Study finds sunscreens may not live up to name

Press of Atlantic City, DANIEL WALSH
Published July 8, 2007

Not all sunscreens are created equal. With summer reaching full heat and more sunbathers hitting the beaches, a recent study by the Environmental Working Group might come in handy. EWG studied 785 name-brand sunscreens and found 84 percent of them offered inadequate sun protection or contained harmful ingredients. The organization ranked the best and worst of the bunch by analyzing 400 peer-reviewed studies and other publicly available materials and explained its findings in an elaborate study available online. EWG's rankings were based on evaluations of four key points: n Protection from sunburns n Protection from ultraviolet rays n Whether the sunscreen remains stable upon contact from sunlight n Health concerns about ingredients The best sunscreens had the same things in common, according to EWG senior analyst Sean Gray. Obviously, they had high sun protection factors, or SPF, but they had to meet the other tenets too. “They have basically no health concerns,” Gray said Friday of the top products. “They're pretty stable. They're pretty protective on the UVA side. Most of the other sunscreens have to absorb into your skin before they work. When sun hits skin, (good sunscreens) break down instead of your skin.” Most of the best sunscreens include zinc oxide or titanium dioxide as active ingredients, Gray said. Unlike many sunscreens, they sit on top of the skin rather than being absorbed into it, which means they absorb the sun rays instead of the skin. Zinc oxide absorbs UVA and UVB rays, unlike many active ingredients in sunscreens. Many of the highest-ranked sunscreens are produced by smaller companies. “The smaller companies out there are trying to be more Earth-friendly,” Gray said. “They tend to be earlier adopters of new technology. Zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are newer technologies. There's a lot less risk for those smaller companies.” EWG's five top-ranked sunscreens were: 1) UV Natural Sport SPF 30+ 2) Badger SPF 30 3) Peter Thomas Roth Titanium Dioxide Sunblock (SPF 30) 4) Lavera Sunscreen Neutral SPF 40 5) Vanicream Sunscreen Sport The five worst, according to EWG, were: 1) L'Oreal Dermo-Expertise Line Eraser, Pure Retinol, Daily Treatment with (SPF 15) 2) B. Kamins Chemist Bio-Maple day cream (SPF 15) 3) Neutrogena Healthy Skin Face Lotion with (SPF 15) 4) B. Kamins Chemist Day Cream (SPF 15) 5) Caren et Cie Face Treatment (French Vanilla) (SPF 15) EWG's study isn't without its detractors, however. One trade group called it reckless, while others have questioned its findings. Currently, there are no comprehensive federal standards for sunscreens. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not produced new sunscreen standards in 29 years. A USDA spokeswoman did not return a phone call for comment Friday. “EWG has conducted this research because the FDA has failed to do so,” EWG Vice President for Research Jane Houlihan said after the June 19 release of EWG's study. “With over 1 million cases of skin cancer reported each year, people should have the most reliable information available about which sunscreens will provide the best protection for themselves and their families.” EWG's full database on sunscreens can be found online at: www.ewg.org/sunscreen