Note: We did attempt to contact the magazine that ran this article, but all e-mails were returned and no available platform was provided to recieve feedback.
?
Dear Editor,
?
Please don?t take this as a brand pitch of any kind, rather a heads up. ?I am in this game because I am passionate about skin care and sun protection and it is with that in mind that I write you.
The article you guys are currently running on sunscreen, ?Sunscreen 101 ? the new rules,? is horribly misinformed. I would qualify this by saying that it is in fact potentially harmful to anyone that takes what it says seriously.
A few examples are listed below, but in no way encompass the breath of misinformation provided. ?They are simply the most blatant. ?I have quoted your article in italics.
SPF 15: 1/15 of the sun?s rays will reach your skin?X Light Skin= 150 min before you burn
X Medium Skin= 250 min before you burn
X Dark Skin= 300 min before you burn
The above statement is not true. ?SPF15 allows for a person to be in the sun 15 x longer than without sunscreen before burning. ?The formula used above is making the assumption that a person with fair skin can stay in the sun for 10-minutes, medium skin 16:40-minutes, etc? ?There is no basis for this assumption. ?Everyone is different and location is a major factor, not to mention skin is usually gauged using a six-level scale known as the Fitzpatrik scale. ?More can be found on my website?http://watermansappliedscience.com/html/Protection.html
?
Old Rule: SPF protects against UVB burn time only
New Rule: SPF protects against UVA and UVB protection
Not true. ?SPF (Sun Protection Factor) is an indicator of UVB protection only. ?The use of the term ?Broad Spectrum? has now been regulated to ensure a certain level of UVA protection is provided at minimum. ?However, that level can still vary from product to product as long as it meets the minimum requirement. ?Furthermore, products without proper UVA protection must mention the deficiency on their label and products that do qualify can claim to protect against skin cancer and advanced aging. ?All sunscreen regardless of UVA protection provided will still show a SPF rating on the label. ?Since UVA is a serious contributor to deadly melanoma and advanced aging I see this statement as potentially lethal and careless.
?
The New Rules
Sunscreens used to get away with only protecting against UVB rays, but now if it says ?SPF,? they have to shield from both. Also, they can no longer say ?waterproof,? ?sweatproof,? or advertise an SPF rating higher than 50.
Again, the SPF related claim is a potentially deadly false statement. ?Products are not required to provide UVA protection and SPF indicates UVB protection only.
?Waterproof? and ?sweatproof? have never been allowed. ?There was simply no regulation of their use prior to the new ?rules? being put into place this past year. ?They have always been frowned upon by the FDA. ?Certain marketers simply ignored the guidelines without fear of retribution. ?There is now a process of regulation in place.
No rule currently on the books prohibits sunscreens over SPF50. ?This has been proposed, but no timeline is associated with making it a mandatory requirement. ?Some companies, like mine, will gladly follow recommendations and change their packaging accordingly. ?However, the last time something was proposed it took decades to finalize.
Look For:
? SPF 15+?
This is true, but only as a?minimum.
?
? The phrase ?broad spectrum??
This is true; more so now then ever before.
?
? Sunblock: literally ?blocks? the sun with zinc rather than absorbing into your skin?
This is horribly inaccurate. In fact, the term ?Sunblock? was specifically outlawed by the new monograph the author is referencing here. ?There is no such thing as ?sunblock? and no brand can legally call itself ?sunblock? once the new rules take effect in June. ?There never has been and never will be any direct link between a product that claims ?sunblock? and the inclusion of Zinc Oxide. ?Most of the brands that claim ?Sunblock? are less expensive brands that do not include Zinc or Titanium Dioxide in their formulas.
?
? Titanium Dioxide: In lab tests the rats who inhaled this chemical contracted cancer. Use zinc instead!?
Where to start? First, Titanium is not a chemical, it is an inorganic mineral. ?Second, this is not relevant to sunscreen as the minerals are suspended in a lotion making them impossible to inhale during normal use. ?Third, zinc is also a mineral and will have the exact same effect if the same tests are preformed. ?Even on the nano particle level, neither Zinc or Titanium are absorbed into the skin or find their way into the wearer?s lungs and are safe for use. ?The Australian government has spent millions trying to put a stop to the misinformation that you have reiterated here, because they see this incorrect interpretation of the facts as a serious threat to the health of their citizens.
?
? Oxybenzone: When the sun hits this chemical, it causes a reaction that releases free radicals.
This is true of all organic chemical sunscreen ingredients. ?However, it is also true that inhaled oxygen is the #1 source of free radicals in the body, so going down this road is a slippery one at best. Bottom line, sunscreen is an OTC product, the definition of which states that the product?s benefits outweigh any potential harm. ?I strongly agree that using sunscreen is a much better option than getting burned. ?Sunburn is far more damaging than people think and outweighs the free-radical argument by a metric-ton.
The issue people take with Oxybenzone in particular is that it is a possible hormone disruptor, but that is another story.
I would be happy to qualify anything mentioned above with the proper sources if necessary. ?However, most can be found either in the new sunscreen monograph on the FDA site or a high school chemistry book.
?
Please feel free to call if you have any questions.
?
Sincerely,
Watermans Applied Science
***
watermanssunscreen.com
Tags: best sunscreen for surfing, misinformation, skin cancer, sunscreen, sunscreen 101, sunscreen rules, watermans
This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 21st, 2012 at 1:10 PM and is filed under Editorial.
Source: http://watermansappliedscience.com/blog/?p=5970
dionne warwick patricia heaton mariana trench arsenic and old lace leslie varez ward solar storms
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.