These filters include :
- oxybenzone, avobenzone, homosalate, octisalate, octocrylene, 4-methyl benzilidene camphor and regular octinoxate.
- zinc oxide, encapsulated octinoxate, titanium dioxide, and Tinosorb S and Tinosorb M (still awaiting FDA and Health Canada approval)
Here is an excerpt from
the EWG report naming Neutrogena as the number 1 sunscreen to avoid:
“The
Environmental Working Group (EWG) has released their 2015 guide to sunscreen,
and among the worst brands for sun protection is the number one culprit for
toxicity and false advertising, Neutrogena.“Neutrogena’s advertising hype is
further from reality than any other major brand we studied. It claims to be the
“#1 dermatologist recommended suncare brand, yet all four products highlighted
on Neutrogena’s suncare web page rate 7, in the red – worst – zone in our
database,” says EWG. Not only do many Neutrogena sunscreens contain
harmful chemicals like oxybenzone and methylisothiazolinone –– but their
advertised SPF levels of over 70 have been debunked by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration. According to the federal department, SPF levels max out at about
50. Europe, Australia and Japan have already banned brands from advertising SPF
levels over 50. EWG states 80 per cent of Neutrogena sunscreens contain
oxybenzone, “a hormone-disrupting sunscreen filter” and 33 per cent contain
retinyl palmitate, “a form of vitamin A linked to skin damage”.
Taking it a Step Further:
What the document does
not say is that the entire class of soluble filters – benzophenone, homosalate and
others likely have the same effects and that all the leading brands that use
these filters are equally harmful. This would include most Johnson and Johnson,
L’Oreal, Coppertone, Proctor and Gamble, Banana Boat products, and 85 % of
available sunscreens (EWG Hall of Shame 2015). The same filters give UVB
biased protection and do not prevent cancer and photoaging. They are likely a
factor in rising skin cancer rates. There are a growing list of adverse effects
like reproductive problems, autism spectrum disorders and ADHD linked to
hormone disruptors that must include soluble sunscreen filters – oxybenzone,
avobenzone, homosalate, octisalate, octocrylene and others. Each
person should make their own choice between two classes of sunscreens.
Either choose sunscreens with small molecular weight soluble filters that
obtain tissue levels, give incomplete or UVB-biased protection
to prevent sunburn but little protection against skin cancer and
photoaging, and probably have harmful effects due to hormone disruption and
carcinogenic effects. The alternative is to choose a balanced sunscreen with
insoluble particle type filters that remain on the skin, give you balanced
UVB/UVA or better protection, and have no possible adverse effects.
A Word on Recent Controversy:
CBS news just reported a
Consumers Report from May 2015 that 11/34 sunscreens failed to achieve their
SPF claims at only 16-70% of their labelled value. This mirrors another report
from a consumer group in the UK reported on the BBC website that only 1 in 5
consumers in Britain understand that the SPF only predicts UVB or sunburn
protection and are aware of or understand that the Boots-Diffey star
system of 1-5 stars is an index of UVA protection and the balance or ratio of
UVA/UVB protection. The BBC also reported in May a consumer group testing of
Boots and Hawaiian Tropic sunscreens in the UK, showed the majority did not
meet their SPF claims. You do not need studies to prove this – just ask most
fair-skinned consumers on holiday – most end up with a sunburn despite using
the typical brand names and re-applying them every 2-3 hours as
instructed.
SPF values are
manipulated by adding anti-inflammatory agents that do not extinct any UV
radiation but decrease the redness on skin and mask the biologic marker and
first warning signal for injury to the skin. The solar lamps in labs have a
sharp fall at 370 nm and a cut-off of 400nm- unlike sunlight where the curve
continues to rise. Studies measuring SPF in actual sunlight show that even high
SPF sunscreens at 30-100 usually only attain 10-20% of their labelled SPF
claims. It was reported at the Annual Photomedicine Meeting in San Francisco
this year that as an example Neutrogena Ultra-Sheer SPF 65 had a SPF value of
only 10 in sunlight. The MED responses were assessed by luminary dermatologists
not a lab technician!
Ways Forward:
We have always said that
using SPF, UVA-PF, and CW values to establish the level of protection is the
regulatory hurdle to assure adequate sun protection- an SPF of 30-50, a UVA-PF
of a minimum 10 for SPF 30 and a minimum of 17 for SPF to meet or exceed the EU
criteria of a UVA-PF/SPF ratio >1/3, and a CW of >370 nm as the secondary
measure of balanced protection. This should be expressed on a label as a global
standard in a very easy and transparent system to understand for sun
protection- minimal, medium, high, and very high.
We advocate that
sunscreens be UVA dominant with the ratio as close to 1 as possible, given the
new studies over the past 10 years that prove UVA is the main factor in cancer
and aging. UVB produces superficial injury as a shorter wavelength and lower
intensity- it initiates sunburn and the DNA damage cycle, and modulates the
process. UVA1 produces deeper DNA injury in the dermis, produces local and
systemic inhibition of the immune system, and completes the damage cycle for
photoaging and cancer. The majority of mutations in the keratotic basal layer
where most cancers arise are UVA fingerprint mutations (not UVB as previously
assumed), from hallmark studies over the past decade. UVA does not vary with
latitude, or time of day, is present on cloudy days, is 15 X more intense than
UVB, penetrates car and window glass, and is a deeper penetrating longer
wavelength. It is easier to decrease your UVB exposure than to hide from UVA.
Over 40 years it was counter-intuitive for dermatologists to believe that UVB
was the main culprit in cancer and photoaging. Most still do.
The entire protection
strategy that includes the use of UVB-biased sunscreens has failed as is
evident from rising cancer rates. In N. America rising skin cancer rates are
due in part to ineffective sunscreens with partial UV or UVB-biased coverage. 5
million NMSC cases in the USA now cost the health care system 8.1 billion (up
from I million in 1987). In the UK skin cancer has shown an alarming increase
of 40% in the past 4 years. In Canada rates rise at a steady 2-3% per annum and
melanoma was the 2nd fastest rising cancer in 2014-15. It is
now the leading cause of cancer death in girls aged 15-30 years. Balanced UVA
dominant sunscreens could reduce skin cancer rates in 4 decades- NMSC by up to
80% and melanoma by up to 55%.
Final Recommendations:
Until Tinosorb S and Tinosorb M are approved by the FDA and Health
Canada, the only filter or combination of filters in N. America that meet the
requirements for safety and balanced protection are as follows:
· Zinc oxide alone, zinc oxide plus titanium dioxide, or zinc oxide plus encapsulated octinoxate
are safe among those available here. Mexoryl SX and LX are also molecules that
are > the 500 Dalton rule for no percutaneous entry- both are owned by
L’Oreal and are never used without other undesirable filters from the soluble
group.
· Any filter has to used after expert consideration of the absorption
curve and transmission metrics, the concentration of each filter, and the
proper dispersion of actives within inactive ingredients. The Honest Company
(Jessica Alba) fiasco demonstrates this. They had a 20% ZnO but
complaints of poor esthetics were an issue. They reduced the ZnO to 9% - no
other active. Anyone with a basic knowledge of Photometrics would know that the
true SPF or Real Life SPF in sunlight can only be 12-15 maximum. Each filter
based on its UVB/UVA2 absorption efficiency has a finite SPF units per 1%
concentration. This only provides minimal UVB or sunburn protection for < 1
hour in the full sun for a very fair-skinned person. If it was dispersed poorly
this could fall to around 15 minutes- hence all those sunburns seen on
mother-baby blogs. At 9% a second primary and safe UVB filter would be required
–either titanium dioxide or encapsulated octinoxate in a concentration of 7.5%
to attain a true SPF of around 25-28. Zinc oxide at >15 % with 7.5% of
either titanium dioxide or encapsulated octinoxate will reach SPF 30 plus and
have adequate UVA protection.
Chart with Theoretical Maximum SPF Units per 1% of Active
| Filter | Max. # of SPF Units per 1% of Active |
| UVB | |
| Octinoxate | 2.8 |
| Homosalate | 1.5 |
| Titanium Dioxide | 2.6 |
| Octisalate | 1.6 |
| Oxybenzone | 2.3 |
| Octocrylene | 2.1 |
| UVA | |
| Avobenzone | 1.9 |
| Zinc Oxide | 1.6 |
| Tinosorb M | 2.2 |
| Tinosorb S | 3.1 |
Simply Zinc™ (CyberDERM) with 22% gives the
best balanced protection and Every Morning Sun Whip ™ is not far behind. We
believe both are the most esthetic zinc oxide sunscreens found anywhere.
Consumers love the products knowing they are safe even for pregnancy and give
maximal protection. My dermatologist wife needed a sunscreen to actually
prevent skin cancer and photoaging, and as a high risk obstetrician, I needed
to know filters did not pass into maternal blood and reach the fetus. A safe,
effective, and esthetic sunscreen was hard to find, so we made our own.
Finally, at the World Congress in Dermatology, we learned that there may
be evidence that the soluble filters are also photocarcinogenic and induce skin
cancer in susceptible subjects- another reason for soluble filters to be banned
under The Precautionary Principle. Imagine how egregious it is that a product
could cause the disease it is supposed to prevent. However, I am not
optimistic that anything will change. Finally, several of the soluble filters –
octinoxate, avobenzone and octocrylene can be encapsulated that converts them
to larger size, so they behave like insoluble particles and become safe. We use
encapsulated octinoxate in one sunscreen. The silica capsule is inert and the
molecule now sits on the skin like zinc oxide and attains the same safety
profile. Encapsulation increases the size from 0.5 nm to 7 microns- larger by
about 14,000 times. Industry inexplicably ignores this technology that would
make some of the offending filters safe.
© Denis K.
Dudley MD 2015. All Rights reserved.
