Sunscreens offer protection from damaging rays, but at what cost?

Published on Friday 26 June 2009 15:13

THE freckle season is well and truly underway. To think that I used to dab at them with lemon juice, dreaming of a porcelain complexion. Now I'm grateful for anything that gives me even the vaguest hint of youthfulness. The celtic genes prevent tanning as such, but the freckles are a sure sign that summer has arrived. Yet before we break out the deckchairs, let's remember that it's a short flip of a tiddlywink from freckles to sunburn.

I held a summer party about five years ago where everyone brought sunscreen which then got left behind. As a result, I have since been working my way through a diverse range of brands and SPF factors. But now I'm down to the last bottle. Designed "for kids" with factor "50+" it has the same consistency as white gloss paint. A new purchase is clearly required.

My beauty box got the eco-revamp a few years back but when it comes to sunscreen I have failed to evolve, assuming that chemicals with complicated names were required for keeping sunburn and wrinkles at bay. Then I happened across the sunscreen report at Ethical Consumer (www.ethicalconsumer.org), which declared "there is a growing body of evidence that the chemicals contained in these products could be doing us more harm than good".

Ingredients of concern include parabens, phtalates, octyl methoxycinnamate and PABA derivatives. The campaigners say these ingredients could pose health risks, while the relevant official body that regulates these things disagrees. We the consumers are left wondering whether our coconut-scented lotion is protecting or poisoning us. It's like something from an episode of CSI: Miami. Still, the Ethical Consumer report commends brands like Dr Hauschka, Weleda, Green People, Urtekram and Lavera for not including any of the aforementioned ingredients.

That's me sorted, you're thinking as you head off to buy all-natural sunscreen. Whoa there. Take a look at Friends of the Earth Australia's Nanotechnology Project and guide to safe sunscreens (nano.foe.org.au). It focuses on the teensy little nanoparticles of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide commonly used in sunscreens (natural and chemical). Ingredients lists don't need to reveal whether their titanium dioxide or zinc oxide is the nano version or not. Don't be alarmed, but "In a serious early warning sign, Australian researchers have found that roofs which have come into contact with sunscreens containing nanoparticles age 100 times more rapidly than surrounding areas..." The same test has not been done on skin, but I think it's fair to say we're all now panicking about having a face like a corroded roof.

Meanwhile research from the University of Pisa found that sunscreen residues that wash off into the ocean are causing "coral bleaching", a condition that kills the coral and destroys its associated eco-systems. And there's more. Because of new EU regulations, several respected natural skincare brands such as Dr Hauschka have stopped producing sunscreen because they believe it isn't now possible to achieve the standards required (something about a 1:3 ratio of UVA to UVB protection) without using chemicals. But other companies like Green People are still be producing chemical-free ranges. It's all very confusing.

So how does a green-minded individual proceed? Stay indoors all summer and end up with vitamin D deficiency? Slather on a nano-free natural-sounding potion and hope for the best? I shall be sticking with the factor 50 gloss until someone comes up with a definitive answer.