Is your sunscreen really toxic?
This weekend, I found myself embroiled in a social media brouhaha. It started when a brand whose strapline reads “protecting families with non toxic suncream” uploaded a video in which the owner went into a supermarket and told people shopping in the skincare aisle that “sun creams are toxic... it’s chemicals and then you go in the sun which is enhancing those chemicals. It’s going into your blood stream within 26 seconds.”
Naturally, these wildly inaccurate claims were followed by the solution which was, surprise surprise, a suncream she’s created which is, in her words, a “naturally-derived product using organic beef tallow, jojoba oil, and naturally-infused botanical oils” - none of which provide anything but the scantest protection from the sun.
I shouldn’t have taken the bait. I should have instead sent it to my friends in the industry and we could’ve collectively rolled our eyes and then I’d have gone to watch It Ends With Us at the Everyman with my Mum without my phone lighting up every few minutes. But then I remembered my Dad’s recent surgery to remove skin cancer on the top of his ears where he’d neglected to apply suncream and my best friend’s various brushes with morphing moles as a result of years of sunbathing unprotected and couldn’t resist a swift rejoinder: “this video is so irresponsible and inaccurate.”
In case you’ve never been involved in an internet skirmish, here’s what you can expect when you wade in: emphatic answers, much pseudoscience, the odd personal attack, and very poor grammar, glossed over with capitalisation and liberal exclamation marks. Here’s a sample of the responses I received: “not doing valid research into what you put on your skin/in your body is irresponsible”; “maybe take 20 mins of your time to research it yourself and find how toxic it really is!”; “it’s scientifically accurate!! You’re inaccurate!”, and, my favourite: “the only thing irresponsible and inaccurate are the big corporations that push all the toxic sun screens and their carcinogenic ingredients. People need to wake up.”
Many beauty journalists and industry experts also felt they had to address the misinformation, which only prompted more comments: “all you triggered Karens in the comment section are ones that believed the jabs would stop transmission”; “nothing is regulated so most things on the market are toxic”, “love to see a video promoting truth… if we’re forced into believing something, question it” and so on and so forth.
An ugly scene and one I’d like to forget quickly - but clearly there are many people who believe that Big Pharma is conning them into buying SPF and that instead of following like a sheep they ought to take matters into their own hands and make their own. Rather more disturbingly, they also seem compelled to tell other people on the internet about it.
Instead of brushing it off, I thought perhaps it worth addressing it in case you harbour fears that your suncream is toxic, and so I called up some experts to ask if they’d clear some things up. Here’s what they had to say:
Your skin is a barrier, not a sponge
Pam Marshall, Clinical Aesthetician at Mortar and Milk, explains that she would by far prioritise the toxins we ingest and breathe in over the notion of toxins in skin care, telling me that concerns about toxicity are all surface level as the ““journey from the surface of the skin to the bloodstream is nearly impossible. Our epidermis is a hydrophobic layer, meaning it is waterproof. It is impenetrable so that we are protected from environmental factors. If any ingredient has any chance of getting remotely past the epidermis is must be low in molecular weight and low in pH. Most products do not fall into that category, and just because something’s on the label doesn’t mean someone’s understood the product and how it interacts with skin”.
Rather that risk courting cancer by dodging suncream when the likelihood of it even making it into the body is slim to none, she reminds her clients to protect their skin while eating as organically as possible and trying to avoid heavy pollution - though adds that it is impossible to live entirely free of toxins: “if we are worried about toxic ingredients reaching our bloodstream then we might as well give up eating and drinking, or go live in the middle of nowhere where farm to table living can happen because the foods we eat today are far more harmful than the cosmetics we put on our face. Pesticides, fertilisers, hormones, etc. in our food and water are a much bigger problem for our long term health.”
Skin cancer should be a greater concern than toxicity
“Skin cancer is the fastest rising and most common cancer in the UK, and roughly 2,300 people die from melanoma skin cancer every year according to Cancer Research UK - and over 90% of melanoma skin cancer is caused by exposure to the sun. Every time you suffer an episode of sunburn (caused by Ultraviolet B, aka UVB) it increases your risk of skin cancer. An SPF 50 product protects the skin from 98% of the sun’s UVB rays. ” Cosmetic Scientist Sam Farmer tells me.
In fact, each expert I spoke to offered stats and figures to remind me that skin cancer is directly related to sun exposure and that it is a very real risk without safeguarding against it, with Dr Catherine Fairiss, Director of the Wessex Skin Clinic, summarising the dangers of not using suncream vs the purported danger of toxins contained therein simply: “based on the evidence we currently have, the risk of developing skin cancer without the use of sunscreen outweighs the risk of using sunscreen.”
Cancer rates didn’t grow because sunscreen was invented
One of the most frustrating comments that repeatedly emerged under that video was made by those who asserted that there is more skin cancer now that sunscreen is abundantly available and that this proves causation. Aside from the fact that of course we have the ability to diagnose more quickly and readily now, there’s also the fact that tanning has become ever more popular, meaning a rise in skin cancer is inevitable.
Dr Georgina Williams, Consultant Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeon and Founder of Montrose London explains that “the effects of sun damage on the development of skin cancers have been well documented since the 1920s for non-melanomaous skin cancers such as basal cell carcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas, and since the 1950s for melanoma – one of the most aggressive forms of skin cancer.”
She firmly believes that the rise of skin cancer is down to the recreational practise of tanning “which was glamourised over the course of the 21st Century along with an increase in popularity and accessibility of international travel for holidays. This has meant that many people with fairer skin types (who are more at risk of sunburn and skin cancer) are regularly exposed to high levels of UV radiation and sunburn.”
She also is keen to hammer home the extra risk for those who use tanning beds which “emit up to 10 times the amount of UV compared to sunlight - and in the late 1980s it was estimated that <1% of Americans had used an indoor tanning bed, but by 2010 up to 75% of adult Americans had used them.”
Mineral vs chemical
“There are two primary categories of sunscreens on the market: mineral and chemical sunscreens. Each type has distinct mechanisms, ingredients, and safety profiles”, the expert Dr Yusra Almukhtar at Dr Yusra Clinic explains.
“Mineral-based sunscreens utilise active ingredients such as zinc oxide and titanium dioxide - which may be found together or individually. These formulations are widely regarded as safe, with concentrations of up to 25% zinc oxide considered acceptable. Mineral sunscreens work by reflecting and deflecting ultraviolet (UV) light, thereby preventing its absorption into the skin”.
The other option is chemical sunscreens, which contain compounds such as avobenzone, homosalate, and octocrylene, which “absorb UV rays and convert them into heat, which is then released from the skin”.
There are ongoing discussions regarding some chemical ingredients that may act as endocrine disruptors, raising concerns about their long-term safety, but “to date, there is no robust conclusive evidence or consensus regarding ‘safe or unsafe levels’ of concentrations of these chemicals in sunscreens”, Dr Almukhtar tells me, “and whilst serum and urine samples have shown systemic absorption of chemical sunscreens, it is still unclear to what extent, if any, that they negatively impact human health.”
She concludes that “the prevailing recommendation therefore remains that the best sunscreen is one that individuals will consistently apply. Both chemical and mineral formulations effectively prevent sunburn and reduce the risk of skin cancer.”
Context is everything
I recently interviewed a physicist who casually mentioned that the earth spins at 1000 miles an hour. I expressed disbelief - surely we would feel *something* at that great speed. But no, he explained, it’s because the movement is perpetual and that with many other factors mean we are oblivious to it.
Toxins are a bit like that - yes, someone without proper training may be concerned when they look at the label, but, as Farmer explains, anything can potentially be toxic when you understand scientific principles: “ toxins are from nature, they are biological. When something is toxic, it is because it has reached a level via concentration or dose where it can cause harm to living things. Water, oxygen, and salt will kill you at certain concentrations, and so they too are all potentially toxic substances.”
If you’ve seen those trials that suggest the toxins are indeed harmful, Aesthetic Doctor Sophie Shotter explains that once more context is everything: “I do understand people’s concerns about wanting to use fewer chemicals, especially if they feel there is inadequate safety evidence - but most of this data is at very high ingredient concentrations in animals, which is a preclinical test rather than being directly transferrable to human populations.”
