Sunscreen news

[roadie gal]

They didn't rate the one that I use: Aloe Gator. I've had great results with it and it doesn't hurt when you sweat it into your eyes, unlike some of the others.

[VeloVT]

I have run across Skin Deep/the EWG website a few times. I am fairly skeptical. EWG is an advocacy organization, not a scientific organization. It's not clear what the qualifications of its "researchers" are -- the "About" and "FAQ" sections of the website are suspiciously vague about this. The fact that they are an advocacy group that campaigns on behalf of "natural" products and touts the dangers and carcinogenicity of practically everything makes me doubt how neutral and scientific their evaluations can be. I'm sure there are lots of FDA-approved ingredients out there that are less than safe, but until they show me some serious credentials I'm inclined to view EWG as being unduly alarmist.

I would also like to point out that in the sunscreen review, the copy is quite misleading in that they pull you in with the assertion that many conventional sunscreens are ineffective and don't protect against UVA. Then they go on to give poor marks to products that even by their own standards give perfectly fine broad-spectrum coverage (like many of the Neutrogena products), but contain "nasty chemicals" that EWG doesn't like. However, the way the report is written they elide these two issues and imply that the sunscreens that are "bad" because of chemicals also offer inadequate coverage (some of them may, but many don't). This tends to confirm my suspicions about EWG.

I'm not convinced.

Of course, it is true that there are only a handful (3-5) ingredients approved in the US that give UVA coverage, and plenty of sunscreens don't contain them, so you do need to read the label and look for zinc, titanium, Avobenzene, mexoryl, etc -- but EWG is greatly overstating the problem in my opinion.

[OakLeaf]

I am fairly skeptical. EWG is an advocacy organization, not a scientific organization.

Well, not exactly. They don't lobby anyone for anything. Their purpose is to provide information to the public. Their scientists compile research done by government agencies and in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and all the research is quoted on their site. They don't rely on any non-peer-reviewed data except government data.

Organizations like the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, etc., those are advocacy organizations whose members profit when consumers and governments follow their recommendations. EWG is a news source that accepts no advertising and gains no direct benefit from providing their information. And, in terms of the proportion of program expenses to total fundraising, they're perennially a top-rated charity.

[KerryCrow]

I am very happy with the Neutragena products. I use their 70 "face shield" and then then spray-on (I think 55) for arms and legs. I am very fair and freckly. The spray-on stuff does not seem to need to be reapplied even with sweating.

For the face stuff on a long day, I squirt a tiny amount into a snack size zip lock bag for reapplication, takes up no room at all in my shirt pocket, and it's not messy.

I did have the break out problem with the Neutragena, but now I wash my face with a good cleanser AS SOON as I walk in the door and it seems to have solved the problem for me...that or this "Face Shield" is easier on my skin.

[VeloVT]

Well, not exactly. They don't lobby anyone for anything. Their purpose is to provide information to the public. Their scientists compile research done by government agencies and in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and all the research is quoted on their site. They don't rely on any non-peer-reviewed data except government data. (...) EWG is a news source that accepts no advertising and gains no direct benefit from providing their information. And, in terms of the proportion of program expenses to total fundraising, they're perennially a top-rated charity.

I'm still skeptical. How many people go and check the sources and have the background to determine whether the conclusions extrapolated by EWG are really valid conclusions to draw from the data they cite?

If you browse the Skin Deep site, the level of danger they ascribe to just about everything is SO outside the mainstream that I really have to believe they choose their conclusions ahead of time and then search very hard to find some evidence that might support them if presented in the right way.

Edit: EWG has both a 501(c)3 and a 501(c)4, and use the c4 organization to engage in lobbying (http://www.ewg.org/about)... Not that I have any problem with lobbying, but it suggests that EWG has a specific agenda to promote and may have a vested interest in the nature of the results they find/publish.

[VeloVT]

On the topic of sunscreen though, I've been using Neutrogena Age Shield Face SPF 70 on my face. I'm a bit oily and this sunscreen is very light & dry, although it smells like house paint. I really like it for exercise or anytime I'm going to be out for a long time. For general use I like something a little lighter (usually with SPF 30), I've had good luck with some of the Murad products.

For body, I use Coppertone Waterbabies SPF 50, which DOES offer good UVA protection (3% Avobenzene). It works well for me (and smells like baby powder, which I like!), but I'm more of a tanner than a burner anyway. However, my boyfriend is very, very fair and burns at the thought of sun, and this has done a good job protecting him from burning on 3-4 hour rides before. (I use this on my body instead of the Neutrogena basically because it comes in bigger bottles and is cheaper).

Someone mentioned the Clarins titanium dioxide block. I used to use that and it's really, really nice, especially if you have combination-to-oily skin. It has a watery texture that just disappears on your skin. I wouldn't use it for exercising because I think it tends to streak off when you sweat heavily, but it's very nice for every day wear. Although I've kind of stopped using physical blocks for day-to-day wear because I like to put sunscreen all the way down my neck, and I find that titanium-based blocks, even really light & sheer ones, tend to rub off, and it doesn't look nice if you're wearing, say, a black suit .

[Lifesgreat]

I find that titanium-based blocks, even really light & sheer ones, tend to rub off, and it doesn't look nice if you're wearing, say, a black suit .

The voice of experience?

[TsPoet]

Well, not exactly. They don't lobby anyone for anything. Their purpose is to provide information to the public. Their scientists compile research done by government agencies and in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and all the research is quoted on their site. They don't rely on any non-peer-reviewed data except government data.

They are a group trying to extend their own agenda, they report on the peer-reviewed "scientific" literature they want to put forth their agenda and ignore the literature that doesn't. They also misinterpret a lot of what they report on. The basic tenant of toxicology is "the dose makes the poison".
I peer-review about 25 articles/year and I can tell you I don't always agree with their opinions, it's the basic science that's peer-reviewed, often not the opinions. Also, as a peer reviewer you can make a comment - like the author's definition of "low dose" isn't a low dose - and the authors usually aren't made to change it.
For the sunscreen report this is very important (as it is for all of the BPA "reports" by this group and others like it), if it isn't absorbed into the skin in sufficient amounts, it isn't a problem.
I don't know anything about what works as a sunscreen and what doesn't, simplistically, it seems to me that if it didn't work we'd all get sunburns and not buy the products.
Their reports on toxicity are vague and unsubstantiated.

[jennrod12]

I have fair skin and have had a couple of pre-cancerous spots removed from my face. I burn even before my skin turns red, and I find it difficult to tan.

My dermatologist recommended Neutrogena products to me. I use the Ultra Sheer Dry-touch Sunblock on my face, just found it in 85 SPF! (Note: my husband just went to the dermatologist and she recommended 55 SPF for him, and 70 SPF for me, based on his description of me. I had been using 55 SPF, so he bought me some 70 SPF and took my 55. FYI, the 70 SPF definitely worked better than the 55 SPF.) I put it on about an hour before I ride. Then 15 minutes or so before I ride, I top it off with the Canadian version of L'Oreal Ombrelle that contains Titanium dioxide and Mexoryl. We picked some up when visiting my sister in Canada. I only put that on below my eyes, though, because it will run and sting. I also have a little tiny tube of Neutragena 55 SPF that I keep in my seatpack to reapply on my face.

I'll put almost anything on my legs, the L'Oreal (which is 45 SPF), or 50 SPF Coppertone Sport. I had some Neutragena gel stuff which was really vile, but it stayed on superbly, so I used it on my legs. It worked great, but they don't seem to sell it any more. All those sunscreens feel too "coating" to put on my arms, they make my arms feel like they can't breathe, but my legs don't care.

I usually put 45 SPF Neutragena UVA/UVB sunblock on my arms because it feels good and you get 4 oz for the same price as 3 oz of the Dry Touch version. If I'm going to be out more than 3 hours, I wear a long-sleeved silk undershirt under my jersey to protect my arms. The combo works well.

Oh, I also have a tiny container of zinc oxide that I will use on my face if I'm doing a weeklong tour. It's yellow, yuck!

YMMV, Jenn

[short cut sally]

I have had good luck with Banana Boat sport spf 50. I need to get a new tube as my tube is getting older and just about gone. Its 2 years old and still works well. I've never burned thru it and it doesn't seem to break my face out-I don't need any addtional help with that problem.

[michelem]

From what I understand (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the SPF applies only to UVB rays -- these are the rays that cause burning. UVA rays are the ones that cause wrinkles, cancer, etc. and the SPF does not apply to these rays. I THINK that some of the sunscreens reported as ineffective don't have enough UVA protection in them. We go through life thinking we've been effectively protecting our skin 'cause we don't burn, blissfully unaware that the UVA rays are silently doing their below-the-surface damage . . .