Sunscreens - Safe or Toxic?

This past weekend, Environmental Working Group posted an interesting article on their Facebook Page. You can find the article here.

Coincidentally, one week ago we announced the arrival of one of the most demanded items yet: a safe sunscreen. I'd like to share a story before I get back on point. It took us a pretty long time to find a sunscreen but we did - from a land that was known for its sun and beaches: California. And we ordered it. And then we never heard anything back from the manufacturer. A few days passed, some phone calls went unanswered but nothing happened. It was disappointing, to say the least. We scoured the world (via internet given our limitations) and there was only one sunscreen in the world that we were comfortable stocking but apparently we couldn't have it. Could anyone? WTF? Then a week or two after that, by sheer accident (I don't even remember how, really) there was another one! Just as safe, same sizes, except it cost less and only came from New Hampshire! That one of course is the one that happily worked out and came in, better late than never - Loving Naturals Sunscreen.

But regarding this article. Don't get deluded by SPF. Do you need sun protection? Absolutely. The sun will burn you and you really should avoid getting burned when possible. But do you need a sunscreen with an SPF 60? No. In fact that's probably causing more harm than good. Three big reasons why that is (in my favourite order):

1. High-SPF sunscreens require using more toxic chemical SPF blockers in higher proportions, and are therefore more toxic than lower-SPF sunscreens.

2. To get the full effect of a sunscreen you need to use to 1 full ounce (more than a third of the small Loving Naturals)

3. They present a false sense of security, allowing us to think it's okay to be in the sun longer and expose ourselves to the rays more.

I can't help but love the irony of the first point, while also being a bit disturbed by that. But that point is no laughing matter. That is effectively the reason why it took us at pur alternatives so long to commit to a sunscreen line (let alone two!)

When it comes to sunscreens, there are effectively 3 different protectors that can give us the SPF protection. Possibly the most popular one in use is Titanium Dioxide. Although completely natural (it is a mineral) there have been numerous concerns on its safety. More on that in a moment. We have allowed Zinc Oxide in any sunscreen we carry; although it must be in non-nanoparticle form. Again, more on that in a moment though. The worst ones of course - and probably the most common (in both the natural and toxic product lines) are the fully synthetic chemicals - Octinoxate (AKA, octyl-methoxycinnamate) is the most common, but Oxybenzone is another that pops up frequently enough. They just sound awful, don't they? Coppertone, Hawaiian Tropic, Kiss My Face, Olay, Neutrogena, Alba all use these ones (one, or the other, or combinations of the both). They are also both related, and there are innumerable other varieties out there but the risks are high. Why would they be used then? Basically because you can use very small amounts of them (compared to the oxides) for a lot of SPF. These are where you get the SPF 50's and 70's and SPF 100's. Nevertheless don't be fooled into thinking they're safe. Even small amounts have been known to cause severe endocrine disruption, organ failure, neurotoxicity, are bioaccumulative, and are disruptive to ecosystems.

But back to the oxides. It's a bit of a gray area but you do need to get the SPF protection somewhere. Titanium dioxide has had weak links to carcinogenicity, but perhaps the most troubling is a lot of evidence of it causing cellular mutation. I'm still trying to sort through the mud on whether this is titanium dioxide in general or specifically nanoparticle titanium dioxide (i.e., particle size less than 100 microns). Zinc however, is without doubt the most inert of them all. There are minor concerns around it, which is not completely unreasonable but most evidence of health concerns I've seen all stem from high doses of it. To get a proper SPF 30 though in a sunscreen you do need to use more zinc than you would of any other SPF-providing ingredient but because zinc is near paste-like, you also get the water barrier. But nanoparticles we're just not comfortable with. It's a very new science and once you're dealing with particles that small there is the potential of penetrating at the cellular level. What little research that has been done seems to claim that the particles do not penetrate "healthy skin" (I can only assume related to other skin barriers, our natural oils, or perhaps some ionic (charge balancing for the non-science folk) reaction). But limiting exposure to healthy skin puts too fine a condition on ideal circumstance (see my borax post below)

Zinc is also old school. Remember the white stuff that your Mom would put on your nose (better known as a sun block)? Mine didn't much because more advanced sunscreens were getting popular - that's actually even a bit before my time - but that's zinc. Granted the safe sunscreens we've found blend well enough (although technically they too are sunblocks) but as far as we can tell, it's just one more indication that if we want to use safe products, stick to old ingredients. We can bring them into the modern age, sure, but stick to what we've known for a long time to be safe.