Sunscreen scam? We spend millions every year on sun protection, so why is skin cancer still on the rise?

Slathering on suncream at the first hint of sunshine has become commonplace - as a nation, we're far more sun safety conscious than a decade ago and spend £259 million a year on products designed to ward off the sun's rays.

Despite this, cases of skin cancer are continuing to rise and the main cause remains overexposure to the sun. Could it be that the creams we use, or misuse, can cause as many problems as they attempt to solve?

Most suncreams are broad spectrum, providing protection against the ageing UVA rays, which cause skin damage and premature wrinkles, and the stronger UVB rays that cause sunburn.

Consumers can choose between a physical block, which sits on the surface of the skin causing UV rays to bounce off, or chemical sunscreens, which are absorbed by the skin and deactivate sunlight when it comes into contact with the body's surface.

The latest creams combine the best of both. But the paradox is that, in fusing the cream of sunbattling ingredients, manufacturers have created new health concerns.

Some experts have found the chemicals used to deactivate UV rays (most commonly cinnamates, benzophenones and amino benzoic acid) react adversely with sunlight when they are absorbed, possibly causing DNA damage.

Research by the University of California suggested that chemical filters in popular suncreams can triggerthe kind of free-radical damage that could pre-empt skin cancer. The adverse effects seemed to happen only when UV rays hit sunscreen that had penetrated the skin.

Concern has also been raised about the chemical preservatives used in sunscreens, and other ingredients, seeping through the top layer of the skin.

A Swedish study found benzophenone-3 (or B-3), a popular suncream ingredient, in the urine of people who had applied no more than the recommended dose of suncream up to 48 hours before.

Should we be worried about such chemical infiltration of our bodies? 'Even if molecules are detected in urine, the levels are so low that they are not going to cause harm,' says Professor Brian Diffey, a leading expert in sun-protection research.

What is less clear is whether the trend for using nanotechnology in sun products is bad news. In recent years, manufacturers have developed techniques that shrink particles of physical sunblock ingredients, such as titanium oxide and zinc, to a thousandth of the size of a human hair.

However, there are suggestions that the shrunken substances could enter human cells with worrying results.

Dr Michael Prager of the British Association of Cosmetic Doctors believes there is an alternative: antioxidant-based protection.

'The antioxidants in our skin can fix UV damage to DNA, which causes pigmentation and even skin cancer.'

Controversially, Prager suggests that 'in our climate there is simply no point' in wearing an SPF and that topical antoxidant serums should be used as protection.

However, those within the industry dismiss his beliefs. 'Worn alone, antioxidant-based creams are not enough to protect against the sun,' says Dr Emma Meredith, spokeswoman for the UK Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association.

Yet, there could be something in the antioxidant claim.

Studies have shown that tomatoes, which are rich in antioxidants and the lycopene, could prove a weapon against sun damage.

When 20 people were given 5tbsp of tomato paste every day for 12 weeks while they were exposed to ultraviolet light, there was a significant improvements in their skin's ability to protect itself.

'We know an antioxidant-rich diet is important as part of overall sunprotection, but eating tomatoes will not make you invincible' says Birch-Machin. ...

via Sunscreen scam? We spend millions every year on sun protection, so why is skin cancer still on the rise? | Mail Online.