Could a Common Sunscreen Ingredient Speed Cancer Development?

Flickr/<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/boynton/">Lucy Boynton</a>

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


I could really use some better sunscreen. Red-headed, freckled, and ridiculously pale (think: a few shades lighter than your average slice of Wonder Bread), I burn at the slightest suggestion of a sunny day, even though I religiously slather on the SPF one-bazillion goop. Last year, I wrote a piece for Mother Jones about how sunscreen manufacturers’ claims (All day protection! Sweat proof! SPF through the roof!) rarely measure up to the products’ performance. So when I heard that the Environmental Working Group was releasing its 2010 list of best and worst sunscreens, I had hope: Would this be the year sunscreen manufacturers finally figured out how to save me from turning into a Twizzler after 10 minutes of yard work?

You’d think so, since according to the new report, 1 in 6 sunscreens is now labeled with an SPF of above 50, compared to 1 in 8 last year. Sounds like good news, since higher SPF means more protection, right? Not really, says EWG senior analyst Sean Gray. The difference between an SPF 50 product and and SPF 110 product is minuscule. Gray believes the sky-high SPF labels can actually be dangerous. “We have studies that show that people who use the higher SPF products don’t reapply it,” says Gray. “So they end up with more UV exposure overall.” (Mother Jones reported on this phenomenon back in the day.)

Another scary new finding: There is preliminary evidence from a recent FDA animal study that a form of vitamin A called retinyl palmitate, present in about 40 percent of sunscreens, may accelerate the development of skin cancer. Researchers applied sunscreens containing retinyl palmitate to one group of hairless mice and sunscreens without the additive to another group. When exposed to UV radiation, the retinyl palmitate group developed lesions and tumors significantly faster than than the non-retinyl palmitate group. What’s frightening is that people see “vitamin” and “think it’s good for them,” says Gray.

So which sunscreens are best? EWG says so-called “mineral blockers,” which generally use nanoparticles of zinc or titanium oxide to block UV light, are safer than “chemical blockers,” since they protect against both UVA and UVB rays (UVB cause burns, but UVA rays have been linked to skin cancer) and don’t become unstable in sunlight. Are nanoparticles completely safe? “All the research we’ve looked at suggests they don’t penetrate the skin, but there is still debate about that,” says Gray. If you do choose a chemical blocker, choose one with avobenzone, which protects against both UVA and UVB rays. Stay away from oxybenzone, which only filters out UVB light, and could also disrupt hormonal function.

The bright side: The FDA expects to debut its long-awaited new sunscreen labeling system—which will require manufacturers to include information about both UVA and UVB protection and ban claims of SPFs higher than 50—this coming October.

Here’s a list of EWG’s best and worst sunscreens of 2010:

EWG’s 8 “Hall of Shame” Sunscreens (in no particular order):

1. Banana Boat MAX Protect & Play Baby Lotion SPF 100

Why: Despite high SPF value, offers poor UVA protection.

2. iS Clinical SPF 20 Powder Sunscreen & Peter Thomas Roth Instant Mineral SPF 30

Why: “Loose powder sunscreens can enter the airways and may move from the lungs to the bloodstream.”

3. Hawaiian Tropic SPF 50 Baby Creme Lotion

Why: Despite its claim of “advanced UVA protection,” EWG’s research shows it’s a poor UVA blocker.

4. Aveeno Baby Continuous Protection Sunblock Lotion SPF 55

Why: “Mild as water” claim is misleading.

5. Anthony Logistics for Men Sun Stick SPF 15

Why: “This product’s directions tell users to ‘Apply to eye area,’ but the warnings advise: ‘Keep out of eyes.'”

6. Panama Jack Naturals Baby Sunblock SPF 50

Why: Contains oxybenzone, a suspected hormone disruptor.

7. Banana Boat Ultra Defense Sunscreen SPF 50 Stick

Why: Label claims, “It doesn’t break down,” but, like all sunscreens, it still needs to be reapplied regularly.

8. Baby Blanket Tender Scalps Spray SPF 45+

Why: Poor UVA protection.

 

Best Sunscreens (these products scored a 1, the best score EWG issues):

Badger
SPF 30 Unscented Natural Sunscreen
SPF 30 for Face and Body

California Baby
No Fragrance SPF 30+ Sunblock Stick 

Loving Naturals
Sunscreen, SPF 30+ 

Purple Prairie Botanicals
Sun Stuff SPF 30 Lotion
Sun Stick SPF 30 

Soleo Organics
All Natural Sunscreen, SPF 30+
Soleo Organics/Wyland Organics All Natural Sunscreen, SPF 30+
Soleo Organics/Atlantis Resort All Natural Sunscreen, SPF 30+ 

thinkbaby and thinksport
Safe Sunscreen, SPF 30+ 

UVNatural
Baby Sunscreen, SPF 30+
Sport Sunscreen, SPF 30+

Best chemical-blocker sunscreens: 

Beyond Coastal
Active SPF 30 Sunscreen
Daily SPF 15 Sunscreen

BullFrog
Ultimate Sheer Protection FACE, SPF 30
Ultimate Sheer Protection, SPF 30 

Coppertone
ultraGUARD Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 15
Oil-Free Lotion SPF 15
Sport Sunblock Lotion, SPF 15 

Glytone
Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 25 

La Roche-Posay
Anthelios 15 Sunscreen, SPF 15 

For the full scoop, including the conflicting research on whether sunscreen prevents us from getting the vitamin D we need, Europe’s better UVA-blocking ingredients, and the full list of sunscreens evaluated and their ratings, check out EWG’s full 2010 report. For more tips on sunscreen (How often should you reapply? How long should you keep a bottle of sunscreen around before it expires?) read “Sunscreen’s Shady Claims.”

Got a burning question? Submit your environmental dilemmas to econundrums@motherjones.com. Get all your green questions answered by signing up for our weekly Econundrums newsletter here.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate