I decided to avoid the guru-talk and home-kitchen-garden knowledge out there as much as possible. The reason: each source is saying something different, which makes it very difficult to find out what is true and what is not. That’s why I chose to only go by as many scientifically proven reports as I could wrap my head around. (Needless to say, I wrote this article while having a caffeine + 85% dark chocolate induced-buzz most of the time.)
And as a last word of caution, I’d like to state that I am not a doctor or authority in this field; I’m just a person using common sense. If I learn that I’ve made mistakes regarding this topic, I will edit the article tout de suite (though what I’ve written is based on some of the more recent scientific research done on the subject).
Don’t feel like reading a lengthy article? Simply scroll down for my advice & conclusion.
The ultraviolet radiation that can reach us here on the Earth’s surface has been categorized into two main types: UVA (320–400 nm) & UVB (290–320 nm). An easy way of understanding the difference between the two is to think of UVA as a form of aging radiation, and UVB as a form of burning radiation. Your exposure to UV radiation depends on multiple factors, such as your current location on the planet, the time of day/year, and atmospheric conditions (e.g. clouds, smog, pollution). To give you a (hyper-)specific example: if you’re sipping on a juicy (shaken, not stirred), alcohol-free (yeah, right!) cocktail shortly after noon in the summer, on a quiet beach just on the outskirts of Barcelona, then the radiation mix would be about 94% UVA + 6% UVB.
Note: UVC rays do not reach the Earth’s surface, as they are completely absorbed by the ozone layer. (At least for the time being…)
UVB has been the traditional focus — “Stop the sunburn, and all is well.” Thus the famous sun protection factor (SPF) was introduced as a score to describe the ‘strength’ of a product which could protect your skin against “sunburn”, i.e. mainly UVB radiation. That’s a part of the reason why many sunscreens do not block UVA radiation well enough.
This turns out to be a major issue, because even though UVA does not cause sunburn, it does cause damage to the skin without little to no visible symptoms. UVA causes the skin to age faster (Oh no, wrinkles! Get me my BB/CC/DD cream quickly, darling!) and can increase the chance of developing skin conditions like melanoma & photodermatitis. On top of that, not only can UVA pass through glass — its rays penetrate the skin more deeply than those of UVB.
Well, if you’ve ever looked like a boiled lobster after spending just a day in the sun, you’re probably well aware of the short-term effects that UVB can have on you. Short-term sunburn will usually cause slight redness, but it can also lead to medically dangerous situations. When dealing with long-term sun damage, however, the skin will show signs of both UVA & UVB damage. Degenerative changes include premature aging and skin damage, as well as fibrous tissue & circulatory changes; these are direct results from chronic exposure to the sun. And then there’s that big “C-word” we are all worried about: cancer. Both UVA & UVB have been implicated as causes of cancer — UV radiation is considered a carcinogen.
Sunscreens marked ‘broad spectrum’, ‘multi-spectrum’ or ‘UVA/UVB protection’ usually contain UVA-blocking ingredients, including but not limited to: stabilized avobenzone, ecamsule, oxybenzone, titanium dioxide, and zinc oxide.
The SPF score of a sunscreen signifies its level of protection against UVB: SPF-15 filters out about 93% of incoming UVB rays; SPF-30 already blocks 97% of UVB; and SPF-50 only blocks one percent more, 98%. It’s actually so misleading for consumers that the EU has banned any labels over SPF-50 — and in the US, the FDA is attempting to finalize this long overdue limitation. The EU has also banned labeling claims such as ‘total protection’, ‘100% protection’, ‘sunblock’ and ‘all-day prevention’ on any marketing information associated with sunscreen & sun protection products.
My advice: SPF-15 is a good start since it blocks 93% of UVB. On sunny days or days when you are outside for a longer period of time, the step up to SPF-30 is worth it. Anything over SPF-50 doesn’t provide enough extra protection to really merit purchasing:
It seems fair to state that those higher SPF level products are more about marketing than assessing significant differences in their potential to protect us from the sun’s damaging rays. You can actually provide yourself with better protection by using a medium-strength SPF sunscreen properly. But therein lies another large problem: hardly anybody uses enough sunscreen — or continues to apply it after a certain amount of time, as is recommended.
These SPF values are calculated based on a dose of about 30ml (1 oz.) for the entire body (most likely more than either you or I are using on the average beach day). More than likely: insufficient amounts of sunscreen are being applied by most to even be able to achieve the prescribed UV protection. In observing real-world circumstances, actual protection is limited far more by the amount applied — and how often it is reapplied — than by the SPF rating.
An EWG report illustrates the consequences of inadequate use of sunscreens, based on applying one-quarter of the recommended amount:
This is a totally different score than the SPF test results, where SPF-30 only allowed 4% to go through. (No wonder people still burn when using sunscreen!)
Concerning SPF testing, there is hardly a difference between the methods that the FDA uses and those used by the EU Colipa; the Colipa rating in Europe requires that the UVA protection forms one-third (1/3) of the total SPF rating. Hence, if the UVA protection is SPF 5 and the UVB protection is SPF 30, the overall SPF allowed to be displayed on the product is 15. In the USA, according to the FDA guidelines set in 2012, sunscreen labels can only claim they offer ‘broad spectrum protection’ if they protect against both UVA & UVB rays. But when a product in the US says that it delivers such protection, the difference between EU | US SPF is negligible; if a US broad spectrum sunscreen has an SPF score of 30, it will get about the same rate in the EU. (By the way, all the SPF products found on our online shop are broad spectrum!)
Remain vigilant and be weary after a lot of exposure to the sun. If the skin reacts with redness, itching or pain, or forms tiny bumps that merge into raised patches (scaling, crusting or bleeding), blisters or hives — you might have a case of sun allergy. If so, the type of sunscreen/level of SPF that would be needed to keep your skin safe from any further damage may differ from the aforementioned recommendations. Stay tuned for a follow-up article on sun allergy.
UV filters reduce the amount of ultraviolet light able to penetrate the skin by reflecting, dispersing or converting it into heat.
Particles of titanium dioxide (TiO2) or zinc oxide (ZnO) function are known as physical UV filters. These (inorganic) molecules act as barriers by shielding the skin from sunlight by way of particulate matter, reflecting & scattering UV rays. The particles work like thousands of atomic mirrors on the skin. Physical barriers are near-perfect sunscreens; they protect against UVA & UVB and start working immediately. They’re also stable, seen as safe, and don’t break down in the sun. (If you don’t swim or sweat a lot, they will still work exactly the same after hours of use — so you don’t need to reapply so often.)
Well then, why don’t we all use them? Since the zinc oxide and titanium dioxide particles are white, they can cause an undesired whitening effect (the infamous “white cast”) on the skin at higher concentrations. This is prevented by reducing the size of the pigment particles to about 200 nanometers (millionths of a millimeter) — which makes them more transparent on the skin.
Physical UV filters in conventional products are used mainly in sunscreens with an SPF above 25. They are also used quite often in natural/organic products, as these usually stay clear of chemical filters. Physical filters are even suitable for the sensitive skin of children, as well as people with allergies.
Zinc oxide is generally seen as very safe. It’s been used without problems for a long time in many skincare products and hardly anybody is allergic to it. It’s anti-inflammatory, and can work wonders on acne (which is why switching from conventional makeup to mineral makeup can help minimize breakouts). Zinc oxide sits on the skin, so it does not get absorbed or block pores; it can be used on delicate skin, being a main active ingredient in diaper rash cream, as it aids in healing the skin by protecting it from external warmth & moisture. You can also consume it in tiny amounts without problems; it’s even added as a nutrient to some cereals & vitamin pills.
In sunscreens, zinc oxide is known for its powerful broadband UV protection & stability. Simply said, nothing affects it, not even after hours spent baking in the sunlight. It’s very stable and it continues to do it’s job with minimal reapplication.
See picture below, where the white boxes represent ZnO values before exposure and the black boxes represent the results after exposure to strong UV rays:
Titanium dioxide is a bit more questionable (even though when used correctly it is also generally seen as a very safe ingredient). You may not realize it, but titanium dioxide can be found everywhere — you probably use it daily, maybe even without knowing it. 4,5 million tons of it is produced each year; it’s used in a huge number of products as well, ranging from paint to candy, toothpaste to solar cells, and vitamin pills to smog protection for skyscrapers. And there’s an added side effect: it filters out a lot of nasty chemicals found in cigarettes.
Unfortunately, titanium dioxide also possesses the trait of phototoxicity (the smaller the particle, the more problems it will cause on the atomic level). To suppress the photochemical activity (in other words, make the titanium dioxide more stable), sunscreen manufacturers are now coating these particles with other inert, inorganic ingredients, such as aluminum hydroxide (Al(OH)3), alumina (Al2O3) — neither of which should be confused with the controversial aluminum chlorohydrate — hydrated silica, or in some cases even polymers, after which an organic substance like staeric acid is added to the mix in order to make the particles more water-repellent; this ensures that the sunscreen will stay on the skin for a longer period of time. Great, right? Well, almost! New studies show chlorine in swimming pools can degrade the coating, exposing the nano-particles of titanium dioxide. So while these products are great for moisturizers with SPF because they are very transparent while offering great protection, I would not reccomend using them in regular sunscreens that you use on holidays.
For more detailed info on titanium dioxide please, see note 1 at the bottom of this article.
The first thing you should know: size isn’t the only thing that matters. It’s not only particle size that can be a cause for alarm; in actuality, we all eat thousands of harmless nano-particles every day. In some substances, though, nano-particles can turn out to be considerably more dangerous.
Most manufacturers produce three cosmetic grades of zinc oxide: the USP1 (normal size) grade, a micronized (slightly smaller) grade, and a nano-particle (super small) grade. You could compare it to a soccer ball, tennis ball, and a marble, respectively — just 1000s of times smaller. Manufacturers use the USP1 grade as the starting feed material for the other two grades, which are created as derivatives through additional processing.
A nano-particle is a particle smaller than 100 nanometers (or one-hundred-billionths of a meter). Defining whether a powder is non-nano or not is very difficult, as it is virtually impossible to ensure that a product is 100% free of nano-particles. Furthermore, many particles are not spherical in shape and are difficult to measure simply for this reason. The FDA has declined to weigh in on this controversial issue and currently does not make a distinction between ‘nano’ or ‘non-nano’. In the EU, ‘non-nano’ is defined as when “the primary particle size is greater than 100nm”, and as of July 2013, if nanotechnology is used in the manufacturing process, it has to say so on the packaging. Australia defines ‘non-nano’ as when “more than 90% of particles are above 100nm”.
Concerning nano-particles from titanium dioxide & zinc oxide, there are two major opinions circulating; while some scientists say they are potentially dangerous, others say this has not been fully proven. The latest research shows that these particles are not dangerous unless inhaled, which is why they pose much more of a risk when used in sprays rather than in creams.
Some zinc oxide manufacturers and sunscreen brands are selling their sunscreen with active UV filters like ZinClear IM50. This supposedly non-nano zinc oxide ingredient should be completely transparent. It is indeed very transparent, but non-nano? I don’t think so. It would seem they use a technique that instead clumps together multiple nano-particles. So would we recommend to use a product containing nano-particles? In sprays: no. In creams: every now and then, but definitely not on a daily basis.
Chemical (organic) barriers filter & absorb UV radiation; their chemical structure converts UV radiation to heat. They vary in their chemical properties, as well as in their ability to absorb UVA, UVB, or both.
Research has found that many sunscreens contain chemicals that are estrogenic — meaning that they disrupt the endocrine system and can play a major role in cancer development. For example, octyl-methoxycinnamate (which is estrogenic and has thyroid hormone-disrupting effects) and homosalate (a hormone-disrupting UVB blocker), can both be found in tons of sunscreens.
A form of Vitamin A called retinyl palmitate (or more commonly as ‘retinol’) is present in 20% of sport sunscreens and has been linked to the acceleration of skin tumors & lesions after exposure to the sun, according to the EWG. In the US, oxybenzone is still being used a lot in sunscreens — even though this is a known hormone disrupter as well, and has been banned from many countries. (Tip for readers located in the U.S.: only buy organic/natural sunscreens that use physical UV filters!)
A Swiss study states that few human studies have investigated the potential side effects of UV-filters, even though human exposure is high, as UV-filters in sunscreens are rapidly absorbed through the skin. A startling find: one of the UV-filters — BP-3 — has been found in 96% of urine samples in the U.S. and several UV-filters in 85% of Swiss breast milk samples. The next logical step would be to evaluate whether exposure to UV-filters contributes to possible adverse effects on the development of fetuses & children, but this study hasn’t been done yet.
To what extent can one’s lifestyle influence the presence of chemicals in breast milk? This was the foundation for the preparation of the questionnaire mentioned above. The questions were focused particularly on the use of cosmetic products; information on the relationship between the exposure of human populations to constituents of cosmetics and the presence of these constituents in the human body was limited — and in the case of UV filters, almost completely absent.
A total daily intake of each individual chemical was calculated for each infant, as assessed from their respective levels in the breast milk. Calculation included fat content of individual milk samples, total daily milk intake per infant and body weight of the infant. Some infants exhibited daily intake values of PCBs and several organochlorine pesticides (known for their high toxicity, slow degradation and bioaccumulation) that were well above US EPA allowances.
Margret Schlumpf and Walter Lichtensteiger, who lead the research, stated:
“Research on the effects of endocrine disrupters (chemicals interfering with hormone actions) has shown that it is of utmost importance to obtain information on simultaneous exposure of humans to different types of chemicals, because endocrine active chemicals can act in concert. Information on exposure is particularly important for the developing organism at its most sensitive early life stages. Human [breast] milk was chosen because it provides direct information on exposure of the suckling infant and indirect information on exposure of the mother during pregnancy.”
Does this mean all chemicals in our bodies come through the skin? Not necessarily. But more & more chemicals end up in surface water, and we are unable to filter them out; they instead accumulate in our body tissue with the consumption of food & water.
Last but not least, chemical UV filters cause damage to coral reefs. See note 2 at the bottom of this article.
If you are looking to get all the benefits of the sun without the damage, zinc oxide still beats all the other active ingredients out there and offers the most broadband protection of all currently known UV filters. Coated titanium dioxide follows closely and can be seen as an effective broadband filter as well.
As you can see in the graphs below, zinc oxide offers great coverage between 290-400nm. In other graphs, I’ve seen that in some cases it even offers coverage up to 700nm, while titanium dioxide has good coverage between 290-350nm, but insufficient coverage between 350-400 nm — especially in microfine forms. Both also filter quite a bit of UVC.
From the FDA —
There are many natural oils that could provide protection against UV rays, because of the antioxidants they contain. By adding these oils to their sunscreens, manufacturers can use less conventional or harmful UV filters while still maintaining a high SPF. Brands like Vive Sana, Laboratoires de Biarritz – Alga Maris, Salt & Stone, Soleo Organics and Eco Cosmetics use this knowledge to their advantage.
Here are some oils and their estimated SPF value:
Red raspberry seed oil has an incredibly high SPF; the reason is that it possesses an exceptionally high proportion of alpha & gamma tocopherols (aka Vitamin E), Vitamin A and omega-3 & omega-6 fatty acids. In a recent study, it showed absorbance in the UVB and even UVC ranges, suggesting that it may be useful as a broad spectrum UV filter. So why don’t we simply use some carrot and/or raspberry seed oil as sunscreen? Sadly it’s not that simple, because they’re too unstable on their own and quickly oxidize on the skin. So they could definitely increase SPF in a balanced formula, but that’s about it.
“Our entire line has it’s own natural sun protection which is inherent in the plants themselves. The Replenishing Serum is recommended for the face and body before, during and after sun exposure. The Nourishing Treatment Oil and Day Cream may be worn on the face for a little bit of daily sun protection. You could say they have a natural SPF of 3-4.” — Dr. Alkaitis
1) Titanium dioxide crystals are generally seen in one of two forms: rutile or anatase. The rutile form is more popular due to its higher stability and slightly better whitening abilities, while the anatase form is softer & less abrasive, and therefore popular for healthcare products and foods. In UV products, only the rutile form should be used, but this is unfortunately not always the case. Just a couple of months ago, the Australian government issued a warning about products from Nivea, L’Oreal and Proctor & Gamble using unstable nano-particles of titanium dioxide in their sunscreen. Why this is bad? Because these particles are very unstable.
Some skin cancers are linked to UV-induced free radical damage to the skin; this is why wearing sunscreens with strong broad spectrum UVA/UVB protection is recommended by medical authorities. However, recent studies have shown that the anatase form of titanium dioxide (and in particular nano-scale anatase titanium dioxide) can increase the formation of free radicals when exposed to sunlight & water. A number of scientists have questioned the safety of their use in sunscreens and other skin products. Anatase titanium dioxide is an aggressive producer of free radicals — especially when compared to rutile titanium dioxide.
In 2008, a peer-reviewed study found that nano-anatase titanium dioxide in sunscreen was reacting with sunlight and breaking down the coating on steel roofing in a matter of weeks. The study raised serious concerns about the impact these ingredients may be having on our skin. In 2010, Italian scientists warned that nano-anatase titanium dioxide is “capable of destroying virtually any organic matter.”
2) Chemical sunscreen causes coral damage. According to a prominent scientific study done by Roberto Danovaro and his team at the Marche Polytechnic University in Ancona, Italy, Sunscreens can damage coral reefs. Up to 10% of the world’s coral reefs may be threatened by sunscreen-induced coral bleaching. Their paper, entitled “Sunscreens Cause Coral Bleaching by Promoting Viral Infections”, was published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives in 2008.
Each year between 4000-6000 metric tons (4400-6600 U.S. tons) of sunscreen washes off swimmers & snorkelers into ecosystems housing coral reefs. Four common sunscreen ingredients were shown to cause complete coral bleaching at very low concentrations. Those are:
Other factors — such as global warming, pollution, and other such (careless) human activities — are likely a far greater threat to coral reefs than sunscreens are at this point. However, that is not a reason to ignore the results of this research. There has been limited criticism of this study, but it is solid, peer-reviewed science, and the results should be taken seriously. Anyone swimming or snorkeling in the tropical ocean near any coral reef should immediately consider using sunscreen that’s safer for our environment. Please!
– Barker P. & Branch A. (2008). The interaction of modern sunscreen formulations with surface coatings. Prog Org Coatings 62: 313–320 (study done on Colorbond roofs, mentioned in press release) – Rampaul A., Parkin I. P. & Cramer L. P. (2007). Damaging and protective properties of inorganic components of sunscreens applied to cultured human skin cells. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry 191: 138-148 – 2010 study by Italian scientists: Tiano L., Armeni T., Venditti E., Barucca G., Laura Mincarelli L. & Damiani E. (2010) Modified TiO2 particles differentially affect human skin fibroblasts exposed to UVA light. Free Radical Biology & Medicine 49:408–415 – Hanny Roskamp, Dr. in chemistry – Lots of other reports from the FDA, EU and Australian food, drug & health authorities
Tags: Environment, Health, Skin Care, Sun Protection, Tanning, Travel
Amazingy's Jack of all Trades. Skincare specialist by day, computer nerd by night.
If you’ve been exploring the world of anti-aging skincare, you’ve…
First things first: your skin is just as unique as…
Check out this amazing(y) product we’ve just launched on our…
Many thanks for such an informative article.
I am a bit disappointed that you are discouraging people from using SPF 50/minimizing its benefits. The problem with high SPF is not that it is less effective, its that it may give people a false/elevated sense of security.
I would encourage you to have a look at these studies (all open access): https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/fullarticle/2599760 https://www.jaad.org/article/S0190-9622(09)00658-6/fulltext https://www.jaad.org/article/S0190-9622(17)32908-0/fulltext
Hi Vale, Thanks for sharing your thoughts and those studies. I guess what those articles and this have in common is that they do all claim that higher SPF offers more protection. But the angle the author of this article is taking is that unless you are out in the sun all day, a lower SPF sunscreen is sufficient. And if you are in the sun all day reapplying a 30 would be more effective than a 50+. Like you said, the higher SPF gives a false sense of security. I come from Australia, and in the end, after a… Read more »
Hi Vale,
I don’t think I say anywhere spf 50 is less effective. If people apply the same amount of product, of course spf 50 will stop more UV rays. I only say that using even higher than 50 might not make much sense anymore. I also wanted to educate people so that they use enough cream – this is more important than using a slightly higher factor in my opinion.
Besides that, higher spf products are usually a lot less comfortable to wear, meaning people usually use it less often, because they don’t like the product.
Hello, thank you for your blog!! I am using the kimberly Sayer ultra light spf 30. It´s amazing beacuse it´s very light wihtout White effect. Does not Kimberly Sayer use really nanoparticles not micronized?
Hi Gabriel,
This is probably the latest reply ever, sorry about that. But I checked and according to Kimberly the product really does not contain nano-sized particles. They are micronized, but not small enough to be classified as nano.
I hope this helps!
Really all this tips are great…Amazing tips!!! we can also go for sun protective swimwear is typically used in a highly intense UV environment ? at the beach or at the pool during summer. … UV protective swimwear that fully covers your shoulders and arms like swim shirts (and swim tights for legs) is the best choice for guaranteed all-day.
Hello, Can you think of any reason, other than the cost, not to use 100% red raspberry seed oil for sunscreen? Seems like this might be a very basic healthy organic sunscreen.
Hi Curtis,
To be honest I am not sure if it will work because I wonder if it will stay put. I think it’s a great addition to a normal natural sunscreen but if it works on its own, well I guess we’ll have to try! Thanks for your question!
Following up on this, I added a paragraph to my article about why pure oils can not be used as sunscreen…
wow….finally a well explained article about sun screens!!! It’s been weeks since I started to look around to find a good organic sun protection for my “angry” skin. I think i will try the Eco by Sonya one, maybe in tinted version. btw, since i discovered the amazingy magazine, I read it every day now 😀 Thanks for the many useful info. Greetings from the south of Germany. Jo.
Thank you so much Loana!! That is really nice to hear 🙂
Cool! Very good article. For a every day guy, this information works well. 🙂
Great article! I have been looking for the best sunscreen to prevent melasma. I know physical filters are recommended for this problem. Wich sunscreen (brand) would you recommend?
Hi Sandra, Thank you! I’m glad you enjoyed it.
Both Eco by Sonya and Eco Cosmetics are very good sunscreens, fully compliant with the latest EU standards and they both user mineral filters. It really is a matter of preference. If you are looking for a facial cream (a moisturizer) for your face, Kimberly Sayers are great!
If you are simply looking for the best protection sunscreen, without questionable ingredients, which can also be used safely in swimming pools with chlorinated water, Eco by Sonya is your best bet, because they use non-coated, non-nana zinc oxide.
Hope this helps!
Thanks Floris! I didnt know these brands, for sure very helpful!! It was difiicult for me to find natural sunscreens, I recently checked Photoderm MINERAL SPF 50+ – UVA 22, do you know about it?
You’re welcome Sandra. I checked the ingredients of the photoderm sunscreen for you, and was not impressed. It does contain mineral filters but it also contains lots of bad stuff, like silicons, which is the nr 1 pore clogger ingredient out there 🙂
Considering all you have found, what specific brand of sunscreen do you use yourself?
Hi Zal, Honestly, I hardly use sunscreen. I try to avoid the sun in the afternoon, and in the morning and evening, I like a little bit of sun on me. Of course when I really go sunbathing I do use sunscreen, and at the moment this is the sunscreen from Eco by Sonya: http://amazingy.com/en/bath-and-body/sunscreen/organic-natural-sun-protection-cream/eco-tan-sonya-all-natural-sunscreen.html It has excellent protection, but it does whiten a bit like every non-nano zinc oxide based sunscreen. Therefore I like to mix it with a bit of normal body oil or lotion, so that the SPF goes down a bit. But of course if it’s… Read more »
Excellent article Floris!! A friend posted it on FB and I am so glad that I read it! For those of us who are trying to live as much of a “natural” life as possible, this is great information.
Hey Kirsta,
Thanks! I’m glad you enjoyed it and find it useful! 🙂
