As the summer sun starts to heat up in Seattle, I've been wondering what sort of environmentally sound sunscreen options are out there to protect my pale, pale flesh from certain scorching.
I considered writing to Umbra under a pseudonym to get an answer, but the Environmental Working Group jumped on the subject before I could with their new guide to both the efficacy and the environmental health cred of more than 780 different sunscreens. Sweet.
In their database, sunscreens are scored according to their effectiveness at blocking UVA and UVB rays, as well as by the amount of ingredients they include that have been linked to health concerns like cancers, developmental and reproductive toxicity, allergens, persistence, and bioaccumulation. They actually break it down by the amount of each potentially hazardous substance, giving them a score between one and 10 (one being the best, 10 being the worst) in each category, as well as an overall score.
Eighty-four percent of the sunscreens they looked at offer inadequate protection from the sun, or contain ingredients with significant safety concerns, meaning only 16 percent of the products on the market are both safe and effective.
You can search the database by your specific sunscreen needs/desires, by the highest or lowest rankings, or by locating the ones you already own and checking out their stats. The EWG database even hooks you up with information about where you can buy these sunscreens.
Topping the list were Badger SPF 30, Peter Thomas Roth SPF 30, Sun Spray Sunscreen SPF 40, UV Natural Baby SPF 30, and Vanicream Sunscreen Sport SPF 35, all achieving a rank of "1."
Unfortunately, there are a few "organic" or "ethically produced" sunscreens that fall into the lowest ranking, meaning they are both ineffective at blocking the UVA and UVB and they contain nasty hazardous substances. Avalon Organics Active Organics Vitamin C Moisture Plus Lotion SPF 15, Nature's Gate Moisturizing Cream SPF 15, and Kiss My Face Everyday Moisturizer SPF 15, which I use religiously. That burns.
Grist’s guide to green iPhone apps
Ask Umbra’s video advice on grilling
No healthcare reform without food-system reform
Comments View as Flat
Illuminato Posted 4:56 am
20 Jun 2007
One tiny problem
It's great to see EWG identifying the many inadequate and unhealthy sunscreens out there, but don't rely on this guide for choosing the right sun protection.
All of the sunscreens recommended and promoted by EWG's new report contain nanoparticles! Studies have shown that nanoparticles used in sunscreens, such as Titanium Dioxide, can be potentially very toxic to nerve cells, brain cells, colon cells and other parts of our body. Nanoparticles are tiny (one billionth of a meter) and few studies exist on the health risks of this new and unregulated technology.
While EWG claims most scientific literature confirms nanoparticles cannot penetrate our skin and enter the body, I would be weary of relying on those few studies, which limit their findings by looking only at nano penetration of healthy skin. Nanoparticles HAVE been shown to penetrate through broken skin, acne, eczema or shaving wounds: all too common skin ailments for most people.
The EWG guide claims nano sunscreens work better, this is not confirmed and is in complete contradiction to the recent Consumer Reports evaluation of efficacy that was released last week with regard to nano sunscreens. Consumer Reports claims: "Of the eight products tested for nanoparticles, all contained them, but our tests found no correlation between their presence and sun protection." (www.consumerreports.org)
A recent UNEP report also highlights studies suggesting that nanoparticles can compromise environmental health when washed off in the shower or while swimming, studies have shown nanoparticles to be potentially dangerous for algae and water fleas.
I'm keeping my ear to the ground for a report that does more than just identify a number of risky sunscreens to then lead me to another group of equally risky products!
For more information on nanotechnology and nano in sunscreens visit: http://nano.foe.org.au/ and www.foe.org
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:16 am
20 Jun 2007
Yipes! There they are again!
"Nanoparticles"!
Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!
Permalink
JMG Posted 10:08 am
20 Jun 2007
Consumer Protection Note
While you're thinking about sun screen, just a reminder: the SPF scale is NOT, repeat NOT linear. So SPF 30 is not twice the protection of SPF 15, and SPF 45 isn't three times as protective as SPF 15.
It seems that someone pulled a fast one when they devised this scale and they came up with one that tends to push people up the dollar-cost ladder for very little protection benefit.
If I recall correctly, SPF 30 blocks about 5% more rays than SPF 15.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
bbobccat Posted 10:09 am
20 Jun 2007
eeep! Avalon is among the worst!
Egad! I buy other skin and hair care products made by Avalon Organics. Now I'm wondering if they are what they purport to be or if I'm just paying for hype.
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 2:31 am
21 Jun 2007
Erik, Pass Me The Coppertone
I have to ask -- before "sunscreen" were people (aka while folk) dying in droves from skin cancer? I mean, did that do in the Vikings?
John Bailo
You Read It Here First
Permalink
AHanley Posted 3:04 am
21 Jun 2007
Weigh the Benefits, FOE
Thanks, Kate, for the nod to our sunscreen investigation! And I'm glad our friends at Friends of the Earth are on the beat in their campaign against nanoparticles in consumer products - yes, gaps in safety data and standards need closing. But when it comes to sunscreen, following FOE's advice and focusing solely on nano will leave you vulnerable to other potential risks -- like, say, skin cancer. Illuminato, an FOE staffer, got an advance look at our report and we discussed it with him, including its extensive and detailed discussion of the nano particle issue in the context of sunscreens. We've written up the details at Enviroblog where we summarize our scads of data and why FOE is just wrong.
Permalink
Illuminato Posted 9:52 am
22 Jun 2007
clarification
Just want to clarify a few things from my post above, in which I should have identified myself as a member of the Friends of the Earth staff. FOE and EWG are allied groups with common interests, though we occasionally have a different take on some issues. Based on my work experience and knowledge of the science surrounding nanotech, I think the recommendations in the EWG report are too heavily weighted toward blocking UV rays and don't place a high enough priority on avoiding the use of nanoparticles. That said, I think my tone was more adversarial than necessary, and I hope it doesn't overshadow the goals that our groups have in common - in this case ensuring that sunscreens are safe and effective.
Permalink
califpoppy Posted 8:02 am
25 Jun 2007
Before sunscreen
I'm not a scientific or cultural expert, but I know that before Coco Chanel and friends popularized tanning in the 1950's, it was considered to be a sign that you had to work outside, so anyone who could afford to do so covered up to avoid appearing to be a laborer. Look at movies from the 40's--everyone on the streets is wearing hats and usually long sleeves. Those poor folks who did get plenty of sun often did not live long enough to contract skin cancer--their hard lives led to other causes of illness and death. We have become slaves to an unhealthy fashion. So skip the nano and SPF and cover up for safety and health. I'm trying it more each year and it can be done--sometimes it's hot, but it's cheap and easy.
Permalink