you work for Neutrogena or Banana boat?
There is growing evidence for worldwide vitamin D deficiencies underlying many diseases like cancer and heart disease.... this is a more pronounced danger for dark-skinned people living far from the equator. With clothes on living in cities, many of us just don't get enough sun anymore! But be careful about advice...and worrying about skin cancer to the point of getting no UV exposure.
This article is misleading... as it says to avoid the powerful rays from 12-3 pm. Well some evidence suggests that these are the only rays that can break down cholesterol to form parental vitamin D3 in the skin... lower energy rays they suggest...can still burn you and may not even help you produce enough vitamin D. Couple this with the fact that many people do not mobilize dietary vitamin D across the stomach and intestine well, and there is a huge population at risk for vitamin D deficiency. My advice is to wear sunscreen 90+ percent of the time... but getting 10-30 minutes of pure rays... a few times a month is pretty important... the more pale skinned you are the more conservative you should be...
Awww, c'mon...I had that 'turkey wobble' neck they talk about in this article and I stayed out of the sun religiously all my fifty some years, until just a few years ago! Who comes up with this anti-sun scare tactic stuff, anyway?
I admit that I ate a really bad diet most of my life, and I've since read refined carbohydrates (cakes, candies, sugars--my old favorites) age skin quick. After a neck tuck, a diet makeover and moderate sun exposure, years later I look and feel a whole lot better.
The diet change really helped. Studies show eating some fruits and veggies (carotenoids and lycopene?) gives you natural sun screen. When I garden my shoulders don't burn anymore.
I don't suggest that anyone lay in the sun to burn and blister, but the sun has been our friend for millions of years. The American diet has little if any Vitamin D to offer. In fact. to get enough vitamin D from milk (about 4000 IU) you'd have to drink 40 cups a day!! But most Americans can get as much as 10,000 IU through your skin by just lying in the sun for 15 or 20 minutes (if you have natural sunscreen, like a tan or dark skin, it takes longer).
If we dismiss the benefits of sunning (sans sun screen) in moderation we risk our health IMHO.
What Are they talking about? My derm. told me to use a sunscreen that contained Mexoryl because it blocks parks of the UV spectrum not covered by American sunblocks. Mexoryl is not approved by the FDA higher than a 15, so I order it from Canada. Well, EWG says Anthelios doesn't do a good job. On top of that, they say Neutrogena is unstable. Neutrogena is known for just that--it's photostability. Most of the sunblocks they recommend contain boring old zinc oxide. This whole recommendation is baffling. At first I though it was just bias by the EWG, but when I looked in to them, they seemed legit so I have no reason to think they're biased.
I live in the tropics and am active in outdoor activities like kayaking and hiking. I've been using Sunplay Perfect Shield SPF 130 PA++ for years now.
This is a Japanese product of watery liquid formulation. It is also non-comedogenic (does not clog pores). Suitable for face and body. Water resistant and PABA free. It protects against harmful UVA and UVB rays.
I applied this religiously during my Annapurna circuit trek in Nepal. While most (if not all) of my friends had sunburn, I did not. I did get tanned though.
Apparently, SPF 130 does not work as well when I swam in the swimming pool. However, there is the Sunplay Water in UV SPF 25 PA++ available. Probably catered for swimming. Can't vouch for this, as I don't use it.
Based on my experience, the Sunplay Perfect Shield SPF 130 PA++ is a great product for outdoor activities. Am glad to have found it.
Additionally, the La Roche-Posay Anthelios Sunscreen is being recommended by my Centre to patients (especially for burns) for prevention of skin-discolouration. I did not use this as I've already found my preferred product.
While I have not tried many of the sunscreens mentioned, I do have to contest people's criticism of the source. Not only is it highly unlikely that the foundations who fund EWG have much stake in sun tan lotions, their analysis was likely based on chemical assays or at the least officially sanctioned descriptions. As far as the EWG's legitimacy as a whole, it's a little predictable that critics would attack 'extremely liberal' 'fear mongering' Green groups for tax purposes and lobbyist accusations.
This whole list that the EWG created has large scientific gaps not to mention what they consider scientific gaps. If you look at the EWG you can see that all that data is complied reguardless of the concentration set by the toxicology. For exaple EWG states on their web site that Methylparaben has irritancy properties. If you look at the tox study you can see that methylparaben is a primary irritant at 30% of formula. The industry uses it at .2%. And I ask how is that a fair assesment of the provided data. 30% does not equal .2% and at .2 there is no irritancy.
Also the EWG has no industry experts in regards to this category on their staff. Take a look at what they consider experts look at the who works for the EWG. No toxocologists, one enviromental chemists who has no industry experience, but they do get press.
They hold the people hostage with half truths and truncated information. To get press. They pray on what people don't understand and their fears. They do more harm than good. Email them and ask for the EWG to explain their actions!
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story