Electric Beach Mankato Profesional Tanning Salon
FAQ/Links

Vitamin D reduces risk of breast cancer

www.vitamindcouncil.org
30 August 2011
By David Liu PhD
www.foodconsumer.org

A review of 11 case-control studies suggests maintaining high serum levels of vitamin D may help reduce the risk of breast cancer significantly.

It is well known that one in eight women in the United States are expected to develop breast cancer, which kills about 50,000 people in the country each year, according to the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

The review released in the Sept 2011 issue of Anticancer Research found those whose vitamin D was in the highest quartile were 39 percent less likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer, compared to those whose vitamin D was in the lowest quartile.

The study led by Vitamin D expert Cedric F. Garland of University of California San Diego and colleagues also found women who had 47 ng/ml of vitamin D in the form of 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] were 50 percent less likely to have breast cancer…

Page last edited: 12 September 2011

ArticlesSeptember 17, 2011

No Comment

Best Beach & Sport Sunscreens

The best sunscreen is a hat and a shirt. No chemicals to absorb through the skin, no questions about whether they work. But when you can’t get away from exposing your skin to the sun, use EWG’s top-rated sunscreens to provide broad-spectrum (UVA and UVB-sunburn) protection with fewer hazardous chemicals that penetrate the skin. Sunscreen and sunblock makers are awaiting FDA approval for a wider selection of UVA-blocking chemicals. In the meantime, all top-rated products contain either zinc or titanium minerals to help cut UVA exposures for sunscreen users.

Choose from among our top-rated sunscreens for broad spectrum protection with fewer hazardous ingredients. And follow our sun safety tips to protect your skin for a lifetime. Follow this link for more information http://breakingnews.ewg.org/2011sunscreen/best-sunscreens/best-beach-sport-sunscreens/

ArticlesSeptember 17, 2011

No Comment

Sunscreens Exposed: 9 surprising truths

 

Sunscreens prevent sunburns, but beyond that simple fact surprisingly little is known about the safety and efficacy of these ubiquitous creams and sprays. FDA’s failure to finalize its 1978 sunscreen safety standards both epitomizes and perpetuates this state of confusion. EWG’s review of the latest research unearthed troubling facts that might tempt you to give up on sunscreens altogether. That’s not the right answer – despite the unknowns about their efficacy, public health agencies still recommend using sunscreens, just not as your first line of defense against the sun. At EWG we use sunscreens, but we look for shade, wear protective clothing and avoid the noontime sun before we smear on the cream. Here are the surprising facts:

1. There’s no consensus on whether sunscreens prevent skin cancer.

The Food and Drug Administration’s 2007 draft sunscreen safety regulations say: “FDA is not aware of data demonstrating that sunscreen use alone helps prevent skin cancer” (FDA 2007). The International Agency for Research on Cancer agrees. IARC recommends clothing, hats and shade as primary barriers to UV radiation and writes that “sunscreens should not be the first choice for skin cancer prevention and should not be used as the sole agent for protection against the sun” (IARC 2001a).

Most experts agree that people should use sunscreens to protect their skin from the sun, but they disagree widely on how well these products actually work.

Studies of frequent sunscreen users have shown a lower incidence of squamous cell carcinoma, a slow-growing tumor that is readily treatable by surgery, compared to people who use sunscreen infrequently or not at all. But scientists’ conclusions are mixed on whether sunscreen use can avert the deadliest form of skin cancer, melanoma. A newly published study of sunscreen users finds that people who use sunscreen daily appear to have a reduced risk of melanoma (Green 2011), while other studies conclude that sunscreen users are at increased risk (Gorham 2007). No one has the final answer.

Some studies suggest that suncreens give people a false sense of security: sunscreen users stay out in the sun longer and are exposed to more radiation overall. Scientists speculate that substances called free radicals, produced in skin when sunscreen chemicals break down in sunlight, may themselves promote cell damage and contribute to skin damage and cancer.

Another hunch: inferior sunscreens with poor UVA protection, which have dominated the market for 30 years, may have driven this surprising outcome.

The conflicting scientific findings have divided the experts, with some questioning whether sunscreens do anything to prevent skin cancer of any kind. Studies focused on the better, broad-spectrum sunscreens on the market now won’t be published for years.

As it stands, many experts agree that there’s no solid proof that sunscreens protect against skin cancer:

  • “FDA is not aware of data demonstrating that sunscreen use alone helps prevent skin cancer.” – U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 2007
  • “Sunscreens were never developed to prevent skin cancer. In fact, there is no evidence to recommend that sunscreens prevent skin cancer in humans.” — Zoe Diana Draelos, editor of Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 2010
  • “It is not known if protecting skin from sunlight and other UV radiation decreases the risk of skin cancer. It is not known if non-melanoma skin cancer risk is decreased by staying out of the sun, using sunscreens, or wearing long sleeve shirts, long pants, sun hats and sunglasses when outdoors.” – National Cancer Institute, 2009

2. There’s some evidence that sunscreens might increase the risk of the deadliest form of skin cancer for some people.

Some researchers have detected an increased risk of melanoma among sunscreen users. No one knows the cause, but scientists speculate that sunscreen users stay out in the sun longer and absorb more radiation overall, or that free radicals released as sunscreen chemicals break down in sunlight may play a role. One other hunch: Inferior sunscreens with poor UVA protection that have dominated the market for 30 years may have led to this surprising outcome. All major public health agencies still advise using sunscreens, but they also stress the importance of shade, clothing and timing.

3. There are more high SPF products than ever before, but no proof that they’re better.

In 2007 the FDA published draft regulations that would prohibit companies from labeling sunscreens with an SPF (sun protection factor) higher than “SPF 50+.” The agency wrote that higher values were “inherently misleading,” given that “there is no assurance that the specific values themselves are in fact truthful…” (FDA 2007). Scientists are also worried that high-SPF products may tempt people to stay in the sun too long, suppressing sunburns (a late, key warning of overexposure) while upping the risks of other kinds of skin damage.

Flaunting FDA’s proposed regulation, companies substantially increased their high-SPF offerings in 2011. Nearly one in five products now lists SPF values higher than “50+”, compared to only one in eight in 2009, according to EWG’s analysis of more than 600 beach and sport sunscreens. Among the worst offenders are Walgreens and CVS stores and Neutrogena. Walgreens’ boasts of SPF higher than “50+” on nearly half of its sunscreens; CVS and Neutrogena make the same misleading claim on about a third of theirs.

4. Too little sun might be harmful, reducing the body’s vitamin D levels.

Adding to the confusion is the fact that sunshine serves a critical function in the body that sunscreen appears to inhibit — production of vitamin D. The main source of vitamin D in the body is sunshine, and the compound is enormously important to health – it strengthens bones and the immune system, reduces the risk of various cancers (including breast, colon, kidney, and ovarian cancers) and regulates at least 1,000 different genes governing virtually every tissue in the body (Mead 2008).  Over the last two decades, vitamin D levels in the U.S. population have been decreasing steadily, creating a “growing epidemic of vitamin D insufficiency” (Ginde 2009a). Seven of every 10 U.S. children now have low levels. Those most likely to be deficient include children who are obese or who spend more than four hours daily in front of the TV, computer or video games (Kumar 2009).

Experts disagree on the solution. The American Medical Association has recommended 10 minutes of direct sun (without sunscreen) several times a week (AMA 2008), while the American Academy of Dermatology holds that “there is no scientifically validated, safe threshold level of UV exposure from the sun that allows for maximal vitamin D synthesis without increasing skin cancer risk” (AAD 2009). Vitamin D supplements are the alternative, but there is debate over the proper amount. The Institute of Medicine has launched new research to reassess the current guidelines. In the meantime, your doctor can test your vitamin D levels and give advice on sunshine versus supplements.

5. The common sunscreen ingredient vitamin A may speed the development of cancer.

Recently available data from an FDA study indicate that a form of vitamin A, retinyl palmitate, when applied to the skin in the presence of sunlight, may speed the development of skin tumors and lesions (NTP 2009). This evidence is troubling because the sunscreen industry adds vitamin A to 30 percent of all sunscreens.

The industry puts vitamin A in its formulations because it is an anti-oxidant that slows skin aging. That may be true for lotions and night creams used indoors, but FDA recently conducted a study of vitamin A’s photocarcinogenic properties, the possibility that it results in cancerous tumors when used on skin exposed to sunlight. Scientists have known for some time that vitamin A can spur excess skin growth (hyperplasia), and that in sunlight it can form free radicals that damage DNA (NTP 2000).

In FDA’s one-year study, tumors and lesions developed up to 21 percent sooner in lab animals coated in a vitamin A-laced cream (at a concentration of 0.5%) than animals treated with a vitamin-free cream. Both groups were exposed to the equivalent of just nine minutes of maximum intensity sunlight each day.

It’s an ironic twist for an industry already battling studies on whether their products protect against skin cancer. The FDA data are preliminary, but if they hold up in the final assessment, the sunscreen industry has a big problem. In the meantime, EWG recommends that consumers avoid sunscreens with vitamin A (look for “retinyl palmitate” or “retinol” on the label).

6. Free radicals and other skin-damaging byproducts of sunscreen.

Both UV radiation and many common sunscreen ingredients generate free radicals that damage DNA and skin cells, accelerate skin aging and cause skin cancer. An effective sunscreen prevents more damage than it causes, but sunscreens are far better at preventing sunburn than at limiting free radical damage. While typical SPF ratings for sunburn protection range from 15 to 50, equivalent “free radical protection factors” fall at only about 2. When consumers apply too little sunscreen or reapply it infrequently, behaviors that are more common than not, sunscreens can cause more free radical damage than UV rays on bare skin.

7. Pick your sunscreen: nanomaterials or potential hormone disruptors.

The ideal sunscreen would completely block the UV rays that cause sunburn, immune suppression and damaging free radicals. It would remain effective on the skin for several hours and not form harmful ingredients when degraded by UV light. It would smell and feel pleasant so that people use it in the right amount and frequency.

Unsurprisingly, there is currently no sunscreen that meets all of these criteria. The major choice in the U.S. is between “chemical” sunscreens, which have inferior stability, penetrate the skin and may disrupt the body’s hormone systems, and “mineral” sunscreens (zinc and titanium), which often contain micronized- or nano-scale particles of those minerals.

After reviewing the evidence, EWG determined that mineral sunscreens have the best safety profile of today’s choices. They are stable in sunlight and do not appear to penetrate the skin. They offer UVA protection, which is sorely lacking in most of today’s sunscreen products. Mexoryl SX (ecamsule) is another good option, but it’s sold in very few formulations. Tinosorb S and M could be great solutions but are not yet available in the U.S. For consumers who don’t like mineral products, we recommend sunscreens with avobenzone (3 percent for the best UVA protection) and without the notorious hormone disruptors oxybenzone or 4-MBC. Scientists have called for parents to avoid using oxybenzone on children due to penetration and toxicity concerns.

8. Europe’s better sunscreens.

Sunscreen makers and users in Europe have more options than in the United States. In Europe, sunscreen makers can select from among 27 chemicals for their formulations, compared to 17 in the U.S. Companies selling in Europe can add any of seven UVA filters to their products, but have a choice of only three when they market in the U.S. European sunscreens could earn FDA’s proposed four-star top rating for UVA protection, while the best U.S. products would earn only three stars. Sunscreen chemicals approved in Europe but not by the FDA provide up to five times more UVA protection; U.S. companies have been waiting five years for FDA approval to use the same compounds. Last but not least, Europeans will find many sunscreens with strong (mandatory) UVA protection if proposed regulations in Europe are finalized. Under FDA’s current proposal, Americans will not.

9. The 34th summer in a row without final U.S. sunscreen safety regulations.

In the United States, consumer protection has stalled because of the FDA’s 33-year effort to set enforceable guidelines for consumer protection. EWG has found a number of serious problems with existing sunscreens, including overstated claims about their perfomance and inadequate UVA protection. Many of these will be remedied if and when the FDA’s proposed sunscreen rule takes effect. But even after the rule is enacted, gaps will remain. FDA does not consider serious toxicity concerns such as hormone disruption when approving new sun filters. The new rules would also still allow sunscreen makers to use ingredients like vitamin A that can damage the skin in sunlight, and would fail to require makers to measure sunscreen stability despite ample evidence that many products break down quickly in sunlight.

ArticlesSeptember 17, 2011

No Comment

Sunscreens: How it Works, What it Means

Which sunscreens are best and why?

Which sunscreens are best and why?

An ideal sunscreen would block both UVA and UVB rays with active ingredients that do not break down in the sun (so that the product remains effective), and would contain active and inactive ingredients that are proven to be safe for both adults and children. Unfortunately, there is no sunscreen that meets all of these criteria, and no simple way for consumers to know how well a given product stacks up on any of these fronts — which is why EWG created this guide to safer and more effective sunscreens. To see how we conducted our analysis and ranked products.

￪ back to top

Is a good sunscreen all I need to stay safe?

No. Sunscreen can only provide partial protection against harmful effects of the sun. Limiting sun exposure and wearing protective clothing are even more important for protecting your skin from cancer and premature aging. Be extra careful about sun exposure between 10 am and 4 pm when the sun’s burning rays are most intense, but remember that UVA radiation is more constant and doesn’t decline during morning,  on overcast days, or even inside. Apply sunscreen generously 30 minutes before going outside and reapply it often — at least every 2 hours. Even the best sunscreen won’t work well if you don’t use it correctly (ACS 2007; BCCDC 2003).

￪ back to top

Doesn’t the government ensure that sunscreen protects us?

No. While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has two systems that theoretically regulate sunscreen safety and effectiveness, one has never been implemented and the other is optional and rarely used. The upshot is that there are no mandatory requirements about what sunscreen manufacturers can (and can’t) put into their products, and what kind of claims they can print on the label. The Connecticut Attorney General has called the current situation a “marketing Wild West” in which “sunscreen makers can make claims that are unproven and untrue.”

￪ back to top

Which sunscreens are best for children?

Since kids are more vulnerable to damage caused by the sun and to harmful effects of chemical exposure, you want to make sure you choose a sunscreen that is rated highly in terms of both effectiveness (against both UVA and UVB radiation) and safety. Use EWG’s guide to help you find one. If your child is going to be swimming or playing in the water look for a sunscreen that says it is water resistant. Avoid sprays, powders and products with bug repellant.

Make sure to apply sunscreen generously before going out and reapply often. Don’t believe claims that a product will remain effective for a certain period of time, as these are not always reliable. Infants under 6 months need special protection — at this age, a fair-skinned baby does not have melanin proteins for sun protection and needs to be kept out of the sun. The AAP recommends that you avoid using sunscreen on children younger than 6 months unless protective shade and clothing are not available. In this case you can apply a minimal amount to exposed skin (AAP 2008). Remember that sunscreen is just one part of a sun-healthy lifestyle. Limiting sun exposure and wearing protective clothing are even more important than wearing sunscreen.

￪ back to top

How much sunscreen is enough, and how often?

Follow the advice of the American Cancer Society and put on sunscreen early, regularly, and generously. Apply it 30 minutes before going outside, and at least every 2 hours thereafter. Make sure to reapply after being in the water, sweating a lot, or towel drying since all of these activities can remove sunscreen from your skin. (One study indicates it’s best to reapply your sunscreen after 15-30 minutes in the sun, so consider doing this as well.) Don’t skimp when putting on sunscreen: Studies have shown that consumers typically apply only 1/4 to 2/3rds of the amount of sunscreen required to achieve the product’s SPF rating. The FDA recommends applying one ounce (about a palmful) evenly to all exposed skin (ACS 2007; BCCDC 2003; Diffey 2001).

￪ back to top

Will sunscreen protect me from cancer and wrinkling?

There are two main types of UV radiation that are known to contribute to skin cancer, wrinkling, and skin aging: UVA and UVB. To get the most protection, you need to use a product that filters out a significant proportion of both types of rays. All sunscreens protect against UVB rays, but only some sunscreens protect against UVA. These latter products are usually labeled as UVA/UVB or “broad spectrum” sunscreens. You can tell how effective a particular sunscreen is at protecting skin from UVB by looking at the SPF number — the higher the number, the better the protection. But SPF values tell you nothing about how much UVA protection you are getting. In fact, The FDA has no regulations about what degree of UVA protection a sunscreen must provide to be able to make such claims, so you won’t know how much protection you are actually getting by reading the bottle. This is one of the primary reasons that EWG created its sunscreen guide — to give consumers much needed information about how effective their sunscreen is at blocking both types of harmful radiation.

￪ back to top

What does “SPF” really mean?

SPF is a measurement of sunburn protection, which is primarily from UVB rays. If your skin would normally burn after 10 minutes in the sun, for example, wearing an SPF 15 sunscreen would theoretically allow you to stay in the sun for 150 minutes (10 x 15) without burning. This is a rough estimate, however, and your own skin, the type of activity you do in the sun (i.e. one involving water or sweat), and the intensity of sunlight may give you more or less safety. Note that SPF ratings can be confusing or misleading at times.

For example, the rating tells you about UVB protection, but nothing about protection from also harmful UVA rays which cause photo-aging and cancer. In addition, The Food and Drug Administration has expressed concerns that current testing methods may not be able to accurately and reproducibly determine SPF values for high SPF products (FDA 2007).

￪ back to top

How high of an SPF should I use?

Pick the SPF appropriate for your skin type and solar exposure. But remember that UVA protection in U.S. sunscreens maxes out at about 15, so higher SPF products will not fully protect your skin from sun damage. The American Cancer Society recommends that people use a sunscreen with a SPF of at least 15, the American Academy of Dermatology opts for 30. Avoid sunscreens with SPF numbers higher than 50. More important than seeking out ultra-high SPF products is that you apply your sunscreen generously — most people put on only a 1/4 to 2/3rds enough sunscreen to actually reach the product’s SPF rating (ACS 2007, BCCDC 2003, FDA 2007).

￪ back to top

What is the difference between sunscreen, sunblock, and suntan lotion?

Products marketed as “sunscreen” and “sunblock” contain ingredients that provide at least some degree of protection from sunburn and other damaging effects of the sun’s UV rays. Products marketed as “suntan” or “tanning” lotion, on the other hand, do not contain such ingredients and do not provide any such protection and are intended to be used while acquiring a tan. The FDA has indicated that it intends to ban the term “sunblock” from being used in marketing claims — when the agency eventually finalizes its sunscreen regulations — because it falsely implies that the product is blocking all light from the sun when no product can do this. Similarly, the agency has also indicated that it will require the following warning to be printed on all “suntan” products: “This product does not contain a sunscreen and does not protect against sunburn. Repeated exposure of unprotected skin while tanning may increase the risk of skin aging, skin cancer, and other harmful effects to the skin even if you do not burn” (FDA 2007).

￪ back to top

What is PABA and why do so many sunscreens say they are “PABA-free”?

PABA (para-aminobenzoic acid) was once a very popular sunscreen ingredient that fell out of favor with manufacturers because of problems with allergic dermatitis and photosensitivity and because it tended to stain clothes yellow. The exceptionally common “PABA-free” marketing claim is almost meaningless since virtually zero sunscreens still contain PABA. A derivative of PABA called Padimate O is still used, however, and may be found in sunscreens labeled as PABA-free. Padimate O appears to be safer than PABA, but still shares some of the same health concerns as its parent chemical.

￪ back to top

Are nanoparticles used in my sunscreen? Should I be concerned?

If your sunscreen lists titanium dioxide or zinc oxide as an active ingredient and if when you apply the sunscreen to your skin it is not the color of white paint then the most likely answer is yes, there are particles less than 100 nanometers (nm) in size.  There are two competing factors that necessitate the use of smaller nanoparticles in sunscreen; (1) the consumer desire for a sunscreen that is clear requires particle sizes to be less than 200-300nm in size, (2) the market shift towards higher SPF products necessitates the use of smaller particles that provide higher efficacy per percent active ingredient. Titanium dioxide particles are rod shaped and once the smallest dimension is >15-35nm the particles become visibly white.

For our efficacy calculations we have assumed a particle of size of between 15-35nm.  Zinc oxide particles are more spherical in shape and larger size particles can be utilized in sunscreen without undesirable tinting.  For our efficacy calculations we have assumed particle sizes of 40-60nm and 140nm as our best estimates of what is being used in sunscreen.  All evidence we have evaluated indicates that a significant portion of the primary particles sizes are <100nm in all mineral sunscreen ingredient that are clear when applied on the skin.

Should I be concerned?

Environmental Working Group is among the many advocacy groups who have raised concerns about whether the rapidly expanding use of nanotechnology poses risks to human health or the environment. We have determined that most zinc and titanium sunscreens contain nanosize particles, even when they are not on the label.

Although we expected to reach a different conclusion at the outset of our sunscreen investigation, when we balanced all factors important in sunscreen safety, our analysis shows that many zinc and titanium-based sunscreens are among the safest and most effective sunscreens on the market. Our product ratings reflect our concern about the very real dangers of cancer and other health hazards from sun exposure, balanced against concerns about the potential health hazards of sunscreen ingredients.

Zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are stable compounds that provide broad spectrum UVA and UVB protection, while the available studies consistently show very little or zero penetration of intact skin by these compounds, indicating that real world exposure to potential nano sized particles in these products is likely very low (Börm 2006). The sun protection benefits, in contrast, are very high.

EWG’s rating of zinc and titanium-based products as among the safest and most effective sunscreens available in the U.S. today should not be interpreted as an endorsement of nano-materials in general. We remain deeply concerned about the overall safety and oversight of nanotechnology as well as impacts to workers and the environment.

Benefits:

  • UV exposure is damaging to health, and zinc and titanium offer broad spectrum UV protection.
  • Zinc and titanium are 2 of only 4 UVA blockers used in the US. The only other U.S.-approved sunscreen with UVA-I protection are avobenzone and Mexoryl SX. Alternatives including Tinosorb S and Tinosorb M are available in Europe but not approved by FDA for use in the U.S.
  • In 15 peer-reviewed studies, nanosize zinc and titanium were shown not to penetrate through unbroken skin at concentrations exceeding 1.5%. A recent review for the EU decision-making body found that, “There is currently little evidence from skin penetration studies that dermal applications of metal oxide nanoparticles used in sunscreens lead to systemic exposure” (Börm 2006).
  • Zinc oxide poses a low level of concern based on currently available science: it is well studied and is a necessary nutrient to humans.

Concerns of zinc and titanium in sunscreens:

  • No studies have tested nanosize zinc and titanium penetration through fragile or damaged skin. Conventional zinc is widely used on damaged skin including diaper ointment and burn treatment. However, other nano-scale particles have been shown to penetrate the skin, especially when it is repeatedly flexed.
  • U.S. regulatory framework has lagged far behind industry in addressing the impacts of nanotechnology. Due to inadequate labeling requirements, consumers have no options for avoiding products containing nanoparticles.
  • Nanoparticle production poses serious concerns for workers, especially particle inhalation, which available science indicates is likely the greatest human hazard for nanoparticle exposures. Occupational production is virtually unregulated in the U.S.
  • Nanoparticles, including zinc and titanium, are potentially toxic to the environment. Like all sunscreen ingredients their use in sunscreens results in releases of the chemicals through production, users’ contact with water, and as waste.

What to do:

  • FDA needs to evaluate nanoparticles as distinct from larger particles in products.
  • Manufacturers using materials with all or a fraction of the ingredient in the nano-scale range must clearly label their products with this information, to allow consumers the option of avoiding them.
  • FDA must evaluate and approve new sunscreen chemicals that can protect from UVA and might offer fewer risks to workers and the environment.
  • The safety of nano-scale zinc and titanium in sunscreen must be fully assessed.

￪ back to top

How do sunscreens work?

The active ingredients within sunscreens absorb, reflect, or scatter ultraviolet (UV) radiation, and thereby alter how the body responds to this radiation. Sunscreens typically contain a combination of different chemicals that are known to be effective for certain wavelengths of UV light. Some chemicals work better than others, however, as do some combinations of chemicals. For years, manufacturers created sunscreens that were only effective at screening out UVB radiation, since this is the type of radiation that was known to cause sunburn and lead to skin cancer. More recently, manufacturers have worked to create sunscreens that will protect the skin from both UVA and UVB radiation, since scientists realized that UVA radiation is also harmful. All sunscreens provide UVB protection, but only some protect against UVA rays (FDA 1999).

￪ back to top

Has sunscreen usage decreased skin cancer rates over time?

The National Cancer Institute says that there is currently inadequate scientific evidence to answer this question. However, consumers might be interested to know that two controlled studies comparing sunscreen users with others found that sunscreen reduced the risk of one common form of skin cancer (squamous-cell carcinoma) but not another common form (basal-cell carcinoma). This work provides further support for the generally accepted recommendation for people to use sunscreen but not rely on it exclusively to prevent sun-related harm to the skin (NCI 2007; van der Pols 2006; Green 1999).

￪ back to top

What is the matter with sprays and powders?

EWG does not recommend powder and spray sunscreens due to concerns about inhalation. We are especially concerned about inhalation of nano- or mico-sized zinc and titanium in powdered sunscreens. Inhalation is a much more direct route of exposure to these compounds than dermal penetration, which appears to be low in healthy skin. If you want the benefits of a mineral sunscreen choose a zinc- or titanium-containing lotion instead of powder. When using a pump or spray sunscreen lower your inhalation risk by applying the product on your hands and then wiping it on your face.

￪ back to top

What about sunscreens with bug spray?

We would advise you to skip regular use of products that combine bug spray with sunscreen. For starters bugs may not be a problem during the hours that UV exposure peaks. Sunscreen may need to be reapplied more frequently than bug spray, or vice versa. You should avoid using pesticides on your face too. Most worrisome are the fact that sunscreens often contain penetration enhancers. Studies indicating that concurrent use of sunscreens and pesticides leads to increased skin adsorption of the pesticide (Brand 2003; Kasichayanula 2005; Pont 2003; Pont 2004;  Wang 2006; Wang 2007).

￪ back to top

My sunscreen is certified with the Skin Cancer Foundation Seal of Recommendation, what does this mean?

Over 600 products bear the Skin Cancer Foundation’s Seal of Recommendation, but this certification has previously been limited to manufacturers who join SCF’s Corporate Council for $10,000 per year. Products are required to meet criteria that are less rigorous than those of the American Academy of Dermatology or EWG. They include SPF of 15 or greater, in-person SPF testing, data showing the product doesn’t cause phototoxic reactions or irritation, and proof to substantiate any claims of water or sweat resistance. EWG and AAD account for UVA protection and product stability. EWG also assesses the known or potential health effects of active and other ingredients in the product. Currently, the Skin Cancer Foundation Seal considers none of these important factors. However, EWG learned from a foundation spokesperson that SCF plans to introduce a UVA requirement “in coming months” for companies seeking to earn the seal. It could not come soon enough.

￪ back to top

I see the American Cancer Society logo on my Neutrogena sunscreen. Is this a better product?

American Cancer Society and Neutrogena have partnered to raise awareness about skin cancer. Neutrogena pays a royalty to use ACS logo, but ACS claims that this is not an endorsement or validation of the efficacy of these products.

According to their website: “As part of our relationship with Neutrogena, the American Cancer Society logo appears on some of their sunscreen products, along with a disclosure about the nature of our relationship.  Specifically, the notice states that we do not endorse a specific product and that a royalty fee has been paid for the use of our brand logo” (ACS 2007).

￪ back to top

I am using decent sunscreen with SPF 50, so why do I still get burnt in the sun?

With proper usage of an SPF 50 sunscreen you should be able to get 50 times the solar exposure before burning had you not been wearing sunscreen. Proper usage ensures that you are applying sunscreen 20-30 minutes before solar exposure, applying ~1 ounce for your entire body (which is more than you think!), and reapplying frequently.  Make sure to reapply every 2 hours and after swimming, sweating or toweling off. According to a recent study applying half the recommended amount of an SPF 50 sunscreen will only provide SPF 7 protection, so make sure to use enough.

￪ back to top

Will I be able to tan if I apply sunscreen?

Tanning is caused by UVA radiation that triggers the growth of melanin in our skin. Sunburns are predominantly caused by shorter wavelength UVB exposure. In general if we block UVB radiation and allow UVA radiation we can get a tan and decrease our risk of sunburns. This is the approach that tanning salons have taken. However the problem is that overexposure to UVA light can be damaging to skin. UVA light is associated with immune suppression, skin aging and even cancer. But unlike a sunburn, you don’t get an immediate signal that you’ve had too much sun, so these subtle damages can amass over years.

For these reason the FDA is finally joining other developed countries in proposing regulations that would require products to disclose their effectiveness for screening both UVA and UVB light. With broad spectrum UV coverage provided by a sunscreen you have greater protection from sunburns and other long-term skin damage. Depending on the time spent in the sun and the protection afforded by your sunscreen, you can still tan but it will occur at a slower more controlled rate.

￪ back to top

How do you remove sunscreen?

Chemical-based sunscreens will be broken down by the sun and loose their effectiveness over time. Normal swimming, toweling and sweating will also slough off sunscreen. At the end of the day however, warm water, soap, and a bit of elbow grease are the best ways to remove sunscreens from your skin.

￪ back to top

What should I do to protect my pet from the sun?

Animals can get sunburned, and even skin cancer. The most sensitive areas are those not covered by hair. Avoiding peak sun intensity between 10 and 4 is the safest strategy. The American Animal Hospital Association cautions that only fragrance-free, pet-specific products be used on animals. Grooming behaviors put cats at greater risk for ingesting harmful ingredients in sunscreens. (Rainey 2009).

￪ back to top

Should I be concerned about Vitamin A in my sunscreen?

Data from an FDA cancer study shows that Vitamin A, a common sunscreen ingredient, may speed the growth of skin tumors. Vitamin A seems to spurs cancer only when it’s combined with sunlight, a quality called “photocarcinogenic.”

The sunscreen industry adds Vitamin A to 30% of all sunscreens, in a synthetic form called retinyl palmitate. It is an antioxidant that hydrates skin and prevents skin aging. FDA has long been concerned about Vitamin A because of its increasing use in body care products, its ability to spur hyperplasia (excess skin growth) in anti-aging creams, and the fact that in sunlight it forms free radicals and damages DNA (NTP 2000).

In FDA’s one-year study, tumors and lesions developed up to 21% sooner in lab animals coated in a Vitamin A-laced cream (0.1 and 0.5% Vitamin A) and exposed to the equivalent of just 9 minutes of maximum intensity sunlight each day for up to a year, compared to animals treated with sunlight and a vitamin-free cream.

It’s an ironic twist for an industry already battling studies on whether their products protect against skin cancer. The FDA data are preliminary, but if they hold in the final assessment, the sunscreen industry has a big problem. In the meantime, EWG recommends that consumers avoid sunscreen with vitamin A (look for “retinyl palmitate” on the label).

￪ back to top

References:

ACS. 2007. Skin Cancer Prevention and the New York Times. Dr. Len’s Cancer Blog.  American Cancer Society. http://our.cancer.org/aspx/blog/Comments.aspx?id=158

ASC. 2007. Skin Cancer Prevention and Early Detection. American Skin Cancer Society.

BCCDC. 2003. Radiation Issue Notes (RIN) #15 – Sunscreens and their correct application. British Columbia Centre for Disease Control.

Börm PJ, Robbins D, Haubold S, Kuhlbusch T, Fissan H, Donaldson K, et al. 2006. The potential risks of nanomaterials: a review carried out for ECETOC. Part Fibre Toxicol 3(11): 1-35.

Diffey BL. 2001. When should sunscreen be reapplied? J Am Acad Dermatol 45(6): 882-885.

FDA. 2007. Sunscreen Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use; Proposed Amendment of Final Monograph; Proposed Rule. In: 21 CFR Parts 347 and 352. Federal Register: U. S. Food and Drug Administration.

Green A, Williams G, Neale R, Hart V, Leslie D, Parsons P, et al. 1999. Daily sunscreen application and betacarotene supplementation in prevention of basal-cell and squamous-cell carcinomas of the skin: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 354(9180): 723-729.

National Cancer Institute. 2007. General Information about Skin Cancer.  www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/skin/patient

Pont AR, Charron AR, Wilson RM, Brand RM. 2003. Effects of active sunscreen ingredient combinations on the topical penetration of the herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Toxicol Ind Health 19(1): 1-8.

Pont AR, Charron AR, Brand RM. 2004. Active ingredients in sunscreens act as topical penetration enhancers for the herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 195(3): 348-54.

Rainey, C. 2009. “Animals can get sunburned, too.” McClatchy Newspapers. July 5, 2009. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/fea/lifetravel/stories/DN-petsunburn_0705gd.ART.State.Edition1.4c024fd.html

Skin Cancer Foundation. 2009. Seal of Recommendation, http://www.skincancer.org/how-a-product-earns-our-seal.html and www.skincancer.org/Corporate-Council.html

Wang T, Kasichayanula S, Xiaochen G. 2006. In vitro permeation of repellent DEET and sunscreen oxybenzone across three artificial memmbranes. International Journal of Pharmaceutics 310: 110–117.

Wang T, Gu X. 2007. In Vitro Percutaneous Permeation of the Repellent DEET and the Sunscreen Oxybenzone across Human Skin. J Pharm Pharm Sci 10(1): 17-25.

van der Pols JC, Williams GM, Pandeya N, Logan V, Green AC. 2006. Prolonged prevention of squamous cell carcinoma of the skin by regular sunscreen use. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15(12): 2546-2548.

ArticlesSeptember 17, 2011

No Comment

HF 1329 A proposed Bill that will ban tanning to anyone under the age of 18.

4.1    Sec. 4. [325H.14] RESTRICTION ON USE OF TANNING FACILITIES BY
4.2MINORS.
4.3An operator or employee of a tanning facility shall not allow an individual who
4.4is under 18 years of age to use a tanning device of the facility unless the individual
4.5presents a prescription for receiving ultraviolet radiation treatments written by a physician
4.6authorized under chapter 147A.

NewsApril 10, 2011

No Comment

ACADEMIC FRAUD?

5254_107642339226_38941809226_2322723_5194972_n
IARC Report Declaring UV “Carcinogenic to Humans” ignored conflicting information

JACKSON, Mich. (July 29) – The International Agency for Research on Cancer ignored conflicting information in its classification of ultraviolet light as ‘carcinogenic to humans’ – a one-dimensional conclusion that benefits the $35 billion sunscreen industry, which has strong financial ties to most of the dermatology community today, and forgets the fact that humans need UV light to live.

“If a pharmaceutical company sold you sunshine, we wouldn’t be having this discussion right now,” International Smart Tan Network Vice President Joseph Levy said. “Instead, we are dealing with a report that now has the press comparing Mother Nature’s most important creation – sunlight – to arsenic and mustard gas. It’s ludicrous.”

“Saying that UV exposure is harmful and should be avoided is as wrong as saying that water causes drowning, and therefore we should avoid water.”

No data has ever been presented suggesting that UV exposure in a non-burning fashion is a significant risk factor for any skin damage, nor has a mechanism been established whereby UV causes melanoma, which is more common in indoor workers than in outdoor workers and which occurs most commonly on parts of the body that don’t get regular UV exposure.

IARC cited its own report alleging “risk of skin melanoma is increased by 75 per cent when people started using tanning beds before age 30.” Ignored in this statement is confounding information pointing out that:

• IARC’s analysis was flawed. When the palest individuals who cannot tan (called Skin Type I – people who are not allowed to tan in North American tanning facilities) were removed from the IARC data set, there was no increase in risk for the group being studied.

• In fact, 18 of 22 studies on this topic show no statistically signficant relationship between indoor tanning and melanoma – including the largest and most recent study.

“Ignoring conflicting information in the publication of a report and elevating your conclusion without bringing confounding information to light constitutes academic fraud,” Levy said. “This report presents no new data, ignores confounding information and attempts to reach a new conclusion with no new information. While it remains prudent for individuals to avoid sunburn, it should be noted that there is NO RESEARCH suggesting that non-burning UV exposure is a significant risk factor for humans. None.”

Levy continued, “Further, it is clearer now more than ever that humans NEED regular UV exposure as the only true natural way to make vitamin D. It is called ‘The Sunshine Vitamin’ for a reason: You produce more vitamin D by getting a tan in a non-burning fashion than you would from drinking 100 glasses of whole milk. We are very concerned that the politics of profit-motivated anti-UV groups are misrepresenting the balanced message about sunlight that a true, independent evaluation of the science supports.

The U.S. government in 2000 placed ultraviolet light on the federal government’s list of known human carcinogens. But the criteria to be labeled a carcinogen does not take into account the dosage of a substance required to increase risk – which means that the listing only indicts sunburn, not non-burning exposure. According to that report, “The Report does not present quantitative assessments of carcinogenic risk. Listing of substances in the Report, therefore, does not establish that such substances present carcinogenic risks to individuals in their daily lives.” This exclusion makes this listing meaningless.

In doing so, ultraviolet light became the first item on that list that humans need to live and would die if they didn’t receive.

QUICK ANSWERS:

1. This list means nothing more than SUNBURN is harmful. There’s no research suggesting that non-burning exposure is harmful.

2. Many of the parties promoting this list have ties to the $35 billion sunscreen industry, which wants you to over-use their product.

3. Saying that ultraviolet light causes skin cancer and therefore should be avoided is just like saying water causes drowning and therefore should be avoided. You need water in order to live and survive – just as you need ultraviolet light in order to live and survive.

4. By including UV light on a list of carcinogens without making the statement clear that overexposure, and not mere exposure, is the danger, the makers of this list have made a glaring and fraudulent omission.

ArticlesAugust 07, 2009

No Comment

Understanding ‘The Legend of the Roasted Tanner’

The greatest urban myth in the history of indoor tanning is the story of a young woman who supposedly “cooks” her insides by visiting several tanning salons in one day. The myth is that she microwaved her internal organs.

 But it’s just a myth. You can’t cook anything in a tanning bed.

 That’s because microwaves do not behave like ultraviolet light. To prove the point, Smart Tan arranged indoor tanning’s “Great American Cook-Off” in 2002. Salon owners all across North America put food on their tanning bed acrylics – hamburgers, pork chops, chicken wings and steak. Then they turned on the tanning units for several hours at a time.

 What do you think happened? NOTHING. That’s because ultraviolet light CAN’T cook food. And it can’t cook your internal organs – after all, it doesn’t penetrate your body past your skin.

 So what do you tell your client? The legend of the roasted tanner is nothing but a myth. If your clients don’t believe you, tell them chicken, steak and hamburgers are still raw after several HOURS in a tanning bed.

 You also should make an effort to avoid referring to tanning as “cooking” or “frying.” It only perpetuates the myth. And we’re not in the business of “baking” people.

ArticlesAugust 07, 2009

No Comment

Vitamin D: One Big Reason We Need Sun Exposure

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!

The ‘Sunshine Vitamin’ is linked to lowering your risk of several forms of cancer and many other diseases.

Exposure to UVB present in sunshine and in most tanning beds is the body’s natural way to produce vitamin D, accounting for 90 percent of vitamin D production. Dietary “supplements” are just that: Supplemental ways to produce vitamin D.
What’s more, research has shown that people who utilize indoor tanning equipment that emits UVB – which most tanning equipment does – also produce vitamin D. And studies have also shown that indoor tanning patrons have higher vitamin D blood levels than non-tanners.

While the North American indoor tanning industry promotes itself as a cosmetic service, one undeniable side-effect of that cosmetic service is vitamin D production. Even though it may not be necessary to develop a tan to produce vitamin D, this should also be considered: There is growing consensus that humans may not be able to get enough vitamin D through dietary supplements alone (especially if recommended vitamin D levels are raised, as is widely anticipated, from 200-600 IU daily to 1,000-2,000 IU) and growing acceptance of moderate sun exposure as the best, cheapest, most widely available and most natural source. (In comparison, an 8-ounce glass of whole milk is fortified with just 100 IU of Vitamin D). Further, because research suggests that the risks associated with sun exposure are most likely related to intermittent sunburns, it is credible to believe that the benefits of regular, moderate non-burning exposure outweigh the easily manageable risks associated with overexposure.

New research has shown that vitamin D deficiency is epidemic in American adults today, suggesting that up to 90 percent of North Americans are vitamin D deficient and that vitamin D deficiency has significant implications on human health.3 Indeed, two world-wide conferences on Vitamin D were convened in 2006 in North America, with universal consensus that Vitamin D deficiency is a real problem. As a result of those conferences, the American Cancer Society and the Canadian Cancer Society – which had both preached sun abstinence for years – both recognized for the first time in May 2006 that some sunlight is necessary for human health.

It is likely that over-usage of sunscreen in climates and seasons when sunburn is not a possibility – sunscreen almost completely prevents vitamin D production – has contributed to this problem. This is especially significant because:

A 2006 systematic review of 63 studies on vitamin D status in relation to cancer risk has shown that vitamin D sufficiency may reduce one’s risk of colon, breast and ovarian cancers by up to 50 percent.

 

Additionally, vitamin D deficiency is a leading cause of osteoporosis, a disease affecting 25 million Americans which leads to 1 million hip and bone fractures every year.3 In elderly individuals, such fractures are often deadly. Encouraging everyone to wear sunscreen all year long in any climate undoubtedly is contributing to this problem, as vitamin D is necessary for the body to properly process calcium.

 

Vitamin D deficiency most likely plays a role in the development of muscular sclerosis, according to the Calgary based charity Direct-MS. (You can learn more about this by visiting www.direct-ms.org.

 

Vitamin D deficiency is also believed to be linked to an increased risk of prostate cancer and even heart disease.

Four additional resources for more information and research on vitamin D are:

www.theita.com

www.grassrootshealth.net

www.drsorenson.blogspot.com

www.uvfoundation.org

www.vitaminDcouncil.org

www.sunarc.org

www.tanningtruth.com

ArticlesAugust 07, 2009

No Comment



 
Electric Beach Mankato
© 2009 by Electric Beach Mankanto, Professional Tanning Salon. All Rights Reserved.

Mankato PC Solutions - Mankato Website Design
Electric Beach Professional Tanning Salon
2104 Hoffman Rd., Mankato
507-625-6242