 |
 |
| Author |
Message |
|
|
 |
Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:50 am  |
Is Sunscreen Safe?
Skin Savior or Cancer Cocktail?
By Edward C. Geehr, MD
Sunday, July 1, 2007
As soothing as sunbathing can be, no one wants the aging skin or cancer that can come with regular roasting in the sun. That’s why lots of us lather on sunscreen, rain or shine. But now several studies suggest that sunscreens may increase cancer risk. Ouch! What’s a confused sunbather to do?
Americans spend more than one billion dollars a year on sunscreens and several hundred million on lipscreens. Billions more are spent each year to treat the aging effects and skin cancer caused by too much sun exposure. Dermabrasion, chemical peels and fractional laser therapy (a laser skin therapy) all allow the cosmetic medical industry to radiate wealth in the sun’s afterglow.
And yet, it appears we may not be as safe as we thought. Several studies have found that common sunscreen ingredients appear to have estrogen-like effects, causing concern among breast cancer survivors whose cancers were fed by estrogen. Other studies point to severe skin reactions. And still more studies suggest that the incidence of melanoma, a potentially fatal form of skin cancer, may be higher among people who use sunscreen. It seems that not even sunscreen is easy to understand anymore.
What’s Burning You Up
Sun damage is caused by ultraviolet radiation (UVR), invisible rays of sunlight. Two components of UVR that reach the earth’s surface and cause skin and eye damage are: ultraviolet B rays (UVB) and ultraviolet A rays (UVA). UVB make up about 10% of the UVR that reaches us, while UVA make up about 90%.
UVB rays tan and burn us, leading to skin cancers such as basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas. But UVB is also a necessary danger, essential for stimulating the production of vitamin D in the skin. Vitamin D regulates calcium and phosphorus levels in the blood and promotes bone formation and mineralization. Vitamin D deficiency leads to rickets, a disease that soften the bones, resulting in fractures or deformity.
UVA rays penetrate the skin even more deeply than UVB. Ninety-five percent of UVB is absorbed by the epidermis, the most superficial layer of skin. However, 50% of UVA reaches the dermis, the layer of skin beneath the epidermis. UVA exposure causes tanning, burning, aging, and some skin cancers. UVA also appears to trigger light-sensitivity in people taking such drugs as tetracyclines (antibiotics), antihistamines, tricyclic antidepressants, oral contraceptives, and sulfa drugs, increasing the risk of sunburn, blistering and more serious long-term problems including cataracts and skin cancer.
The risks associated with these rays are escalating:
*
One in five Americans and two-thirds of Australians born today will develop some form of skin cancer.
*
From 1973-1994, the rate of melanoma rose 120%.
*
The lifetime risk of melanoma for a child born today in the U.S. is 1 in 57 for males and 1 in 81 for females.
In addition to sun exposure, certain genetic and environmental factors – proximity to the equator, fair skin, childhood sunburns, family history of melanoma, the number of sun-induced moles – all increase melanoma risk.
The Melanoma Miasma
Although we can’t undo genetics, a slather of sunscreen ought to tamp down melanoma risk. Yet ironically, several studies link sunscreens with increased risk. Most experts discount these findings, however, believing the results are skewed. For instance, people at highest risk for melanoma are also more likely to use sunscreens. And sunscreens may give people a false sense of security, so they linger longer in the sun’s spotlight, thereby heightening risk.
The results are tough to pin down, too, because of the lag time; often 15-20 years passes between sun exposure, the use of sunscreens and the development of melanoma. And the sunscreens people used two decades ago offered less protection than those sold now. In fact, of twelve studies, four showed an increased risk, three showed a decreased risk, and six were inconclusive.
With or without the sunscreen confusion, melanoma has scientists scratching their heads. It’s still unclear what kind of sunlight – UVA, UVB or both – causes melanoma. And keep in mind that melanoma can appear in areas with little or no sun exposure such as the buttocks.
The Sunscreen Suspects
Sunscreens have two types of active ingredients. The first are chemical – or absorbing – agents that absorb the UVR when it strikes the epidermis. The second are physical – or reflective – agents that form a physical barrier to UVR penetration. The FDA has approved 16 agents as sunscreens, two of which are barrier compounds. The distinction between absorbing and barrier compounds has blurred with the development of barrier agents that both absorb and reflect UVR.
The potential dangers of sunscreens were first publicized in a 2004 article in the The Ecologist, a British periodical. The authors point to several studies suggesting that chemicals in sunscreens not only irritate the skin, but mimic estrogen and persist in the body, which is concerning news for children and breast cancer patients, particularly those with estrogen receptor-positive tumors.
A 2005 study from the National Institute for Environmental Studies in Japan established a slight estrogenic activity in numerous sunscreen ingredients. An earlier study performed at the Swiss Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology in Zurich found estrogenic activity in five out of six sunscreen chemicals – benzophenone-3 (Bp-3), homosalate (HMS), OD-PABA, octyl methoxycinnamate (octinoxate or OMC), and 3-(4-methylbenzylidene) camphor (4-MBC) – all of which were examined in actual breast cancer cells.
Unfortunately, nearly every sunscreen contains one or more of the five ingredients known to have estrogenic effects on breast cancer cells. The only exceptions are the physical blocking agents like zinc oxide and titanium dioxide. Even these are increasingly found in combination with other known potentially estrogenic agents.
So what to do if you are a breast cancer patient? The FDA has not yet issued any warnings and most experts feel the current formulations are safe. In fact, a 2004 Danish study set out to assess the safety of some of these agents. Three of the estrogenic chemicals (Bp-3; OMC; and 4-MBC) evaluated in the Swiss study were applied in liberal full-body doses for one week on men and post-menopausal women. The chemicals were all detected in blood and urine samples, indicating they had been absorbed through the skin. The only hormonal changes – minor ones in testosterone and estradiol levels – were in the men. The researchers felt the changes were unrelated to the chemical agents and were clinically insignificant. In adults, at least, sunscreen products with these ingredients appeared to be safe.
Still, for people with estrogen-sensitive breast cancer, it’s probably safest to stick with the physical barrier sunscreens combined with sun-protective clothing. Weigh the risks and benefits of your situation with your physician.
For parents of young children, the risks of sun damage outweigh those of hormonal effects. Your children are far more likely to experience skin irritation or even light-sensitive allergies from sunscreens than endocrine effects. Again, review the risks and benefits with your pediatrician.
Fortunately, most sunscreen side effects are mild and limited. Skin reactions are largely due to irritation rather than more severe allergic responses. When there are allergic reactions, they are more often from fragrances and preservatives than from the chemicals (particularly now that the highly allergenic PABA is rarely used). On balance, sunscreens are generally safe and effective; the considerable benefits far outweigh the known risks.
Are You Smart When it Comes to Skin Cancer?
When it comes to the sun and your safety, are you current on your skin cancer knowledge or is ignorance bliss in favor of the perfect tan? Well, consider this: Skin cancer is diagnosed more often than all other cancers combined. Have we caught your attention now? Find out just how much you know with this skin cancer quiz.
The information contained onwww.lifescript.com (the "Site") is provided for informational purposes only and is not meant to substitute for advice from your doctor or healthcare professional. This information should not be used for diagnosing or treating a health problem or disease, or prescribing any medication. Always seek the advice of a qualified healthcare professional regarding any medical condition. Information and statements provided by the site about dietary supplements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. LifeScript does not recommend or endorse any specific tests, physicians, third-party products, procedures, opinions, or other information mentioned on the Site. Reliance on any information provided by LifeScript is solely at your own risk. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:57 am |
bkkgirl,
Thanks for posting this article. Great information. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:15 am |
| bkkgirl wrote: |
...Unfortunately, nearly every sunscreen contains one or more of the five ingredients known to have estrogenic effects on breast cancer cells. The only exceptions are the physical blocking agents like zinc oxide and titanium dioxide. Even these are increasingly found in combination with other known potentially estrogenic agents....
|
So it's safer to use a physical SS than chemical one, from this perspective. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:18 am |
You're welcome, Maria1.
Iaimei, yes, that's my take from reading this article, too. Dang, all my SS's are chemical. I guess when I'm done with them, I have to try harder to look for the physical ones. I'm not a breast cancer patient, but one cannot be too careful. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:25 am |
| bkkgirl wrote: |
You're welcome, Maria1.
Iaimei, yes, that's my take from reading this article, too. Dang, all my SS's are chemical. I guess when I'm done with them, I have to try harder to look for the physical ones. I'm not a breast cancer patient, but one cannot be too careful. |
 I was thinking the same, I will let my DH finish up my chemical SS (he has remote chance getting breast cancer than I do) while I am on the search for a good physical one. I probably will go back to either Cliniq's CityBlock or Cellex-C's suncare SPF 30. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:36 pm |
Very interesting. However, what this article fails to tell you is that these sunscreen ingredients are no more estrogenic than some phyto-estrogens found in nature & our foods. These include coffee, sunflower, beer, chamomile tea, licorice, pomegranite, broccoli, oregano, nutmeg, turmeric, cumin, fennel, carrots, and alfalfa sprouts. Estogenic chemicals are also found in ALL detergents (laundry, dish, etc), also soft drinks that contain phenylalanine. Where does it end?  My point is that I would be worried that the risk of skin cancer due to unprotected sun exposure might be greater than the risk of using a sunscreen.
It would be really interesting to see the actual studies he is mentioning. I wonder if they are invitro or invivo? |
_________________
Pure Skin Formulations, LLC | http://www.psfskincare.com |
|
|
|
|
Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:55 pm |
| pbsadhaka wrote: |
Very interesting. However, what this article fails to tell you is that these sunscreen ingredients are no more estrogenic than some phyto-estrogens found in nature & our foods. These include coffee, sunflower, beer, chamomile tea, licorice, pomegranite, broccoli, oregano, nutmeg, turmeric, cumin, fennel, carrots, and alfalfa sprouts. Estogenic chemicals are also found in ALL detergents (laundry, dish, etc), also soft drinks that contain phenylalanine. Where does it end? My point is that I would be worried that the risk of skin cancer due to unprotected sun exposure might be greater than the risk of using a sunscreen.
It would be really interesting to see the actual studies he is mentioning. I wonder if they are invitro or invivo? |
Darren, thanks for your input. I thought the point of the article (or at least how I interpreted it) is to try to use physical SS instead of chemical one, instead of using none at all.
So I thought hey, I'd better try to switch to the physical SS. I've heard the terms chemical vs physical SS and wasn't clear till now why one would prefer chemical vs physical. I guess if I were a breast cancer survivor, I'd really really have to pay attention to anything with estrogenic ingredients and try to eliminate them as much as possible. Of course, nothing is foolproof, but once they become aware of something that is estrogenic, it seems prudent to try to avoid it more. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:04 pm |
Oh, I agree with you. The only problem is that it is almost impossible to get the same UV protection from a purely physical sunblock as it is from a chemical one, or a combination of the two (best scenario IMHO). The reason being that for a purely physical sunblock to offer the correct SPF, it needs to be applied very heavily. Which would leave even the palest people white & chalky looking. So people tend to rub it in until it is no longer visible, which is not using enough product & therefore not giving you the appropriate protection. I think it would be so hard to elimiate all estrogenic substances from our lifestyles/diets. I guess you just have prioritize on which ones are safer to cut out & which ones might be safer to leave in. It's enough to make your head spin....
Ooops! We forgot to add soy to the estrogenic list! 
| bkkgirl wrote: |
| pbsadhaka wrote: |
Very interesting. However, what this article fails to tell you is that these sunscreen ingredients are no more estrogenic than some phyto-estrogens found in nature & our foods. These include coffee, sunflower, beer, chamomile tea, licorice, pomegranite, broccoli, oregano, nutmeg, turmeric, cumin, fennel, carrots, and alfalfa sprouts. Estogenic chemicals are also found in ALL detergents (laundry, dish, etc), also soft drinks that contain phenylalanine. Where does it end? My point is that I would be worried that the risk of skin cancer due to unprotected sun exposure might be greater than the risk of using a sunscreen.
It would be really interesting to see the actual studies he is mentioning. I wonder if they are invitro or invivo? |
Darren, thanks for your input. I thought the point of the article (or at least how I interpreted it) is to try to use physical SS instead of chemical one, instead of using none at all.
So I thought hey, I'd better try to switch to the physical SS. I've heard the terms chemical vs physical SS and wasn't clear till now why one would prefer chemical vs physical. I guess if I were a breast cancer survivor, I'd really really have to pay attention to anything with estrogenic ingredients and try to eliminate them as much as possible. Of course, nothing is foolproof, but once they become aware of something that is estrogenic, it seems prudent to try to avoid it more. |
|
_________________
Pure Skin Formulations, LLC | http://www.psfskincare.com |
|
|
|
| Wed Mar 12, 2025 4:12 pm |
If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.
Click Here to join our community.
If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site. |
|
 |
|
|
