10.19.21
The journal Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine has published online a new paper in which scientists at the Environmental Working Group (EWG) sent 51 sunscreens to a laboratory and found that most significantly underperformed the SPF on their labels. The sunscreens were labeled as having SPF values from 15 to 110.
The testing was designed to evaluate the ultraviolet (UV) protection offered by common sunscreen products on the US market using laboratory-measured UV-absorption testing and comparing with computer-modeled protection and the labelled SPF values. The approach enables an investigation of the relationship between the labelled SPF and measured UVA protection, a factor that is ignored in current regulations, according to the paper’s authors.
Paper authors are: David Q. Andrews, Ph.D., Kali Rauhe, B.S., Carla Burns, M.S., Emily Spilman, B.S.E., Alexis M. Temkin, Ph.D., Sean Perrone-Gray, M.S., Olga V. Naidenko, Ph.D., and Nneka Leiba, M.Phil., M.P.H.
"Most of the products we tested reduced UV radiation only by half of what would be expected from looking at the SPF on the label," sad Andrews, who is senior scientist at EWG and the lead author of the study.
Products were evaluated using the ISO 24443:2012 method for sunscreen effectiveness. The final absorbance spectra were used for analysis of in vitro UV protection. In vitro SPF values from laboratory-measured UV absorption and computer modeling were on average just 59% and 42% of the labelled SPF. The majority of products provided significantly lower UVA protection with the average unweighted UVA protection factor just 24% of the labeled SPF.
"Even more concering is the lack of adequate broad spectrum protection, and that's a public health problem," said Andrews in a statement.
The sunscreen "industry has for too long focused on advertising higher and higher SPF values and UVB rays, not on providing products with stronger UVA protection," he added.
According to the authors, the production and use of products with broad spectrum UV protection should be incentivized, removing the emphasis on sunburn protection, and ending testing on people.
Laboratory testing commissioned by the Environmental Working Group was supported by a grant from Yellow Chair Foundation.
The testing was designed to evaluate the ultraviolet (UV) protection offered by common sunscreen products on the US market using laboratory-measured UV-absorption testing and comparing with computer-modeled protection and the labelled SPF values. The approach enables an investigation of the relationship between the labelled SPF and measured UVA protection, a factor that is ignored in current regulations, according to the paper’s authors.
Paper authors are: David Q. Andrews, Ph.D., Kali Rauhe, B.S., Carla Burns, M.S., Emily Spilman, B.S.E., Alexis M. Temkin, Ph.D., Sean Perrone-Gray, M.S., Olga V. Naidenko, Ph.D., and Nneka Leiba, M.Phil., M.P.H.
"Most of the products we tested reduced UV radiation only by half of what would be expected from looking at the SPF on the label," sad Andrews, who is senior scientist at EWG and the lead author of the study.
Products were evaluated using the ISO 24443:2012 method for sunscreen effectiveness. The final absorbance spectra were used for analysis of in vitro UV protection. In vitro SPF values from laboratory-measured UV absorption and computer modeling were on average just 59% and 42% of the labelled SPF. The majority of products provided significantly lower UVA protection with the average unweighted UVA protection factor just 24% of the labeled SPF.
"Even more concering is the lack of adequate broad spectrum protection, and that's a public health problem," said Andrews in a statement.
The sunscreen "industry has for too long focused on advertising higher and higher SPF values and UVB rays, not on providing products with stronger UVA protection," he added.
According to the authors, the production and use of products with broad spectrum UV protection should be incentivized, removing the emphasis on sunburn protection, and ending testing on people.
Laboratory testing commissioned by the Environmental Working Group was supported by a grant from Yellow Chair Foundation.