NPR: FDA: It's Time to Tell the Truth About Sunscreens

FDA: It's Time to Tell the Truth About Sunscreens

I am the whitest guy on the planet. I am day-glo, all-Canadian white. In the summer, I never attempt to tan; I just try to neutralize the blue. One of the most humbling experiences of my life was when a group of smiling Turkish children danced around on a Mediterranean beach several years ago calling me "Uncle White" — they told my wife, who speaks Turkish, that they had never seen anyone so pale before.

In the old days, before SPF 45, I kept completely covered up at the beach. I looked like a mugger on holiday — pants, hoodie, ball cap pulled low. But sunscreen freed me to be able to entertain small children on foreign beaches.

So I was interested to find out that government regulators, under pressure from Congress, have proposed, as the Los Angeles Times reports, new "truth in labeling" rules for sunscreen to "give consumers clearer, more complete information on protection against cancer-causing ultraviolet rays."

Seems that the sunscreen industry, which is worth $450 million a year, has only been testing for one type of ultraviolet radiation — UVB, which can burn the skin. But, as NPR's Patricia Neighmond reports on Morning Edition, it turns out that UVA rays, which tan the skin, can also cause cancer. So the Food and Drug Administration says it wants to change the rules to force manufacturers to test for both.

And forget all that waterproof stuff. The FDA says it doesn't believe those claims are accurate. Lotions would also carry warnings that they alone offer "no guarantee against the sun's rays, and that consumers should also stay out of the midday sun and consider wearing hats and long sleeves," the Times writes.

Ah! The return of my mugger look.

9:44 AM ET | 08-24-2007 | permalink

Comments (Send a comment)

I'm very pale skinned myself, but I never use sunscreen, I usually just treat any burnage with astringent.

I wonder if the government will address the claims that sunscreen itself causes cancer?

Sent by Jody Sol | 12:52 PM ET | 08-24-2007

Question: Is UVA below 400nm wavelenghth and UVB below 280nm or is it the other way around(UVB in the 400 to 280nm range)? Thanks

Sent by Walter Bahnsen | 1:14 PM ET | 08-24-2007

Many, if not most, sunscreens today contain nanoparticles, or human-engineered molecules. We know next to nothing about the potential harmful effects of nanotechnology to human health or the environment, and yet the FDA refuses to exercise its regulatory oversight in this area.

Sent by Irene Speranza | 3:14 PM ET | 08-24-2007

Yeah for Judy Sol's comment regarding whether the FDA/government will address the claims that sunscreen itself causes cancer.
This is another area where the consumer has to inform themselves. A few minutes on the internet taught me that sunscreens fall into two categories; mineral reflectants and chemical absorbers. Chemical absorbers begin to degrade the minute they are exposed to sunlight and are rendered rather useless within minutes to a couple of hours depending on temperature and time of day. Meanwhile, the by-products from the original chemical have been absorbed into our skin, some that have an estrogenic effect (the ability to cause abnormal growth in certain tissues)depending on where the blood stream takes them.
Mineral reflectants on the other hand, do just that, they reflect the UVA,UVB and UVC rays. The active ingredients on a mineral reflectant sunscreen will read, "titanium dioxide" and "zinc oxide". Percentages vary in with different manufacturers and of course it is important to assess the rest of the ingredients as well, but a reflectant approach makes for better protection. Also, the SPF rating should not be the overriding factor for determining which sunscreen will perform better. First assess the method of protection, reflectant or chemical absorber and does it specify full or broad spectrum (UVA, UVB and maybe UVC) protection. If a person is going to be in direct sun exposure for two + hours they should be reapplying about that often. Sorry for the length of this comment, I tried to keep it short and to the point! Thanks!

Sent by Becky Nebelsick | 3:23 PM ET | 08-24-2007

Send a Comment

Comments are reviewed and edited by NPR prior to display. All comments will be read, but not all will be posted.

NPR reserves the right to read on the air and/or publish on its Web site or in any medium now known or unknown the e-mails and letters that we receive. We may edit them for clarity or brevity and identify authors by name and location. For additional information, please consult our Terms of Use.

E-mail this Page

Recipient's e-mail address:	» Up to twelve addresses, separated by commas.
Your e-mail address:
Your name:
Personal message (optional, 600 characters max):
Your NPR member station:
Are you a member of your local NPR station?	Yes No
Would you like to receive information from your local NPR member station? (see NPR's privacy policy)	Yes No
May we contact you with information about NPR programming and services? (see NPR's privacy policy)	Yes No

(Information collected by NPR will be used solely for internal NPR or NPR member station purposes and only if you selected 'yes' above. See NPR's privacy policy for more information.)

Tom Regan

Blogger

About Us

This year's election cycle has been one of the most exciting in memory. At the NPR News Blog we'll do our best to bring you interesting, informative -- and controversial -- stories from our own reporters and bloggers, as well as the rest of the best of the Internet and blogosphere. And we hope you'll let us know what you think as well.

Want to learn more? Be sure to read our Frequently Asked Questions and our discussion guidelines.