I have to put my current skincare biology articles to the side due to the questions about sunscreen products.  This article will begin to uncover the truth and expose the lies.

Several claims have surrounded sunscreen products for years.  Cosmetics companies backed by dermatologists, or better, cosmetic and dermatological surgeons have touted that SPF lotions and creams will provide ‘protection’ from the sun that is solely responsible for the much of the external aging effects of the skin and not so alarmingly skin cancers.  Some sunscreens offer UVB protection to minimize the chances of burning.  And only a select few offer UVA protection to prevent the deeper rays from penetrating and damaging the lower levels of the skin where our collagen forms thus causing premature aging.  And, these UV blockers only protect the skin for a specific amount of time.  Approximately, 90 to 120 minutes to be exact.  This fluctuation in recommended reapplication time is determined by the wearer’s activities in addition to the ingredients of the sunscreen.  In order for a sunscreen to be truly effective it must protect from UVA AND UVB rays.  These products are called  Broad Spectrum Sunscreens.  Unfortunately, to back up the necessity for this and future sunscreen articles, several sunscreen makers will label a product as Broad Spectrum (Neutrogena for instance) when in fact it blocks no amount of UVA rays than it can stand hours and hours of water without a need for reapplication. 

What are these claims that are being thrown at a jury representing:  Misleading terms, falsified facts, and plainly allowing consumers to think one thing when the opposite is actually true.  Examples, you ask?  There are quite a few but I listed the most common that we have all seen, recently!

1.  Anti-aging or Age Defying – sunscreen is anti-aging because it prevents, or should prevent-future aging because it blocks aging UV rays.  Kind of a no-brainer, no?  Can a sunscreen be additionally anti-aging?  Sure?  Are there a lot of over the counter options for a truly anti-aging broad spectrum sunscreen?  Outlook does not look good.  Allow me to individually customize an anti-aging day cream with SPF and then talk to me about a true Anti-Aging- Sunscreen.                                                      
2. SPF 100+! – Bogus.  SPF 30 is what ‘dermatologists recommend’.  Neutrogena, enough of the SPF 105+.  Part of your lawsuit last year had to do with misleading terms in which consumers believe they are protected all day because they applied an 80+, oh I don’t mean to insult your labeling practices, I mean 105+ SPF sunscreens).  This leads to BAD burning and or damage to the lower levels of the skin – this damage surfaces later in life in many unflattering ways.  Yet, you are still producing far-from-the-truth labels.  Don’t think I’m picking on you.  My other article reports about the 500 sunscreens on the market that also mislead our unknowing, trusting consumers.  Figuring ALL sunscreens (including sport sunscreens) must be reapplied every couple hours) it is unappreciated that you trick your buyers into thinking they are protected longer or all day because of your 80+, I mean, 105+ labels.

Nearly all dermatologists will recommend at least an SPF 30 for daily use  Unless, that dermatologist has frozen or burned off actinic keratoses, these are precancerous lesions that affect the forty-eighty something-year olds, or near thirty-somethings with numerous lot of bad burns even before the age of sixteen.  A dermatologist will refer to a bad burn as peeling and blistering-ouch.  These burns exponentially increase the likeliness of skin cancer formation a later in life.  I am talking about myself in reference to the bad burns before the age of 16, yes.  Or, if that dermatologist has actually removed a skin cancer – then it should be recommended to apply an SPF 50.  Why higher?  Or, why not higher than 50?  Maybe Neutrogena can answer this.  Just kidding.  I would never expect them to admittingly offer to the general public how they knowlingly mislabel and mislead unsuspecting consumers into the purchase of their falsely made cosmetic products.

So allow me to answer.  Each person has an approximate amount of time he or she can spend in the sun before she will begin to ‘burn’.  Let’s say I begin to burn after spending 20 minutes in the sun (not far from the truth!)  If I apply an SPF 15, sunscreen makers will have me believe that I multiply my burn factor of 20 minutes by the SPF 15 and that is how much time I can now spend in the sun before I will burn.  Or, 300 minutes, or 5 hours.  If I applied sunscreen at 11 AM while at the beach, and didn’t reapply until 4 PM, I would be a bright red, heated skinned lobster.  I know from experience.  Sunscreen must be reapplied approximately every 2 hours to maintain its efficacy.  Or, directly after swimming or excessive sweating during outdoor activities.  The SPF alone is a misrepresentation of its own protection!  Some skin types do not burn at all, while others in different climates may build up the tanning ability in their skin which masks the burning effect.   That’s why you must become a back-of-the-bottle-ingredient-reader as opposed to a label reader.  An SPF 50 is supposed to provide more protection within that two hour window for skin types that burn or produce cancerous or pre-cancerous lesions more readily.  Dependent upon the actual sunscreen active and inactive ingredients, it may or may not prevent the damaging, harmful effects of UV rays, or prevent the skin from burning.

1.  Waterproof.  As we touched on above there is no miracle sunscreen ingredient to date that can maintain its efficacy through humidity, excessive sweating, or the simple act of swimming.  Since the 2010 lawsuits, sunscreens will now read, “Very, Very, Very Water Resistant”. One very doesn’t get the message across I guess.  How does one even take a product like that seriously?  If that stands for “reapply directly after swimming because the product has been dissolved or washed off after spending a sufficient amount of time in the water” then I agree with that labeling strategy.  If it doesn’t intend that, then I say ‘what a joke, do you think the general public is stupid?!’ to put it nicely.  Apparently so, Coppertone, as your “very, very, very water resistant” or “waterproof” mislabeling suggests.                

So what is a consumer to do?  First off, do not be mesmerized by falsely produced labels and misleading claims where you see a commercial or magazine add and thoughtlessly spend $45-$75 on the latest Innovative Technology from Clinique or Loreal or Olay.  I’ll leave you with this.  Anything these advertisements are calling New or Innovative Technology has been around for DECADES!  They are just jumping on the skincare wagon after all of this time and maybe producing a results-oriented product.  Let’s not get too crazy with assumptions, though.  And if you are not in the industry or do not see a knowledgeable esthetician or skincare-product savvy dermatologist (most dermatologists I am familiar with know their prescriptions, not over the counter products), you would not know these ingredients are AGE OLD!  The new over the counter and department store adds I simply roll my eyes at them.  Not all products lie, but MOST of them sadly, do.  It’s a harsh reality but I’m glad to be here to begin separating the truth from the tiny printed fine lines on your product labels.  And it all starts with ingredients.