BURN: Health Impacts of Sunscreen Found to be Worse Than UV Damage!

10th May 2014

By Marie Be, Guest Writer for Wake Up World

It has long been known that sunscreen products are detrimental to our health. But how bad? And what is

worse: UV damage, chemical sunscreens or mineral sunscreens? Would there be any alternative ways to

protect the skin against UV rays, without necessarily hiding behind an umbrella all day?

Safe sun protection seems like another topic overloaded with information, where nothing seems quite

clear. This article makes sense of the whole issue by gathering independent scientific data from

worldwide sources and linking it to how your body reacts to sunscreen ingredients and UV rays. While

undertaking this research, we’ve even discovered alternative and natural ways to protect your skin against

UV rays!

Over the past decade, dozens of studies from third-party scientific groups have examined the potential

health hazards of sunscreen chemicals that permeate the skin. Sunscreen’s active ingredients are present

in large concentrations in order to filter UVA and UVB rays, and their repeated application over large

portions of the skin means that the body absorbs high concentrations of toxic chemicals. Sunscreen

ingredients are well known to cause poisoning, hormone disruption, degenerative changes in cells of the

skin, DNA damage, free-radical generation leading to premature ageing, a compromised immune system

and increased risk of melanoma.

The Environmental Working Group writes:

“The ideal sunscreen would completely block UV rays that cause sunburn, immune suppression and

damaging free radicals. It would remain effective on the skin for several hours. It would not form harmful

ingredients when degraded by sunlight. It would smell and feel pleasant so that people would use more of

it. No sunscreen meets these goals. Consumers must choose between “chemical” sunscreens, which have

inferior stability, penetrate the skin and may disrupt the body’s hormone system, and “mineral”

sunscreens, made with zinc and titanium, often “micronized” or containing nano-particles.”

Chemical Sunscreens

Chemical sunscreens deserve special awareness, as they are known to permeate the skin. Chemical

sunscreens typically include a combination of three to six of these active ingredients: oxybenzone,

avobenzone, octisalate, octocrylene, homosalate and octinoxate.

Laboratory studies indicate that these chemicals break down when exposed to sunlight, mimicking

estrogen and disrupting the body’s hormone (endocrine) system.[1] Research suggests that oxybenzone,

4-MBC and octinoxate are also toxic to human reproductive systems and interfere with normal

development.[2]

In North-America, oxybenzone is found in 80 percent of chemical sunscreens. The federal Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has detected oxybenzone in more than 96 percent of the U.S.

population, with higher concentrations found during the summer months.[3] Other studies have detected

common sunscreen chemicals in breast milk, which affects the normal development of fetuses and

newborns.[4]

Furthermore, a United States FDA report entitled ‘Medications that Increase Sensitivity to

Light’ indicates that many agents commonly used in chemical sunscreens - including benzophenones,

PABA, cinnamates, salicylates, anthranilates, PSBA, mexenone, and oxybenzone –

increase photosensitivity or have photo-reactive agents in them. This means that applying these chemicals

to your body during periods of sun exposure actually heightens the body’s reactivity to UV radiation and

increases the risk of skin cancer.

Mineral Sunscreens

In the mainstream media, mineral sunscreens are portrayed as the safe alternative to chemical sunscreens.

In fact, once exposed to sunlight, mineral filters such as zinc oxide and titanium dioxide have been found

to undergo a chemical reaction that releases free radicals in the body, damaging surrounding cells. Free

radicals cause cell and DNA damage, premature ageing and increase the risk of skin cancer.

According to the environmental working group, “mineral sunscreen could pose a risk of skin damage if

manufacturers do not select forms that are coated with inert chemicals to reduce photoactivity”. In other

words, they use chemicals to alter the hazardous effects of mineral filters breaking down in sunlight. This

is a problem: there is absolutely no research on chemicals used to reduce the photoreactivity of mineral

sunscreens.

Additionally, mineral filters release carcinogenic nanoparticles one-twentieth the thickness of a human

hair. Nanoparticles are not properly regulated, allowing manufacturers to cheap out on quality and

safety[5]. These particles are volatile; they can lodge in the lungs, reach the bloodstream and extensively

damage living cells and internal organs.[6] On top of it all, nanoparticles also react to UV rays faster,

increasing the amount of free radicals produced and drastically increasing UV damage in the body.

Additionally, sunscreen nano-ingredients have been shown to damage ecosystems as they accumulate in

the food chain, disrupting hormones of animals and humans.[7] The environmental impact of

nanoparticle pollution has not been sufficiently assessed, but experts suspect that nanoparticles are highly

prone to bioaccumulation[8].

Beware of false claims. Mineral sunscreens are commonly advertised as the “safe” alternative to chemical

sunscreens, but their chemical content is un-regulated and un-tested. Some other commonly misleading

claims are products advertised as “non-nano” titanium dioxide and zinc oxide: all mineral sunscreens

must be delivered in nanoparticle form to efficiently block UV rays.

Understanding the Health Effects of UV Rays

Wearing sunscreen and avoiding sunburns does not mean your skin is adequately protected.

UVA and UVB rays have very distinct properties when interacting with the skin. UVA rays damage skin

cells called keratinocytes in the basal layer of the epidermis, where most skin cancers occur. They

penetrate deeper into skin tissue where they release free radicals, damaging DNA and skin cells,

promoting skin aging and causing skin cancer.

UVB rays stimulate the production of new melanin and a thicker epidermis, which are your body’s

natural defense against UVA damage. They also cause sunburns, which are the body’s natural warning

and protection system against UVA damage.

UVB rays are necessary to build the precursors to vitamin D in the skin[10]. Vitamin D is a hormone

essential to calcium absorption, promoting bone health. It is also essential to a strong immune system and

helps protect against breast, colon, kidney and ovarian cancer. About one-fourth of North-Americans have

low levels of vitamin D[11], which has been associated with increased cardiovascular mortality, colon

cancer mortality, breast cancer, skin cancer, metabolic disease, hypertension, obesity, diabetes,

osteoporosis, upper respiratory tract infections and other microbe-caused infections[12].

Basically, for a sun protection lotion to be effective, it should block cancer-causing UVAs while

allowing healing UVBs to interact with the skin.

Ironically, sunscreens create the opposite effect of what they are designed for. They block UVBs

and allow harmful UVAs to penetrate deeper into the skin.

By focusing both their products and advertising campaigns on UVB protection, sunscreen companies are,

at best, selling their consumers a false sense of safety. Remarkably, regulators like the FDA continue to

allow these chemicals to be sold as ‘sun protection’, despite the known risks associated with both

chemical and mineral sunscreens.

Blocking UVB absorption neutralizes the body’s natural UVA defense mechanisms and impedes vitamin

D to naturally build in the body. Most sunscreens further enhance the damage produced by UVA rays by

separating it from its ultraviolet particle UVB, allowing UVA rays to penetrate deeper into the skin,

reaching connective tissues and blood vessels. It is also common for sunscreens to contain anti-

inflammatory chemicals that can prevent the skin from burning, creating a false sense of security where

users wrongly assume they are being adequately protected from the harmful effects of UV rays (which

include free radical release and DNA damage).

“One study of three common sunscreen ingredients found that after one hour of UV-exposure, the

number of free radicals on sunscreen-treated skin was actually higher than on untreated skin.”[13]

“Experts caution that the unintentional exposure to and toxicity of active ingredients erodes the

benefits of sunscreens.”[14]

Quite simply, sunscreens inhibit the innate intelligence of our skin cells. On one hand, they neutralize

UVB rays, which are the body’s natural defense system against UVA damage. On the other hand, they

enable harmful UVA rays to penetrate deeper into the body. With so much misinformation in the public

sphere, it is no wonder skin cancer rates are sky-rocketing!

The Sun and its Healing Powers

The sun, a dynamic source of life-sustaining energy, is truly one of the most powerful healing therapies in

the world. And it is free, which is probably why nobody is promoting it! Here are some of the healing

benefits of the sun:

Helps fight cancer in conjunction with whole foods

Heals skin disorders such as psoriasis, acne, eczema and fungal infections of the skin

Lowers cholesterol and blood pressure

Cleanses the blood and increases oxygen content as it penetrates deep into the skin

Builds a strong the immune system as white blood cells increase with sun exposure

Body’s primary source of vitamin D

Treats depression

Natural Ways to Avoid Sun Damage

There are many ways to avoid skin damage and burning without the damaging affects of sunscreen:

1. Stay hydrated. Your skin is more likely to burn if you are dehydrated, so drink lots of water..

2. Naturally increase your skin’s resistance to UV rays by gradually exposing it to the morning sun for

short periods of time. You will be less likely to burn, and you will reap the health benefits of increased

Vitamin D. Avoid prolonged mid-day exposures.

3. Avoid sunglasses. The optical nerve in the eyes sends signals to the hypothalamus. The gland has the

ability to adjust the skin’s resistance to UV rays on the basis of how much light your eyes receive.

4. Sunburn is caused by oxidation of the skin cells. Eat colorful foods – they are high in antioxidants and

you will support the body to counteract the effects of sunburn.

5. Cleanse your liver of toxins and heavy metals as they play a major role in UV protection.

Adding zeolite to your diet is a safe and powerful way to detox the body.

6. Apply micronized zeolite to your skin. Easily absorbed, it assists the skin to build and strengthen its

own natural UV and UVA defense, healing and processing mechanisms. Zeolite does not deter beneficial

UV rays from entering the skin, it protects against DNA damage, protecting your skin and cell

membranes at the cellular level. Try out SunSheer from EarthSun, an organic zeolite cream with a

protection level comparable to a sunscreen SPF 50.

As you can see, independent scientific data shows that sunscreens are actually counter-productive to their

purpose, inhibiting the innate intelligence of our skin cells, neutralizing beneficial UVB rays and

increasing the harmful effects of UVA radiation. Thankfully nature has provided some simple and natural

ways to protect our skin from UV rays without the damaging affects of conventional sunscreens. For

more information, please visit me at Earth for the Sun.

Resources:

[1]

Kortenkamp A. Low dose mixture effects of endocrine disrupters: implications for risk assessment

and epidemiology. Int J Androl. 2008;31(2):233-240. Epub 2008 Jan 29.

Krause, M. et al. Sunscreens: are they beneficial for health? An overview of endocrine disrupting

properties of UV-filters. Int J Androl. 2012 Jun;35(3):424-36. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-

2605.2012.01280.x.

Schlumpf M, Durrer S, Faass O, et al. Developmental toxicity of UV filters and environmental

exposure: a review. Int J Androl. 2008;31(2):144-151. Epub 2008 Jan 10.

Schlumpf M, Cotton B, Conscience M, Haller V, Steinmann B, Lichtensteiger W. In vitro and in vivo

estrogenicity of UV screens. Environ Health Perspect. 2001;109(3):239–244.

Schlumpf M, Kypke K, Wittassek M, et. al. Exposure patterns of UV filters, fragrances, parabens,

phthalates, organochlor pesticides, PBDEs, and PCBs in human milk: Correlation of UV filters with

use of cosmetics. Chemosphere. 2010;81(10):1171–1183. Epub 2010 Oct 27

Schlumpf M, Durrer S, Faass O, et al. Developmental toxicity of UV filters and environmental

exposure: a review. Int J Androl. 2008;31(2):144-151. Epub 2008 Jan 10.

[2]

Axelstad M, Boberg J, Hougaard KS, et al. Effects of pre-and postnatal exposure to the UV-filter

Octyl Methoxycinnamate (OMC) on the reproductive, auditory and neurological development of

rat offspring. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2010. doi:10.1016/j.taap.2010.10.031

Fent K, Kunz PY, Gomez E. UV filters in the aquatic environment induce hormonal effects and

affect fertility and reproduction in fish. Endocrine disruptors: natural waters and fishes. Chimia.

2008;62(5):368-375.

Schlumpf M, Schmid P, Durrer S, et. al. Endocrine activity and developmental toxicity of cosmetic

UV filters–an update. Toxicology. 2004;205:113–122.

Weisbrod CJ, Kunz PY, Zenker AK, Fent K. Effects of the UV filter benzophenone-2 on reproduction

in fish. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2007;225(3):255-266. Epub 2007 Aug 17.

[3]

Calafat. Endocrine disruptors: natural waters and fishes. Chimia. 2008;62(5):368-375.

[4]

Nishikawa M, Iwano H, Yanagisawa R, Koike N, Inoue H, Yokota H. Placental transfer of

conjugated bisphenol A and subsequent reactivation in the rat fetus. Environ Health Perspect.

2010;118(9):1196-1203. Epub 2010 Apr 9.

[5]

ANTARIA An Advanced Material Rowld. Review of ZinClear-IM™product range in line with the

European Union Cosmetic Products Regulation (EC 1223/2009). Dec. 2012.

Philip J. Barker Amos Branch. The interaction of modern sunscreen formulations with surface

coatings. rogress in Organic Coatings 62 (2008) 313–320.

[6]

Trouiller B, Reliene R, Westbrook A, Solaimani P, Schiestl RH. Titanium dioxide nanoparticles

induce DNA damage and genetic instability in vivo in mice. Cancer Res. 2009;69(22):8784–8789.

Epub 2009 Nov 3.

Wu J, Liu W, Xue C, et al. Toxicity and penetration of TiO2 nanoparticles in hairless mice and

porcine skin after subchronic dermal exposure. Toxicol Lett. 2009;191(1):1-8. Epub 2009 Jan 6.

Liu S, Xu L, Zhang T, Ren G, Yang Z. Oxidative stress and apoptosis induced by nanosized titanium

dioxide in PC12 cells. Toxicology. 2010;267(1-3):172-177. Epub 2009 Nov 14.

[7]

Nowack B, Bucheli TD. Occurrence, behavior and effects of nanoparticles in the environment.

Environ Pollut. 2007;150(1):5-22.

Miao AJ, Zhang XY, Luo Z, et al. Zinc oxide-engineered nanoparticles: dissolution and toxicity to

marine phytoplankton. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2010;29(12):2814-22. Epub 2010 Oct 7.

Kahru A, Dubourguier HC. From ecotoxicology to nanoecotoxicology. Toxicology. 2010;269(2-

3):105-119. Epub 2009 Sep 2.

Chen J, Dong X, Xin Y, Zhao M. Effects of titanium dioxide nano-particles on growth and some

histological parameters of zebrafish (Danio rerio) after a long-term exposure. Aquat Toxicol.

2011;101(3-4):493-499. Epub 2010 Dec 24.

Shaw BJ, Handy RD. Physiological effects of nanoparticles on fish: a comparison of nanometals

versus metal ions. Environ Int. 2011;37(6):1083-1097. Epub 2011 Apr 6.

[8]

Nowack B, Bucheli TD. Occurrence, behavior and effects of nanoparticles in the environment.

Environ Pollut. 2007;150(1):5-22.

[9]

Kligman LH. Intensification of ultraviolet-induced dermal damage by infrared radiation. Arch

Dermatol Res. 1982;272(3-4):229-238.

Kligman LH. Full spectrum solar radiation as a cause of dermal photodamage: UVB to infrared.

Acta Derm Venereol Suppl (Stockh). 1987;134:53-61.

Kim MS, Kim YK, Cho KH, Chung JH. Regulation of type I procollagen and MMP-1 expression after

single or repeated exposure to infrared radiation in human skin. Mech Ageing Dev.

2006;127(12):875-882. Epub 2006 Oct 25.

Kim HH, Lee MJ, Lee SR, et al. Augmentation of UV-induced skin wrinkling by infrared irradiation

in hairless mice. Mech Ageing Dev. 2005;126(11):1170-1177.

Holick MF, Chen TC. Vitamin D deficiency: a worldwide problem with health consequences. Am J

Clin Nutr. 2008;87(4):1080S-1086S.

[10]

Endocrine Web. Parathyroid Function: Normal and Abnormal. Available at:

http://tinyurl.com/4zj7vju.

Alleyne R. Vitamin D health warning for the children who shun the sun. Available at:

http://tinyurl.com/7gmtbl6.

The Telegraph Website. Alleyne R. Vitamin D Health Warning for the Children Who Shun the Sun.

Available at: http://tinyurl.com/7gmtbl6.

Kivity S, Agmon-Levin N, Zisappl M, et al. Vitamin D and autoimmune thyroid diseases. Cell Mol

Immunol. 2011;8(3):243-247. Epub 2011 Jan 31.

Wang Y, Deluca HF. Is the vitamin d receptor found in muscle? Endocrinology. 2011;152(2):354-

363. Epub 2010 Dec 29.

Schubert L, DeLuca HF. Hypophosphatemia is responsible for skeletal muscle weakness of vitamin

D deficiency. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2010;500(2):157-161. Epub 2010 May 31.

[11]

Halliday TM, Peterson NJ, Thomas JJ, Kleppinger K, Hollis BW, Larson-Meyer DE. Vitamin D status

relative to diet, lifestyle, injury, and illness in college athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc.

2011;43(2):335-343.

[12]

Ozfirat Z, Chowdhury T. Vitamin D deficiency and type 2 diabetes. Postgrad Med J. 2010; 86:18-

25. doi:10.1136/pgmj.2009.078626.

Mohr SB, Garland CF, Gorham ED, Garland FC. The association between ultraviolet B irradiance,

vitamin D status and incidence rates of type 1 diabetes in 51 regions worldwide. Diabetologia.

2008;51(8):1391-1398. Epub 2008 Jun 12.

Hyppönen E, Laara E, Reunanen A, Jarvelin M-R, Virtanen SM. Intake of vitamin D and risk of type

1 diabetes: a birth-cohort study. Lancet. 2001;358(9292):1500-1503.

Hewison M. Vitamin D and immune function: an overview. Proc Nutr Soc. 2011;18:1-12. [Epub

ahead of print]

Jørgensen SP, Agnholt J, Glerup H, et al. Clinical trial: vitamin D3 treatment in Crohn’s disease – a

randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2010;32(3):377-383.

Epub 2010 May 11.

Medscape Today Website. Barclay L. Higher Vitamin D Levels Linked to Lower Risk for Female

Pelvic Floor Disorders? Available at: http://tinyurl.com/ycwdqyz.

Medscape Today Website. Barclay L. Vitamin D Deficiency Linked to Greater Risk for Primary

Cesarean Delivery. Available at: http://tinyurl.com/86hpcvd.

Plotnikoff GA, Quigley JM. Prevalence of severe hypovitaminosis D in patients with persistent,

nonspecific musculoskeletal pain. Mayo Clin Proc. 2003;78(12):1463-1470.

[13]

Hanson, M. K. et al. Sunscreen enhancement of UV-induced reactive oxygen species in the skin.

Science Direct, Free Radical Biology & Medicine 41 (2006) 1205–1212.

[14]

Krause, M. et al. Sunscreens: are they beneficial for health? An overview of endocrine disrupting

properties of UV-filters. Int J Androl. 2012 Jun;35(3):424-36. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-

2605.2012.01280.x.

Kobo Products Inc. Website. Nguyen U, Scholossman D. Stability Study of Avobenzone with

Inorganic Sunscreens. Available at: http://tinyurl.com/7h7f8su. Schlumpf M, Schmid P, Durrer S,

et. al. Endocrine activity and developmental toxicity of cosmetic UV filters–an update. Toxicology.

2004;205:113–122.

Schlumpf M, Durrer S, Faass O, et al. Developmental toxicity of UV filters and environmental

exposure: a review. Int J Androl. 2008;31(2):144-151. Epub 2008 Jan 10.

About the author:

Marie Be’s inspiration comes from her mom who always challenged common assumptions and sought to

understand for herself the major issues concerning her family and the choices she made on their behalf.

She raised Marie and her brother in a rural environment, feeding them the best organic foods, and focused

on building strong immune systems in her children through the use of natural plants, herbs and minerals.

As a fiery teenager, Marie travelled the world in search of purpose and dreamed of positively influencing

our society. While earning her first two degrees, in architecture and sustainable development, she worked

for Greenpeace and many other organizations of change. Her experience taught her that change cannot be

imposed; she now aims at inspiring individuals through education and awareness.

Marie moved to Vancouver to undertake a Masters in Regenerative Sustainability under the supervision

of a Nobel Peace Prize recipient. Teaching workshops on well-being, she started observing a widespread

desire in our society for both physical and environmental health and sustainability. Feeling the winds of

change, Marie founded Earth for the Sun.

Earth for the Sun was inspired by nature, the source of life. By tuning in that source, by acquiring

knowledge on ancient herbal traditions as well as new technologies, Marie believes it is possible to use

nature’s intelligence and deliver simple and effective health products. Check out Earth for the Sun for

more information.