Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 19 of total 19 in this topic |
Urlich
Trad climber
Frankfurt, Germany
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Jun 5, 2010 - 03:57pm PT
|
hello, my name is Urlich, and i will be coming to the yosemite for first visit this summer.
i do not use sunscreen where i live now.
i know it is very sunny and hot there.
can you please recommend what brand and level would be good for this area?
i don't really understand the different levels, and see they are between 15-100, and not sure what is best.
thank you
Urlich Stern
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
As Locker would say,
You're gonna FRY!
Go with the higher #s and sweat proof.
Anything past SPF 25 or so is just marketing though.
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
SoCal
|
|
You should reapply every 2-3 hours throughout the day.
I was informed by a sunscreen manufacturer that sunscreen starts loosing it's protection power after about 1 year in the bottle. I have noticed this to be true.
|
|
BooYah
Social climber
Ely, Nv
|
|
Get you some Bullfrog, Ulrich.
Good stuff, right there.
You WILL fry, though. We ALL have(some seem to like it.)
|
|
Fishy
climber
Zurich, Switzerland
|
|
What brand of anti-bullshit cream works best? Do I need to go for more than BS-Factor IX?
Where can I buy it?
|
|
Brian
climber
California
|
|
Physical blocks (titanium dioxide or zinc, can be micro sized so as not to paint you completely white) are much more effective (according to my dermatologist), and in my experience much more "sweat proof."
Brian
|
|
Srbphoto
Trad climber
Kennewick wa
|
|
Getting burned - Part 1: SNEWS uncovers sunscreen confusion, misinformation and FDA inaction
Posted: 05/26/2010 In Category(s): Special Sections :: SNEWS Investigates, News & Features :: Outdoor Headlines
Print Email Save This Comment RSS Post a release
For nearly two generations, the alarms about the risk of sun exposure have been sounded so loudly that you’re practically a pariah if you don’t slop on the sunscreen before you head out to hike, bike or simply bask in its rays.
And for nearly those same two generations, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has sat immobilized on basic regulations to cover labeling, ingredients and warnings about what’s in all those tubes, bottles and sticks we so religiously stock on our shelves, pack into our pockets and slather on our skin. Despite counting on the creams, sticks and sprays to keep us healthy, we have been left at risk -- unprotected, uneducated, mislead, and at the mercy of manufacturers’ and marketers’ ethics.
Since 1978, the FDA has dilly dallied over passage of a final, all-encompassing rule about do’s and don’ts for sunscreen manufacturers in the $2.2 billion industry, and the Wild Wild West created has put us all in danger – with sunburns, freckles and wrinkles the least of the worries. Think unsafe chemicals penetrating the skin, cancerous skin lesions and skin tumors. Most people are tootling happily along assuming we, our families and customers are protected from all of the above, when perhaps that’s not likely the case at all. And by the time you find out – think skin cancer and beyond – it’s too late.
“Isn’t it time for the FDA to take control of the sunscreen industry and really regulate it to assure we have a quality, safe, effective product?” asked Sancy Leachman, director of the melanoma and cutaneous oncology program at Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City, Utah. “People can’t tell if they’re being told the truth or not.”
Leachman should know. Under her direction, the institute in Utah works with the pale-skinned, outdoorsy population there of Northern European ancestry that has some of the highest rates of cancer in the world. Plus, many of her patients have a highly risky form of hereditary melanoma that means you have a three in four chance of developing cancer. Those kinds of patients aren’t just worried about aging skin and an occasional unsightly burn. Exasperated by the lack of information and understandable labeling, she undertook a huge project in 2004 – an in-depth spreadsheet of all the sunscreen brands she could find in her area from Albertson’s to Walgreens. With several hundred types broken down by price, protection rating and ingredients, it’s a gold mine – and it was out-of-date before it was done, she said with a sigh.
“It’s very difficult to stay educated,” she admitted, “and I have a lot of chemistry background…. Not only do the products change but the ones kept in stock change.”
Digging deeper
Over the last eight months, SNEWS® has dug deep into many hundreds of pages of FDA documents, sorted through chemical names, poured over spreadsheets and databases, sifted through court documents, spoken to manufacturers, advocates, non-profits and scientists, and read reports and surveys. And we have found that the concoctions we ourselves squirt on our exposed skin to protect ourselves from burns and, we hope, cancer, may not be worth the plastic they come in.
Let’s be clear from the start: This is not to damn every sunscreen brand that’s out there. In fact, most of them commonly found in the outdoor and specialty sports industry try to abide by what are considered safe guidelines for effective protection. But without clear FDA oversight even ethical companies find they have to compete against the less-ethical, less-expensive brands and are relegated to using ambiguous claims – albeit not necessarily risk-producing ones -- and labeling that fudges just a smidgen.
“I think we do a really good job of making accurate claims, but there is so much ambiguity in what words mean…. I have to cringe when I put some of this stuff on the labels, as I’m sure many of us do,” said John Bercaw, director of product development and marketing for Beyond Coastal. “While all of our products and I’m sure those of many others are very good, you can call marketing B.S. on some of it. You're just trying to get something to resonate with people so they take the extra second to look at your product.”
That's not a simple task when some brands are a fraction of the cost of others, and they’re all floating in a colorful sea of bottles, tubes and tubs on a drugstore shelf. It’s not easy for a specialty store to stock and sell a three- or four-ounce bottle that may cost $14 to $20 when a bottle of a drugstore brand that’s double or triple the size may cost a half or quarter that amount. A quick, comparative glance at the label – eyeglasses at the ready -- and, gosh darn, all those unpronounceable and serious-sounding chemical names sound sort of the same, the reassuring claims are identical, and it looks just as official and effective, so why not pay less?
Why not? You may not be getting what you think you are. Because nobody is really there to look over the manufacturers’ shoulders and say, “Hey, you didn’t put in enough of x or y to protect from those cancer-causing UVA rays that you say you are…. How come you say that goop is waterproof when that’s not even a valid claim?... And, wait, organic? The ingredients are all chemicals, and there’s nothing really organic about them.”
Meanwhile, despite annual sales of sun-protection products reaching into seven digits and continuing to increase, the incidence of skin cancers has also continued to rise. Think 1 million new cases alone of non-melanoma cancer and nearly 69,000 cases of melanoma in 2009.
“The SPF of sunscreens is the biggest fraud in the pharmaceutical field,” said Chris Vaughn, president of the independent sunscreen research lab SPF Consulting. “And you may wonder how come sunscreen sales are ever-increasing and so is skin cancer. What’s up with that?”
Our Feds at work
It was on Aug. 25, 1978, that the FDA (www.fda.gov) put out a 64-page “Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” as a part of its ongoing review of over-the-counter drug products that it oversees and regulates as part of its duties. According to the paper, the rule would establish conditions for “the safety, effectiveness and labeling of OTC sunscreen drug products.” Comments on the proposed rules were to be received by Nov. 24, 1978. With that, the avalanche of comments and more proposed rules began … and continues today with no end in sight.
Soon the “proposed rules” morphed into topic-specific proposals: The FDA was not just looking at original active ingredients and labeling, but also at time and extent applications (a way to incorporate new drugs into a proposed rule), the safety of specific ingredients such as avobenzone, the particulars of UVA protection, the ins and outs of the ingredient zinc oxide, and the combined use of sunscreen with insect repellents. As the years passed, there were public meetings, virtual rooms-ful of comments and background submitted for review, plus extensions, delays, stays and more deadlines. The last “final” FDA document on active ingredients and labeling was issued May 21, 1999, but 17 days later its effective date was extended, then stayed, and then delayed, with the last word on the document, called a monograph, now dating back to 2003 in the form of a “delay of a drug fact implementation.”
The proposed rule covering UVA testing and labeling was issued on Aug. 27, 2007, and is still languishing under an extension. That proposal garnered more than 3,000 comments, according to the Personal Care Products Council, a Washington, D.C.-based, advocacy and trade group.
“The newer the area, the more evolving the science,” said John Bailey, chief scientist for the council, an association representing cosmetics manufacturers. Bailey also happens to have worked for the FDA for three decades prior. He pointed out that the government is legally required to read every last comment that is submitted as a part of meetings and the review process. When SNEWS emailed with the FDA in December 2009 to inquire about the process, the delays and the rules (our telephone calls were not returned), we were told succinctly by a spokeswoman that the “FDA is unable to comment or discuss things that are pending.” We were told the rules were pending, and “we are not certain when the final rule will be published.”
Twice a year, the federal government publishes its tentative agenda of work for the next six months in a document called the “Unified Agenda,” which summarizes rules and proposed rules each federal agency expects to issue during the year for inclusion in the Federal Register, which makes them law. In the latest one released Dec. 7, 2009, the FDA noted it planned to have a final rule on sunscreen in May 2010 – this month, which also happens to be Melanoma/Skin Cancer Detection and Prevention Month. So we emailed again with the FDA and, on May 13, 2010, we were told the agency was now targeting October 2010 for a final publication. The spokeswoman pointed to the 3,000 submissions received in 2007 as the reason for the extension.
“Bringing this to closure is something everybody wants,” said Bailey. “At some point, they have to draw a line in the sand and say, ‘OK, we’ll call it final.’”
But without that final word on what brands can and can’t do, label language and promises are the final frontier. Sure, manufacturers say they are toeing the line of the proposed rules, but nobody is really looking over their shoulders and, even if they were, the suggested standards are just that -- suggestions.
“Essentially, they’ve been working on this since 1978,” said David Andrews, Ph.D., senior scientist for the independent watchdog Environmental Working Group, which on May 24 issued its controversial 2010 report on sunscreen that calls into question the protection offered by most products and raises a red flag about a chemical additive called retinyl palmitate that could increase cancer risk. “We are flabbergasted.”
Do manufacturers have much confidence that the FDA will kick itself in the gluteals and get something once and for all passed?
“Let’s put it this way: In 2002, I moved to the U.S. to work for Johnson & Johnson,” said Nic Martens, a Ph.D. biochemist, co-founder of the new SCAPE sunscreen brand and a 20-year veteran of the sunscreen industry who is from Germany and attended the University of Cambridge in England. “At that time, the FDA said it would be ‘imminently approved.’
“Is it possible they will approve it? Yeah, potentially,” he said. “Do I believe they will approve it? No.”
But, he goes on to plead to no one and everyone all at once, “Just adopt something and give consumers a chance.”
The ABCs
After decades of pale, China-white skin being a sign of a good health and a well-to-do lifestyle, the pendulum swung in the other direction in the 1960s when deep bronze glows meant you were wealthy enough to afford leisurely vacations and recreation in the sun. As more and more people took to sun-bathing and tanning, so too did science evolve, linking exposure to ultra-violet radiation to skin cancer. In the 1960s, the so-called Sun Protection Factor (SPF) was introduced in the United States and, in the late ‘70s, was adopted into draft regulations by the FDA. But the concept of SPF was quickly misunderstood by the public as a multiplication of how many hours you could stay in the sun safely – thus, an SPF of 15 was falsely interpreted as meaning you were safe for 15 times the length of time you could normally stay in the sun without burning. We’ve seen top journalists for major news agencies and websites state this quite incorrectly.
Here’s the real SPF scoop, according to the American Cancer Society: Wearing a sunscreen of 15 means you would get the equivalent of one minute of UVB, the rays that burn (memory tickler: “B” for burn), for every 15 minutes in the sun. One hour in the sun wearing an SPF 15 is, therefore, like spending four minutes in the sun unprotected. So you still get exposure to big, bad, burning UVB rays, you just get a few less. Note the scale is non-linear, so SPF 30 doesn’t double the protection of 15, nor does an SPF of 45 triple it. SPF 15 sunscreens filter out about 93 percent of UVB rays, while SPF 30 sunscreens filter out about 97 percent, and SPF 50 sunscreens about 98 percent. Most experts agree that anything over 30 doesn’t give you that much more protection, and the FDA a few years ago considered prohibiting any sunscreen from claims over 30, but current draft regulations propose a limit of 50 due to manufacturer outcry.
In another widespread myth, people think the SPF factor rates overall protection from the sun, including from cancer. In fact, SPF has utterly nothing to do with more highly cancer-inducing UVA rays (there’s your “A” of ABC) but only the burning UVB rays. In theory, if you use a higher SPF sunscreen that blocks mostly UVB, you could in fact be multiplying your trouble. How so?
“You don’t get the warning of a burn to tell you to get out of the sun, and you think you’re fine,” said Mark Masthay, Ph.D., chair of the chemistry department at the University of Dayton, Ohio, and a photochemist who has published research on the effects of UV light. “But you’re also accumulating huge UVA exposure.”
Recent research actually suggests that if you get a lopsided ratio of UVA to UVB – that is, a whole heck of a lot of UVA but very little UVB – you could actually be increasing your cancer risk. You could end up with what Masthay called a “super charge” of cancer-risk-inducing UVA exposure.
“I am very anxious,” Masthay added, “about those protecting themselves only from UVB.”
With the lack of labeling information, there is actually no surefire way to know if the lotion or potion you have chosen will protect you from getting The Big C, a.k.a., Cancer. And if you’re diligent about protecting your skin from searing, you may never get the red flag of a burn. Your first warning? As much as 20 or 30 years later when your doctor sits you down for a talk you never want to have: how to treat your cancer.
--Therese Iknoian
|
|
Srbphoto
Trad climber
Kennewick wa
|
|
Getting burned - Part 2: SNEWS reveals how sunscreen chemical ingredients really work -- or don't
Posted: 05/28/2010 In Category(s): Special Sections :: SNEWS Investigates, News & Features :: Fitness Headlines, News & Features :: Outdoor Headlines
Print Email Save This Comment RSS Post a release
We at SNEWS® have heard the warnings about too much sun exposure and the risk of cancer so you’ll find bottles, tubes and sticks of sun-protection concoctions all over at the home and office -- in the car, at the front door, on the deck, in the office, in workout bags, and on the bathroom vanity. But what we found in our exclusive, in-depth, three-part investigation that kicked off May 26 stunned us: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which oversees over-the-counter drugs including sunscreen, has been unable to pass some of the most basic regulations for 32 years since it first broached the topic. Meanwhile, we are all left in danger. Forget the minor risk of early skin aging and wrinkles. We mean the risk of deadly melanoma cancer.
So we started to dig around in mounds of FDA documents, court papers and scientific research to find out how this was possible and what it means to consumers and retailers alike. In the first of three parts published on May 26, we explained the basic chronology and history of the FDA inaction, the development and meaning of the Sun Protection Factor, and the danger and differences of ultra-violet radiation such as UVA and UVB. We weren’t the only ones in shock at what we found.
“I’ve been duped,” admitted Mark Masthay, Ph.D., chair of the chemistry department at the University of Dayton, Ohio, and a photochemist who has published research on the effects of UV light. Although an expert on UV light and its dangers, when SNEWS explained to him some of the details of packaging claims and various ingredients, he was stunned to hear labels are mostly a free-for-all.
In this article, part two of three, we’ll explain what the fine print on containers means – and doesn’t – and lay out details about some of the active ingredients allowed for use in the United States. In the final article, to run May 31, of our exclusive three-part series, we’ll pull together answers to a lot of questions about claims, marketing, misconceptions and ingredients, and offer tips to help retailers (or even users) make better buying decisions. In a special secondary story, also on May 31, we'll give a list of resources you can turn to for furthering your education and summarize the FDA status.
Reading the fine print
But, wait, you think, I read the labels and I fish out my glasses so I can read the claims in teeny tiny type on the back, yet you’re telling me my skin is a ticking time bomb and I can’t believe what I read? In many cases, the manufacturers – thanks in part to the FDA’s lack of action for 32 years – have their fingers crossed behind their backs when they print certain claims on packaging. Sometimes they may just be little white lies, just pushing the edges of what would be considered the truth. Sometimes they are using semantics to prey on a health desire or ethical belief, such as not wanting to harm reefs or wanting to avoid chemicals. Sometimes they may be using the gray area created by the FDA inaction to dance a fast jig. And sometimes they could actually be outright lies.
Take the term “broad spectrum,” for example. This is a claim we have been told to look for when buying sunscreen. See it on a label and you can be assured it will protect you from both the cancer-causing UVA rays and the burning UVB rays…. Right? Uh, maybe.
There is no definition for what must be in a sunscreen called broad spectrum – how much of what ingredient or even which ingredient it needs to have to satisfy the label of broad spectrum. Even sunscreens that include ingredients with relatively insignificant UVA protection can slap on the broad-spectrum label. Plus, labels do not point out that certain ingredients can degrade to a point where they soon don’t offer protection at all.
“It’s very misleading,” said Sancy Leachman, director of the melanoma and cutaneous oncology program at Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Basically, only a few ingredients actually offer truly effective low-risk “broad-spectrum” protection, meaning they not only keep you from burning but also include protection from the deeper danger caused by exposure to UVA rays. Those active ingredients are zinc oxide, titanium dioxide and avobenzone, with a few proprietary blends, brand names and formulations such as Parsol 1789, Mexoryl, ecamsule and Helioplex. Zinc, titanium and avobenzone are three of the 17 active ingredients for sunscreen allowed by the FDA for use by all brands and are the ones you will more commonly see on a list of ingredients, while the others are either brand names or proprietary. Remember, though, if a product with any of these active ingredients claims sun protection, it is considered a drug and falls under FDA oversight. But -- here’s the kicker -- if a product has any of these active ingredients but does not claim sun protection (such as a so-called poison ivy block that SNEWS recently came across), it is considered a cosmetic and does not fall under the auspices of the FDA. And just having one of these doesn’t guarantee broad-spectrum protection.
“There are a lot of misleading statements,” said David Andrews, senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, a watchdog advocacy group that has hundreds of pages of analysis, rankings and definitions on its website (www.ewg.org). The EWG’s methodology is questioned by some who call it “pseudo-science” or “bogus,” but nobody argues that the group doesn’t have the public’s best interests in mind, with Beyond Coastal's John Bercaw noting, "Their heart's in the right place."
“I applaud the effort the EWG has made, but unfortunately, it is making too many assumptions in its methodology,” said Steven Johnson, president of manufacturer Sol Sunguard sunscreen. “And some of the sunscreens they list as their ‘Best Sunscreens’ would never be able to adequately protect in a very active environment.”
Despite offering broad-spectrum protection and characteristics often more applicable to an active person, each of the three commonly allowed “actives” -- zinc oxide, titanium dioxide and avobenzone -- has its own issues:
>> The maximum allowed by the FDA for both zinc oxide and titanium dioxide is 25 percent, but you’ll never see that in an over-the-counter sunscreen. Put on a 25-percent potion and you’ll look like Frosty the Snowman. So for manufacturers it turns into a dance to figure out how to cut it, manufacture it, mix it, thin it or encapsulate it to not lose too much protection while avoiding the white-skinned look. Plus, both of these are more expensive. So you may even in good brands see only about 3 percent to 10 percent, which usually will do the job.
Knowing vanity is so important to many consumers, manufacturers are now playing with nano-particles, a relatively new frontier in the sunscreen industry and information that is not currently revealed on labels. In an attempt to make the snowman face go away so people will wear sunscreen, let alone put on enough, manufacturers are playing with putting the particles in the shrink machine. If you make the zinc and titanium particles nano-sized, they should offer the same protection but the smaller they get, the more translucent they will be. The problem is, nobody really knows at what point the chemicals will get so small they may seep through your skin and into your blood stream or what risks that could cause.
>> Avobenzone, with a maximum allowed by the FDA of 3 percent, is a much more common UVA broad-spectrum ingredient; however, the chemical used by itself is quite “photo-instable,” meaning if it is exposed to sunlight (yes, even when on your skin), it very quickly loses its efficacy, i.e., if it’s on your dashboard or on the deck in the sun, it likely won’t be worth more than a moisturizer, if that, in a few days or weeks. To counter the instability, some brands mix avobenzone with another active ingredient that helps stabilize it, such as octocrylene. Some brands have come up with their own chemical options to substitute, for example Mexoryl. L’Oreal has a proprietary recipe for Mexoryl (Mexoryl SX) that is called, among other things, ecamsule, that was approved as a drug by the FDA in 2006, but is only available for use by L’Oreal for a number of years. Neutrogena also has a proprietary blend called Helioplex, but you will only see avobenzone or ecamsule listed on the label.
So how do you really know if you are doing more than just staving off a burn while still soaking in all those cancer-causing rays? Make sure the sunscreen has one of these three commonly available ingredients listed on its label (zinc oxide, titanium dioxide or avobenzone) or one of the proprietary ingredients, and that the label says what percentage it includes. Said Johnson of Sol Sunguard, “If it doesn’t tell you, don’t buy it.” Also, choose a higher percentage of that one ingredient if possible as a way to hedge your bets, for example, choose 5 percent zinc oxide instead of 2 percent. Then, however, all you can do is cross your fingers.
Seeing stars
Part of the FDA monograph – the document that hasn’t been approved or finalized – includes a rating system using one to four stars that would rank cancer-risk-inducing UVA just as SPF is said to rank burn-producing UVB, as well as a rating system using words to better clarify chance of burning.
“To prevent consumer confusion about UV radiation protection, FDA is proposing changes to UVB radiation protection labeling (i.e., the SPF value),” the August 2007 FDA monograph stated. “To further improve consumers understanding of the sunburn protection level provided by a certain sunscreen product, FDA is proposing to require descriptive terms of relative sunburn protection (i.e., ‘low,’ ‘medium,’ ‘high,’ and ‘highest’).”
The FDA goes on to explain how a product with medium UVA protection against cancer might have two (of a possible four) stars on the label shown in solid black, with the remaining two in white, to indicate it has a two-star or medium protection rating. The label could then say “UVA ** Medium.” That could be positioned next to the UVB burn rating that could state, for example, “SPF 30 High,” since 30 is considered high protection. The goal is to make the packaging, claims, ingredients and protection more transparent, understandable at a glance – and not require a chemistry degree or magnifying glass. (See examples, right, of what that could look like.)
Although that sounds sensible, even the federal National Cancer Institute, part of the National Institutes of Health, indicates the FDA, its sister organization, hasn’t been doing its job. The National Cancer Institute (www.cancer.gov) wrote in a 2009/2010 sun protection update: “The Food and Drug Administration has pending regulation to improve labeling on sunscreen about UVA and UVB because current labeling misleads the public about the protection they are getting from the sun.”
“We don’t want to shoot in the dark,” said David Kulow, president of manufacturer All Terrain, who like other manufacturers wants to see some standards. “It’s a gray area right now. You want to know what the playing field is going forward.”
Bottom line: All that you can count on and trust due to the lack of federal oversight is the Sun Protection Factor and the use of allowed active ingredients. In other words, caveat emptor. Let the buyer beware – be it consumer or retailer.
(More detail about other common claims, including “waterproof,” “natural,” “fragrance-free,” “oil-free” and “dermatologist-approved” will run in Part 3 of our investigative series, to be published on May 31.)
Leveling the field
Manufacturers of specialty sports sunscreen brands with whom SNEWS spoke told us that’s what they really want in the end – a level playing field. They are tired of playing games, tired of having to compete with the unethical types, tired of knowing some are treating the Wild Wild West as a way to do whatever they please and fudge here and there.
Some trusting souls tell us that, of course, all the manufactures, both mass-market and specialty, are following the proposed FDA rules, even though they aren’t final. But some manufacturers have told us they know for a fact that’s not the case.
“To some degree, it is lawless because some companies just put a product on the market without doing all the testing because nobody is policing it,” said Jeff Kletter, co-founder of Kinesys sun protection sprays and other suncare products.
Kletter maintained “you get what you pay for” and to some extent most won’t argue – particularly if you are looking for protection for an active, athletic, water-oriented, sweaty or long-lasting endeavor, such as mountain biking, paddling, backpacking, running a marathon or doing an Ironman.
Nic Martens of Scape brand, the photochemist who used to work with Neutrogena while he was at Johnson & Johnson, said there isn’t necessarily something wrong with all of the cheaper, drug-store brands. In fact, an active person could get away with spending less money on one bottle to use for standing around the BBQ or taking the dog for a short stroll. But as soon as you add the challenges of high sweat production, water splashing, friction from clothes or equipment, the need for lasting through many hours of activity or avoiding stinging chemicals running into eyes, the active person better reach for the high-end brand to be sure it’ll continue to give protection through the beating he or she is giving it.
To level the field and eliminate unethical, untrue claims, a class-action lawsuit was filed in 2006 in the Los Angeles Superior Court to address what it called false advertising and deceptive promotion. The blazing courtroom gunfight garnered a plethora of high-profile press in the weeks after it was filed. But when SNEWS went searching for the case’s status this spring, nobody seemed to know anything about it and there hadn't been a peep in news reports or blogs since 2006 when the principal lawyer called sunscreen “the snake oil of the 21st Century” – over and over and over again. And, he usually added, “The companies that market it are Fortune 500 snake oil salesmen.”
To find out what happened, we went to the law firm itself, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, a high-profile New York firm itself known for its class-action filings, such as the one brought against Enron Corp. for its accounting practices. The sunscreen case was originally filed against the five largest manufacturers -- defendants and their key brands then were Schering-Plough (Coppertone), Johnson & Johnson (Neutrogena), Playtex Products (Banana Boat), Tanning Research Labs (Hawaiian Tropic), and Chattem (BullFrog). In October 2008, the case was settled “with prejudice,” meaning a case with the same claim could not be brought again and the one-page settlement stated it had been “amicably adjusted by and between the parties.” Speculation is that sales and mergers of the companies and brands prompted some kind of confidential cash settlement. (Schering-Plough merged with Merck. Playtex was bought by J&J, and then sold to Hanesbrands. Chattem was bought by the French company Sanofi-aventis.)
Soon after the case's 2006 filing, Connecticut Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, wrote a scathing letter calling FDA standards “outdated,” “inadequate” and responsible for giving consumers a false sense of security, while allowing manufacturers to make “dubious and deceptive claims.” He pushed the FDA to face “a spreading epidemic of skin cancer” and called for action. Soon after, a few legislators stepped up with the so-called SUN Act (SB 1112) being introduced by Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., in 2008 and again in 2009 that demanded FDA action. That bill is still in commitee, Dodd's office said, and he is expected to issue another demand for FDA action soon. Again, Blumenthal took the FDA to task: “Faced with mindless inertia by our FDA, this federal legislative action is vital to immediately stop sunscreen manufacturers from making dangerously misleading claims about their products.”
That wasn’t the last of the lawsuits and legal maneuvering, but so far nothing real has materialized. Some claim the continued inaction is because big money is at stake, stalling the FDA in a political quagmire. For example, in April 2009, Schering-Plough sued Neutrogena for spreading false and misleading statements in product comparisons and in statements about the protective ability of its sunscreen. The case was settled in April 2010, but not without the court basically slapping both companies.
These ads, the court wrote, are “essentially meaningless and, therefore, of no help to the consuming public who, finally, is paying attention to the health concerns presented by overexposure to the sun.”
The consumer – duped, confused and at risk -- remains the real loser as the sunscreen wars wage on.
--Therese Iknoian
|
|
Srbphoto
Trad climber
Kennewick wa
|
|
Getting burned – Part 3: SNEWS looks at sunscreen marketing hyperbole, offers tips for retail buyers
Posted: 05/31/2010 In Category(s): Special Sections :: SNEWS Investigates, News & Features :: Fitness Headlines, News & Features :: Outdoor Headlines
Print Email Save This Comment RSS Post a release
If you’re confused, what about your poor customers? Like one woman said when we asked her recently why she had chosen the Walgreen’s Sport Ultra Dry Sunscreen SPF 50 she was using:
“I’m so confused,” she told us, her shoulders slumping with an air of helplessness. “It’s always been a puzzle for me, so I just reach for the highest SPF number. I’m trying to get something good, so I think, ‘50, wow, that must be good.’ How do you know?”
She turned over the bottle and stared at the “Drug Facts" label” that listed the active ingredients’ names – none of which were truly effective UVA blockers -- and the percentages of each that was in the sunscreen labeled as “very water / sweat resistant” in a “non-slip grip” tube.
“These things, these drug names,” she added, “they mean nothing to me.”
As a retailer, you are trusting the manufacturer to tell you the truth to help you decide what to carry on your shelves. Consumers like this woman are therefore trusting you to pick out the best product to keep them safe. But what we found in our exclusive, in-depth, three-part investigation that kicked off May 26 with the second of three parts running May 28 stunned us: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which oversees over-the-counter drugs including sunscreen, has been unable to pass some of the most basic regulations for 32 years since it first broached the topic of sunscreen. Meanwhile, we are all left confused about what we should know, use, ask or even believe. Forget the risk of early skin aging and wrinkles. The dangers are in the risk of deadly melanoma cancer.
As a part of our investigation, we asked manufacturers who commonly exhibit at outdoor and active sports trade shows what the retailers ask them about their products. Turns out most buyers in the outdoor industry don’t know a lot about the science or the chemical ingredients, and tend to ask more performance-oriented or trendy questions: Is it fragrance free? Is it water-resistant? Does it have paraben? A few may ask questions related to the environment: Is it natural? Is it organic?
For the most part, none ask about the UVA or UVB rays, which UV rays cause cancer, the differences between the active ingredients, why they should buy one product over another, or what the backup is for a claim.
To wrap up our the third story of our three-part series, SNEWS has taken a look at some of the more common claims and sorted through them to help you make sense of them. We also cut to the chase with some key tips for retail buyers who are looking at sunscreens for their stores. Many of the questions to ask would apply to users also, of course, since they too should be educated. In a separate story, we’ve also summarized what topics the FDA is currently analyzing -- not that we can say when the agency could actually do something – and given you a list of other places to further your sunscreen education.
Deciphering label lingo, hyperbole and marketing claims
Some of these you may only see on mass-market brands, although a few such as basic instructions will appear on many other brands and some are more exclusive to cosmetics.
Apply generously – Also seen as “apply liberally” or other variations meaning basically “put on a lot.” Who knows what that means? The testing standard for verifying the SPF (Sun Protection Factor) requires the application of 2 milligrams of sunscreen per 1 square centimeter of exposed skin. Yes, that’s a lot on a very small space – one centimeter is about 3/8th of an inch. And that quantity applies at this point to all types, from lotions and cremes, to sprays, gels or sticks. Studies have shown that most people only use 20 percent to 60 percent of what they should use, which also decreases the protection.
Biodegradable – There is no standard or test for this. However, the FTC requires that a product touting itself as biodegradable must “decompose within a reasonably short period of time under customary methods of disposal.” But to biodegrade something, it needs exposure to air, sun and water. We’re still not sure how that applies to sunscreen ingredients – unless they just wash off in the river --- but we hope they aren’t biodegrading on our skin or in the tube.
Broad-spectrum – Per Merriam-Webster, broad-spectrum means something is “effective against a wide-range of organisms.” In sunscreen parlance, it should mean (emphasis on “should”) the product protects fully against the cancer-causing UVA rays and the burning UVB rays. But, again, there is no standard for how much UVA protection a product needs to have to slap this on the label. And nobody is watching the flock.
Chemical-free – Basically, all active sunscreen ingredients are some kind of mineral (zinc oxide and titanium dioxide) or chemical (all the others), but as one scientist pointed out even the minerals are “in the chemical realm.” One sunscreen manufacturer said, “You don’t just dig zinc out of the ground.” If you wanted true chemical-free protection, you’d put a thick layer of mud on your skin or wear thick clothing and never expose your skin to the sun.
Continuous or continual protection – We found this one recently on some mass-market brands, including ones from Target, as well as Aveeno, which the July 2010 Consumer Reports analysis called “best,” and we were left scratching our heads. Per our trusted dictionary, “continuous” means “marked by uninterrupted extension in space, time, or sequence.” Whoa, dude, sounds pretty ethereal…. We have a really deep suspicion that manufacturers have turned to this ambiguous sunscreen claim as a way to imply something like “all-day protection,” which is a claim that has caught a lot of flak because it’s simply not true. And even without FDA oversight, many have started to avoid the all-day claim.
Dermatologist-approved – And who is this worldly dermatologist? Maybe he or she is one of those white coats on infomercials, one of those “4 out of 5” cited as approving of something. Again, there is no standard for this term. Meaning a manufacturer can find some dermatologist somewhere who says, “Yeah, sure, this seems good.” Voila! Dermatologist-approved.
Fragrance-free – Many manufacturers fudge on this one. Our scientist friends tell us there are certain ingredients that are officially classed as “fragrances” in the cosmetics world. So if something in a product like sunscreen is not on that list of official fragrances, even if it has a smell, the company can happily slap “fragrance-free” on the bottle. Some sunscreen manufacturers (and other cosmetic companies) actually mix in some additives that aren’t on the fragrance list but have a pleasant smell to mask what can be a rather unpleasant odor from some active ingredients – a smell one chemist likened to rancid oil.
Natural – “Ill-defined,” said several SNEWS sources. There is no official or government definition, and different manufacturing segments see it differently -- again creating ambiguity. The Natural Ingredient Resource Center (www.naturalingredients.org) states for its purpose that the FDA refers to natural ingredients as those “extracted directly from plants or animal products as opposed to being produced synthetically.” So even if zinc oxide or titanium dioxide were “extracted directly,” they still need to be processed or put through a chemical reaction before they can be used. How natural is that? And, as one brand representative pointed out, there are lots of materials in nature that are quite toxic.
Non-comedogenic – Loved by the cosmetic industry and at once intimidating and impressive to consumers, the term means “won’t blog pores.” Also lacking oversight, it’s hard to determine if this label claim is true because a company’s method of mixing a product may affect how much, or if, it blocks pores. Heavier oils, waxes and some spray-on products with adhesives (“acrylates”) may block pores. Some lotions that penetrate the skin but still leave an oily layer may also plug up pores. Another ambiguous, mostly unproved claim. And one that is impossible for the buyer or consumer to prove unless they use it and perceive they break out more or don’t sweat as well.
Oil-free – Have you ever wondered why a product that says oil-free feels, well, oily? A manufacturer can print this claim on a product even if it contains fatty acids, such as esters – because the ingredient’s official name doesn’t include the word “oil” although it is oily, and the product is not on the official list of oils put out by the FDA. It’s all in how you slice it.
Organic – There are two types of active sunscreen ingredients: Inorganics that are minerals like zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, and “organic” chemicals such as oxybenzone or octocrylene. Guess you could then say if the product is full of these chemicals that they are “organic.” Seems like cheating to us. Other than that, nobody defines or oversees the use of the term. Here we go again: Mud is organic.
PABA-free – This is one of the more common claims but is a bit outdated. Although PABA is still one of the allowed active sunscreen ingredients, it is rarely used since it has been found to cause skin irritation. A derivative of PABA, Padimate O, is still used by some manufacturers and can still cause skin problems and allergic reactions in some.
Paraben-free – Parabens are preservatives used commonly in cosmetic products but rarely these days does a sunscreen use it.
Reef-friendly or Reef-safe – This became a hot topic in surfing and watersports circles after one study in 2008 concluded that seven sunscreen ingredients “awakened” some viruses in algae living in coral-building species that would then spread to other coral reefs, and infect and damage them. The study was never replicated, and most experts pooh-pooh the claims. Many watersports buffs heard this once and it has stuck in their heads, so they may seek the claim on a label. Some manufacturers are more than happy to oblige although the claim is considered bogus.
Seals of approval – Be skeptical of any pretty, official-looking seal. The Skin Cancer Foundation has a “seal of recommendation,” but if you want to apply for it, you first have to join its corporate council – for $10,000. The American Academy of Dermatology started a program in 2006 for what it called a “seal of recognition,” but it started phasing out the program as of late 2009. Insiders told us there was a heated debate about the validity and ethics of such a program at one of the group’s annual meetings since the seal was recognized to be a money-maker and would compete with the Foundation. The cost to apply was approximately $5,000. The term “cash cow” was used by several sources when we asked about such seals.
Sunblock – A tree can be a sunblock. A hat can be a sunblock. Clothing can be a sunblock. A lotion or cream may protect, but it won’t block. Still, the two mineral ingredients – zinc oxide and titanium dioxide – are considered physical blockers and could partly block the sun. The problem is, nobody puts them on thick enough to do that. And the use of the term on sunscreen is misinterpreted by most consumers who assume they can rub on some and be utterly protected for as long as they stay in the sun. This one is simply misleading and, we suspect, used on purpose by some unethical manufacturers.
Waterproof/Water-resistant/Very water-resistant and Sweatproof – On labels today you see “waterproof” or “sweatproof,” but that’s only because the FDA, which proposed to ban the use of those words since their use may lead a user to not apply enough protection or reapply often enough, is immoblized. The FDA document – the one that sits in limbo – would only allow the use of “resistant” or “very resistant.” Some manufacturers maintain that their product is indeed waterproof and sweatproof. But you’re only tempting fate if you assume your sunscreen is not washing off and, as a result, you apply it less frequently. This is especially risky considering that most people don’t put on enough in the first place.
So how is the resistance tested? Per the FDA document, volunteers (who would do this?) put on the amount of sunscreen deemed as enough (refer to “Apply generously” listing, above), then sit in “an indoor fresh water pool, whirlpool and/or Jacuzzi maintained at 23 to 32 degrees Celsius” (73.4 to 89.6 degrees Fahrenheit). Although the testing protocol specifies the use of a still water pool as valid, manufacturers have told us that most testing facilities use moving or agitated water. To claim “water resistant,” the volunteer must apply sunscreen, and then wait to let it set and dry per the product’s instructions. Then they get into the pool for 20 minutes and do what is called “moderate activity.” There is, however, no definition for moderate activity and we were told that could be just standing up and moving around the water a little. They then get out and rest for 20 minutes without toweling off. The procedure is repeated a second time for a total of 40 minutes in the water before the volunteers are put under a solar simulator to see if they burn. (See? Who would do this?) To claim “very water resistant,” the pool-sitting period is 40 minutes for each session, for a total of 80 minutes.
Any current claims on packaging for waterproof or sweatproof must be changed if the proposals in the current FDA document are approved and published.
Ultra Dry – We don’t know what this means. But it sounds kind of cool.
Tips for retail buyers
The lack of FDA oversight and regulations, the dearth of labeling regulations, and the bounty of unclear claims and definitions leaves retailers in the dark. How can retail buyers even begin to make informed decisions about what to buy and what in good conscience to promote to their customers – let alone wear themselves or bring home to the family?
Knowing more about the more commonly used claims (in the section above) is the first step. In addition to asking questions using that information and the details about the active ingredients and UV rays contained in the first two parts of our three-part series, here are some suggestions SNEWS collected for you from story sources including scientists, chemists, manufacturers and advocates, about how to buy what’s best for your store or consumer.
•Be a sunscreen pusher. Sun protection is a safety device, just like helmets or avalanche beacons.
•Be skeptical. Be very, very skeptical. Now that we have that out of the way, let’s take a look at other tips, but always keep skepticism in mind.
•Know what activity your customer is doing. For example, climbers won’t want an oily product on their hands; a mountaineer better have a super thick blocker since the UV rays are stronger at altitude; and an aerobic athlete needs to stay away from anything that is too thick or may block pores or inhibit sweating.
•Opt for a 30 SPF since anything lower than that might not be enough protection for athletic endeavors. If it’s higher than that, you may be spending a lot of money for very little additional protection. Granted, a 15 may be OK for short-duration, non-aerobic activities, and something that claims 45 or 50 might add a few extra ticks of protection. Anything over 50 is a fairytale right now.
•If the star rating for protection against cancer-causing UVA rays is ever passed, choose a four-star rating. (Refer to part 2 of our story for more on the star rating system.)
•Ask for data to substantiate the claims made by the brands, including the SPF rating, the water-resistance and, above all else, the broad-spectrum protection. •If your customer is particularly concerned about the environment and green or health issues, look closely at claims such as “biodegradable,” “organic,” and “natural” and probe how and why these can be made (see above section for details about the ambiguity of these words). Also ask about a brand’s use of nanoparticles since this is not revealed on labels and you may want to be upfront with your customers.
•In terms of broad-spectrum protection, if a brand is using avobenzone, ask what it is being used to stabilize it or ask for details about any blends or proprietary formulas. If the brand isn’t using one of the top broad-spectrum protectants (zinc oxide, titanium dioxide, avobenzone or mexoryl), ask how it is making the claim. Make sure there is a higher quantity of zinc and titanium (3 percent or more and, even better, 5 percent or more). With avobenzone, best is the maximum allowed (3 percent), but if the product only contains 2 percent, find out what is making up the difference in protection and ask for substantiation.
•Look for the percentages of each active ingredient on the label. If they aren’t there, bypass the product. (See a sample Drug Facts label to the right.)
•Don’t buy insect repellent combinations (See details in our separate story on the FDA, active ingredients and additional resources by clicking here).
•Try to ignore useless claims such as “ultra dry,” “reef-friendly” or “all-day protection.”
--Therese Iknoian
|
|
Srbphoto
Trad climber
Kennewick wa
|
|
SNEWSitorial: Revelations in SNEWS’ ‘Getting Burned’ sunscreen investigation demand legislative, federal action
Posted: 06/04/2010 In Category(s): Special Sections :: SNEWS Investigates, News & Features :: Fitness Headlines, News & Features :: Editorials, News & Features :: Outdoor Headlines
Print Email Save This Comment RSS Post a release
If normally skeptical journalists can be so mislead, no wonder Joe and Jane Consumer are left duped and in danger when it comes to sunscreen.
Over the years, I had trusted what I’d read on sunscreen labels as proved and backed by the government since sunscreen products are, of course, drugs. Broad-spectrum, waterproof, oil-free, fragrance-free…you name it, I read the claims like a good consumer and assumed if they were printed on the label, they had to be true. And ingredient lists were no help since all those chemical names just lost me from the get-go.
My intent about 10 months ago when I began research for a story for SNEWS® was not to do an investigation into the world of sunscreens, sun-protection misconceptions, brand marketing hyperbole and FDA inaction. Nope, I just wanted to write a story about what not to do with sunscreen rather than the run-of-the-mill mundane story that everybody else writes with do’s and don’ts (“apply liberally,” “reapply frequently,” “wear a broad-spectrum sunscreen,” etc.)
I started to ask questions and the answers I got carried me farther and farther down the rabbit hole. We indeed ended up publishing a three-part investigation on May 26, May 28 and May 31 (with an extra resources article that also ran on May 31) that pulled back the cloak on sunscreen myths, marketing and government inaction. I was shocked. I was disappointed. I was in fact really quite angry. I realized that my generation, the Baby Boomers, was in danger since we were some of the first who not only spent a lot more time in the sun with very little clothes on (think bikinis and teeny shorts and tank tops … or no tops), but we were also the first to be raised thinking a tan was a sign of good health.
I’d rant to friends on long trail runs about how I was discovering manufacturers could make marketing claims on labels that weren’t necessarily true (or just barely true), how the FDA basically hadn’t done much of anything when it came to sunscreens since the topic first landed on its radar in 1978, and some ingredients liberally used could in fact be a health hazard. Then I had friends start to tell me about all their sunbathing growing up. All the dangerous little chunks of skin they now were having frozen off or dug out of their faces and arms a couple of times a year, and about their friends who had such big chunks dug out some part of their body they had to have reconstructive surgery. And I’d recall the stories we’d written just in the last year in SNEWS about a couple of industry folks who unbeknownst to them had developed a melanoma cancer and, before it was found, it had spread so far into other body parts, including their brains, that they passed away in a few months.
Not burning not a help
I was not raised a sunbather type. I can count on two fingers the sunburns I had -- helps that I’ve got a Mediterranean background and an olive complexion -- and I’ve used sunscreen religiously for 25 years. Plus, I was just too hyper to lie in the sun all day. So I’m grateful, for sure, but what about all those rays I got even if I didn’t burn? That’s one of the major issues I discovered: the SPF, or Sun Protection Factor, ratings have left us all feeling a little too secure. As we described in our special series, it seems they only rank the danger from burning from UVB rays. The SPF ratings have utterly nothing to do with the danger of deeper cell damage from more lethal UVA rays that can cause horrible cancers -- the kind that at best disfigure you and at worse kill you in a few months. And if you use enough of the UVB-blocking lotions and don’t burn, you also don’t get the uh-oh warning that you better put on clothes, get under cover or go indoors. Thus, you were actually leaving yourself even more at risk.
One shot glass
Then we have the problem of figuring out how much to apply. Over the years we’ve all read the rather non-definitive “apply generously” or “reapply frequently,” but who knows what that means anyway? Most people don’t apply enough (because it’s gooey, can turn you white and exposed skin can be a large surface to cover) and most people don’t reapply as much as they should. Why? Because there is no set amount specified by brands or most advocates. Oh sure, every once in a while you hear the “one shot glass” per application, then you go about your merry way, applying what feels like enough.
We researched and read and pried, trying to put some understandable quantity definition on how much you really need to slather on. FDA testing protocol for SPF requires 2 milligrams per 1 square centimeter. OK, so that doesn’t help. Another manufacturer tried to explain the “one shot glass” per application rule and came up with U.S. Army anthropometric measures that concluded 28,500 milligrams would be needed to cover an average adult male who had 75 percent of his body exposed. That’s equal to a smidge over 1 ounce. Voila, the shot glass measure. Think about it: Many sunscreen bottles are only two to six fluid ounces. Go on a week-long vacation and put on sunscreen just twice a day and you already need one humongo bottle or two just for you, not to mention the family.
FDA inaction
I am so frankly shocked that our federal government, those folks at the FDA who are supposed to be helping us and protecting us, have sat immobilized for just about 32 years now. When the cat’s away, the mice will play. And so the mice have been playing in the world of sunscreen manufacturers where sales are worth a few billion each year. Sure, some stick up for the FDA -- we were told that they have gotten so many comments about their documents and proposals to read and, by law, the FDA muckety-mucks have to read them all. But for 32 years? Give us a break. Pass something and stop playing the political game. We are suspicious the manufacturers are doing their best political lobbying. For one, this inaction leaves some brands, in the name of marketing, able to say nearly whatever they want about a product -- as far as their ethics allow -- duping trusting consumers. And then when some brands play games with labels, others feel forced to fudge a little too just so they can compete on the shelf. Second, we know it will cost many, many billions of dollars in relabeling, redesigning, remolding containers, even reformulating and coming up with new marketing strategies. We’re not sure the larger manufacturers really want the FDA to pass any final documents.
Shocking inattention
So how come more journalists and other watchdogs haven’t blown the whistle? We are baffled. The Environmental Working Group, rather unfortunately, has perhaps done more damage since its calls-to-action are so spectacular that nobody believes all the dire warnings about chemical dangers. Legislators, including Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., have introduced bills that would force the FDA to pass SOMEthing within 180 days of the bill being approved. But they languish in committees. Not enough glitz and glamour for Congress to pay much attention?
As scary as it sounds, there are amazing similarities here to the smoking issue: It took many many decades, many many deaths from cancer, and countless cover-ups by manufacturers about how their tobacco products weren’t the problem before the government took action. Granted, we aren’t saying all sunscreen manufacturers are evil and that all sunscreen is bad. To the contrary: Something is better than nothing and many brands are trying their darndest. However, sunbathing and getting a tan has been portrayed as cool, hip and “in,” just as smoking was depicted as cool, hip and in -- even though in the end, it could kill you.
We believe the FDA needs to be prodded into action to ensure a level playing field and restore trust and safety to the sunscreen products upon which consumers are counting to protect them. This will force the less-than-ethical manufacturers to toe the line when it comes to claims -- allowing the more ethical manufacturers, many of which are in the sports and outdoor markets, to not push their claims as far to compete.
And perhaps there should be a warning label on sunscreen products that sunbathing and tanning can be hazardous to your health. What the country needs is a national ruckus, a national media campaign, and some high-placed public figures or celebrities stepping forward about the issue. But we, unfortunately, don’t think this is going to happen quickly -- just as it took decades for tobacco brands to reveal how they knew all along the dangers of smoking. In fact, it was only in May 2009 that a Federal Court of Appeals ruled that indeed the tobacco companies had lied for decades about the dangers of tobacco use. And that case, which had been filed in 1999 by the Clinton administration, took a full 10 years to be decided.
In the meantime, it’s caveat emptor. It’s up to all of us to educate ourselves and to protect ourselves, as well as to educate the consumers who are buying your products and shopping in your stores. Wear (or sell) the best sunscreen you can get. Wear (and promote wearing) clothes and covering up as much as you can. Stay out of the hottest, most-penetrating, mid-day rays, and educate people to do that. And write your legislators, even sending them links to our three-part SNEWS investigation and this editorial -- we’ll provide special URLs to anyone who asks to ensure your legislators don’t have to subscribe or log-in to read these important stories. Meanwhile, be in touch with your comments, plans and feedback. We look forward to continuing our coverage of the issue.
--Therese Iknoian
|
|
nevahpopsoff
Boulder climber
the woods
|
|
you might want to try some clothing designed to protect you from the sun. being from the east coast (humid), i could never imagine wearing a long sleeved shirt in the heat, but after frying in the Tuolumne sun i now understand. it's a dry heat.
|
|
Dr.Sprock
Boulder climber
Sprocketville
|
|
a current ozone problem combined with a higher than normal elevation,
means you can feel unprotected skin start to fry like bacon as soon as you hold it to the glaring sun,
put your head in a microwave for a few minutes and you won't need any screen at all, jus sayin...
|
|
Ricky D
Trad climber
Sierra Westside
|
|
The heck with cut-n-pastes - the upshot from the latest research is that sunscreen causes cancer.
Go commando - if humans haven't croaked after a few hundred thousand years of living without SPF whatever they aren't gonna go anytime soon from not using the stuff.
Besides, my dermo says it's the exposure you had as a kid that sets you up for the fall - so it's too late for you anyway.
|
|
Jingy
Social climber
Nowhere
|
|
F*#k, dude...
when you get to the park.. and in the morning, take off your shirt.. apply no sun-screen, see how long you last.. if you feel no difference in Yos than back at home then there will be no need for any further discussion.
If, however, you notice a slight bit of pain from the skin, go to one of the stores located very near where you may be camped..
end of discussion..
have fun in Yosemite
|
|
Urlich
Trad climber
Frankfurt, Germany
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 6, 2010 - 12:31am PT
|
thank you for very useful information, especially Srbphoto.
that is funny that there is not much more protection between 30-50, but they sell in store up to 100.
Urlich
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
I believe that Ombrelle is available at MEC in SPF 15, 30, 45 and 60 strengths. It's good stuff. Made by L'Oreal, a French company, so perhaps it's available in Germany.
|
|
salad
climber
Escondido
|
|
i fking hate sunscreen. i have a lot of freckles (sp?)
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
Wear white cotten for the sun. Those Arab guys know how to live in the Arid/Desert lands, but I wouldn't suggest an ankle-length dress like they prefer. Wear loose, white cotton, over your entire body. No bikini bathing suits or thongs. Or shorts and t-shirts. If you want to get a tan, go to the beach.
Sunblock cream is false protection. It will not prevent sunburn or dehydration. Clothing is the best sort of sun block.
Take off the cotton if the storm hits you, and put on the polyester pile because you will stay warmer when things get wet.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
There's a reason a lot of us geezers wear long pants, long shirts and big hats.
The Norm Clyde look may not be fashionable, but it's effective.
High collar or bandanna to keep the sun off the back of the neck too.
Long sleeve cotton dress shirts are perfect.
|
|
| Messages 1 - 19 of total 19 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!