Most sunscreens protect in the UVB range only, while even the broader spectrum sunscreens in general reach peak protection at around 360 nm, falling sharply thereafter. The UVA scale is from 320 nm to 400nm. Long known as the aging rays, these longer wave length rays are also linked with basal and squamous cell carcinomas. The problem of UVA exposure is compounded when a sunscreen offers a high SPF rating (protecting in the 280 to 320 nm range) but no UVA protection. Users may stay out in the sun longer than they ordinarily would because their natural alarm system (skin turns red and starts to burn) has been disarmed.

In Defense of the FDA

The Times article suggests that Americans would be better protected if the FDA would just get on the ball and approve more sunscreen agents. The FDA approves use of 16 ingredients while the Europeans approve 28. However, I believe the larger issue of public safety is getting lost in the clamor, and indeed, when we consider the big picture the FDA is, in many ways, doing a better job acting as our public watchdog than it is being given credit for. Here are a few cases in point: 

1) In the case of sunscreen, Europe requires less costly and less extensive testing than the FDA. Their sunscreen ingredients can go on a “provisional approval” list and reach market more quickly under this system. Those of us who still remember the Thalidomide story and the role FDA’s Frances Kelsey played in refusing approval of that drug, despite intense pressure, appreciate the need for continued caution. 

2) In Europe, manufacturers submit standard irritation and sensitivity tests to the European Cosmetic, Toiletry & Perfumery Association, which may then submit the drug for regulatory approval. As we know certain sunscreen ingredients, like oxybenzone, have a powerful effect on the body. When creams and lotions containing powerful UV absorbing chemicals are spread all over the largest organ of our bodies they do penetrate to some extent. Sunscreens containing chemicals should be considered drugs, and held to a drug standard, not a cosmetic standard, of safety. 

3) “New wave” sunscreens from Europe. Sunscreens contain one or more UV filters, of which there are three main types : a) Organic chemical compounds absorb ultraviolet light (eg. oxybenzone) b) Inorganic particulates reflect, scatter, and absorb UV light (eg titanium dioxide, zinc oxide) c) Organic particulates mostly absorb light like organic chemical compounds, but they also contain multiple chromophores, which may reflect and scatter a fraction of light like inorganic particulates, and behave differently in formulations than organic chemical compounds. 

Tinosorb M is one such ingredient, and it has come to be the ingredient of choice for many Europeans. It looks like a good compromise between the organic sunscreens and the inorganics containing nanoparticles, and people in the US want it. Its biggest drawback appears to be its lack of history. The FDA has been slow in approving it, perhaps for this reason.

Our Position

As an organic company we take a fairly simple position: of the sunscreen agents that are available today we know that zinc oxide in its non nano form is the safest. We also know that it offers the most effective long wave length UVA protection, matching that of Tinosorb, but without the chemical component. Zinc oxide has a long history of safety, and is the only ingredient approved by the FDA for use on babies under 6 months. Tinosorb has yet to stand the rigors of long-term use, and testing has been minimal as yet. Why take the chance when you can get full UVA/UVB protection with non-nano zinc?