By Brenda Strong
Last night my husband and I were up late packing for our annual family
summer trip before I return to my seventh season on Desperate Housewives. My TV schedule is such that this vacation is
usually falls in June, when my son’s school summer vacation coincides with my
time off. Luckily, we are able to travel
as a family, and debated long and hard about where to go this year. Hawaii? Greece? South America? Each destination had
pluses and minuses and eventually we ended up deciding on the south of France. Since my son has been
studying French in school, we wanted to give him a chance to try his accent out
in person and have him be exposed to the culture as well. So, we did the typical checklist: Passport?
Check. Bathing suit? Check. Good book? Check. Sunscreen? Oops, not so easy. Why?
Sunscreen is becoming quite a problem for me ethically as I’m torn
between protecting my skin from sunburn, and the UVA exposure for cancer vs.
risking the loss of Vitamin D; the loss of which is now known to be causing all
sorts of health issues. Not to mention the possible side effects from the
chemicals and endocrine disruptors like oxybenzone that seem to be in so many
sunscreen products these days.
The Dilemma
I care about my skin; after all being an actress makes you more aware of
sun damage (haven’t you noticed the flawless complexions of Cate Blanchett and
Meryl Streep?). I want to know what kind
of sunscreen they use! My friend and
cast mate Marcia Cross (another flawless complexion) turned me on to a French
sunscreen called La Roche-Posay years ago that I still use, but it’s expensive
and not that easy to get. Except of course in France where we are going.
Lucky me, mais oui!
But these days, more than how my skin looks, I’m now concerned of what
goes on my body since I am aware of the endocrine disruptors that our skin
absorbs that may mess with my hormones.
Since teaching my Strong Yoga4Fertility classes, I’ve recommend to my
students that they don’t put anything on their skin they couldn’t put in their
mouth (in other words organic coconut oil is a great natural moisturizer with
no side effect for fertility and it’s edible).
When it comes to my own skin care, I’ve been using a facial line of
products called the ‘green apple collection’ by Juice Beauty because the base
is organic apple juice and I feel confident in their USDA approvals for my
skin.
http://www.juicebeauty.com/
But back to sunscreens and putting products on your skin that you can
eat.
Have you ever tasted some of the sunscreens out there? Or gotten them in your eyes? My guess is if I can’t see, and it leaves a
chemical taste in my mouth for hours, chances are its not good for me.
Well, I had to find out about sunscreens, because I want to know what to
put on the rest of my family’s skin for our summer vacation as well. So I did a little research. Thankfully, there is a wonderful organization
out there called the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and they have published
a full report on Sunscreen for 2010 that will help us all when we have to make
the sunscreen choice for our families and ourselves.
http://www.ewg.org/2010sunscreen/finding-the-best-sunscreens/
In addition, reporter Lori Bongiomo was able to distill the information and highlight the things to
look for and avoid when purchasing your sunscreen:
“Higher SPF (sun protection factor) products are
not necessarily best. In fact, the FDA says these numbers
can be misleading. It is important to remember that the SPF is based
solely on UVB protection so that indicates protection against
sunburn-causing rays, but has nothing to do with skin-damaging (UVA) rays.
There's concern that high SPF products may give people a false sense of
security and encourage people to stay out in the sun for too long without
reapplying sunscreen. EWG recommends sticking to SPF 15 to 50-plus.
Look for sunscreens with zinc, titanium dioxide,
avobenzene, or Mexoryl SX for the best UVA protection available in the U.S.
EWG recommends avoiding oxybenzone
and vitamin A
(retinyl palmitate) because of potential health concerns.
Choose lotions over sprays and powders, which fill
the air with tiny chemicals that may not be safe to breathe in.
Avoid sunscreens that have added insect repellants.
You're supposed to apply sunscreen liberally and often because chemicals wash
off and break down in the sun. In fact, many people do not use enough sunscreen
to get adequate protection. Use one ounce
(enough to fill a shot glass) and reapply at least every two hours.
Insect repellants, on the other hand, should be used sparingly.
Do not rely solely on sunscreen for sun
protection. EWG points out that there is "no consensus
that sunscreen use alone prevents skin cancer." It should be
used as one part of your strategy.
What else should you do? Limit your time
outside in the middle of the day when the sun's rays are most intense and spend
as much time in the shade as you can. Cover up with tightly woven clothing (you
can even buy sun-protective
apparel), a hat, and sunglasses.
It's also important to remember that
getting some sun has health benefits. Sunshine is your body's main source of vitamin D,
an essential nutrient that many of us don't get enough of. Sunscreen can
inhibit your body's ability to
produce vitamin D. Talk to your doctor about testing your levels and
about how to get more if you need it.
The easiest way to find sunscreens that are safe and effective is to use
EWG's database,
which has ratings on over 1,400 products from lotions and sprays to lip balms,
moisturizers, and makeup with sun protection.”
In a nutshell the EWG findings:
1. There’s no consensus on whether sunscreens prevent skin
cancer.
The Food and Drug Administration’s 2007 draft sunscreen
safety regulations say: “FDA is not aware of data demonstrating that sunscreen
use alone helps prevent skin cancer” (FDA 2007). The International Agency for
Research on Cancer agrees. IARC recommends clothing, hats and shade as primary
barriers to UV radiation and writes, “sunscreens should not be the first choice
for skin cancer prevention and should not be used as the sole agent for
protection against the sun” (IARC 2001a).
2. There’s some evidence that sunscreens might increase
the risk of the deadliest form of skin cancer for some people.
Some researchers have detected an increased risk of
melanoma among sunscreen users. No one knows the cause, but scientists
speculate that sunscreen users stay out in the sun longer and absorb more
radiation overall, or that free radicals released as sunscreen chemicals break
down in sunlight may play a role. One other hunch: Inferior sunscreens with
poor UVA protection that have dominated the market for 30 years may have led to
this surprising outcome. All major public health agencies still advise using
sunscreens, but they also stress the importance of shade, clothing and timing.
3. There are more high SPF products than ever before, but
no proof that they’re better.
In 2007 the FDA published draft regulations that would
prohibit companies from labeling sunscreens with an SPF (sun protection factor)
higher than “SPF 50+.” The agency wrote that higher values were “inherently
misleading,” given that “there is no assurance that the specific values
themselves are in fact truthful…” (FDA 2007). Scientists are also worried that
high-SPF products may tempt people to stay in the sun too long, suppressing
sunburns (a late, key warning of overexposure) while upping the risks of other
kinds of skin damage.
Flaunting FDA’s proposed regulation, companies
substantially increased their high-SPF offerings in 2010. Nearly one in six
products now lists SPF values higher than 50, compared to only one in eight the
year before, according to EWG’s analysis of nearly 500 beach and sport
sunscreens. Neutrogena, with six products labeled "SPF 100," and
Banana Boat, with four, stand out among the offenders.
4. Too little sun might be harmful, reducing the body’s
vitamin D levels.
Adding to the confusion is the fact that sunshine serves a
critical function in the body that sunscreen appears to inhibit — production of
vitamin D. The main source of vitamin D in the body is sunshine, and the
compound is enormously important to health – it strengthens bones and the
immune system, reduces the risk of various cancers (including breast, colon,
kidney, and ovarian cancers) and regulates at least 1,000 different genes
governing virtually every tissue in the body. (Mead 2008) Over the last two
decades, vitamin D levels in the U.S.
population have been decreasing steadily, creating a “growing epidemic of
vitamin D insufficiency” (Ginde 2009a). Experts disagree on the solution. The
American Medical Association has recommended 10 minutes of direct sun (without
sunscreen) several times a week (AMA 2008), while the American Academy of
Dermatology holds that “there is no scientifically validated, safe threshold
level of UV exposure from the sun that allows for maximal vitamin D synthesis
without increasing skin cancer risk” (AAD 2009). Vitamin D supplements are the
alternative, but there is debate over the proper amount. The Institute of Medicine has
launched new research to reassess the current guidelines. In the meantime, your
doctor can test your vitamin D levels and give advice on sunshine versus
supplements.
5. The common sunscreen ingredient vitamin A may speed the
development of cancer.
Recently available data from an FDA study indicate that a
form of vitamin A, retinyl palmitate, when applied to the skin in the presence
of sunlight, may speed the development of skin tumors and lesions (NTP 2009).
This evidence is troubling because the sunscreen industry adds vitamin A to 41
percent of all sunscreens.
The industry puts vitamin A in its formulations because it
is an anti-oxidant that slows skin aging. That may be true for lotions and
night creams used indoors, but FDA recently conducted a study of vitamin A’s
photocarcinogenic properties, the possibility that it results in cancerous
tumors when used on skin exposed to sunlight. Scientists have known for some
time that vitamin A can spur excess skin growth (hyperplasia), and that in
sunlight it can form free radicals that damage DNA (NTP 2000).
In FDA’s one-year study, tumors and lesions developed up
to 21 percent sooner in lab animals coated in a vitamin A-laced cream (at a
concentration of 0.5%) than animals treated with a vitamin-free cream. Both
groups were exposed to the equivalent of just nine minutes of maximum intensity
sunlight each day.
It’s an ironic twist for an industry already battling
studies on whether their products protect against skin cancer. The FDA data are
preliminary, but if they hold up in the final assessment, the sunscreen
industry has a big problem. In the meantime, EWG recommends that consumers
avoid sunscreens with vitamin A (look for “retinyl palmitate” or “retinol” on
the label). Read more.
6. Free radicals and other skin-damaging byproducts of
sunscreen.
Both UV radiation and many common sunscreen ingredients
generate free radicals that damage DNA and skin cells, accelerate skin aging
and cause skin cancer. An effective sunscreen prevents more damage than it
causes, but sunscreens are far better at preventing sunburn than at limiting
free radical damage. While typical SPF ratings for sunburn protection range
from 15 to 50, equivalent “free radical protection factors” fall at only about
2. When consumers apply too little sunscreen or reapply it infrequently,
behaviors that are more common than not, sunscreens can cause more free radical
damage than UV rays on bare skin.
7. Pick your sunscreen: nanomaterials or potential hormone
disruptors.
The ideal sunscreen would completely block the UV rays
that cause sunburn, immune suppression and damaging free radicals. It would
remain effective on the skin for several hours and not form harmful ingredients
when degraded by UV light. It would smell and feel pleasant so that people use
it in the right amount and frequency.
Unsurprisingly, there is currently no sunscreen that meets
all of these criteria. The major choice in the U.S. is between “chemical”
sunscreens, which have inferior stability, penetrate the skin and may disrupt
the body’s hormone systems, and “mineral” sunscreens (zinc and titanium), which
often contain micronized- or nano-scale particles of those minerals.
After reviewing the evidence, EWG determined that mineral
sunscreens have the best safety profile of today’s choices. They are stable in
sunlight and do not appear to penetrate the skin. They offer UVA protection,
which is sorely lacking in most of today’s sunscreen products. Mexoryl SX (ecamsule)
is another good option, but it’s sold in very few formulations. Tinosorb S and
M could be great solutions but are not yet available in the U.S. For
consumers who don’t like mineral products, we recommend sunscreens with
avobenzone (3 percent for the best UVA protection) and without the notorious
hormone disruptors oxybenzone or 4-MBC. Scientists have called for parents to
avoid using oxybenzone on children due to penetration and toxicity concerns.
8. Europe’s better
sunscreens.
Sunscreen makers and users in Europe have more
options than in the United
States. In Europe, sunscreen makers can
select from among 27 chemicals for their formulations, compared to 17 in the
U.S. Companies selling in Europe can add any of seven UVA filters to their
products, but have a choice of only three when they market in the U.S. European
sunscreens could earn FDA’s proposed four-star top rating for UVA protection,
while the best U.S. products would earn only three stars. Sunscreen chemicals
approved in Europe but not by the FDA provide up to
five times more UVA protection; U.S. companies
have been waiting five years for FDA approval to use the same compounds. Last
but not least, Europeans will find many sunscreens with strong (mandatory) UVA
protection if proposed regulations in Europe are
finalized. Under FDA’s current proposal, Americans will not.
9. The 33rd summer in a row without final U.S. sunscreen
safety regulations.
In the United
States, consumer protection has stalled
because of the FDA’s 32-year effort to set enforceable guidelines for consumer
protection. EWG has found a number of serious problems with existing products,
including overstated claims about their perfomance and inadequate UVA
protection. Many of these will be remedied when the FDA’s proposed sunscreen
rule takes effect. But even after the rule is enacted, gaps will remain. FDA
does not consider serious toxicity concerns such as hormone disruption when
approving new sun filters, and the new rules would fail to measure sunscreen
stability despite ample evidence that many products break down quickly in
sunlight.
The
Solution:
According to Lori Bongiomo, an environmental reporter for the conscious
consumer, below are the most affordable products that earned the EWG stamp of
approval (calculated based on price per ounce):
Purple Prairie
Botanicals, SunStuff, SPF 30 or SPF 15
All Terrain,
Aquasport Performance Sunscreen, SPF 30
All Terrain,
KidSport Performance Sunscreen, SPF 30
All Terrain,
TerraSport Performance Sunscreen, SPF 30
Carribean
Solutions, Kid Kare, SPF 25, Caribbean
Solutions, Biodegradable Sunscreen, SPF 25
Desert Essence,
Age Reversal Mineral Sunscreen, SPF 30
Episencial,
Sunny Sunscreen, SPF 35
Estion,
Sunscreen with Zinc, SPF 38
Jason Natural
Cosmetics, Earth's Best: Sunblock Mineral Based, SPF 30+
Jason Natural
Cosmetics, Sunbrellas: Chemical-Free Sunblock, SPF 30+
Jason Natural
Cosmetics, Sunbrellas: Mineral-Based Physical Sunblock, SPF 30+
Vanicream,
Sunscreen Sport, SPF 35
After going onto the EWG site and looking at the list of
sunscreens, (I shockingly found out that the one I am using currently has the
endocrine disruptor oxybenzone in it) so I decided I was better off buying my
sunscreen in Europe where they have stronger restrictions, taking a large
sunhat and staying in the shade during the hottest times of the day. Not the most ideal of situations, but it will
do until the FDA decides to do a better job at protecting us here in the US.
BIOGRAPHY:Brenda Strong in addition to being a professional
actress, is the National Spokesperson for The American Fertility
Association and has produced a line of Yoga for Fertility related
products (www.yoga4fertility.com).
Recent Comments