Alicia Rowell, Vice President
2024 UPDATE
THE STATE OF SUNSCREEN IN THE U.S
Our original publication, "Update: The State of Sunscreen in the U.S.," premiered in 2022. Within this publication, the original text is enriched with the latest updates in pertinent sections, offering readers the latest information.
However, one critical piece of advice remains timeless and bears repeating: Adopting simple yet effective sun protection strategies will protect your skin. Wearing protective clothing and hats, applying sunscreen, and seeking shade are essential measures to shield your skin from the sun's damaging rays. Whether you choose one strategy or employ them all, prioritizing your skin's protection is imperative.
Especially during the summer months, organizations like AIM at Melanoma remind the general public to practice sun-safe behaviors such as using sunscreen, wearing protective clothing, and seeking shade
These simple behaviors are effective Hats, clothing, and shade protect your skin from the sun by putting a barrier between the two. And the preventive benefit of sunscreen was clearly demonstrated in a large Australian randomized trial published in 2010, which showed a 50% decreased melanoma risk by using sunscreen regularly This study was critical evidence not only for Australia, which has the highest melanoma rate in the world, but for all countries Sunscreen works
But the subject of sunscreen has become confusing or worse for many people due to constantly changing information in news reports and headlines.
In this publication, we will update you on the state of sunscreen in the US and try to allay that confusion
But first, we need to give some important background information, so that the rest of the article makes sense
THE LINK BETWEEN MELANOMA AND SUN— ESPECIALLY SUNBURN —IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR
THE VAST MAJORITY OF MELANOMAS ARE CAUSED BY UV EXPOSURE FROM THE SUN.
What is Ultraviolet Radiation?
Ultraviolet (UV) radiation is a type of energy produced by the sun and is the main environmental and modifiable cause of melanoma and other skin cancers There are three types of UV radiation
UVC is the most dangerous type of UV radiation, but fortunately, the sun’s UVC is absorbed by our atmosphere before it reaches the earth’s surface
UVB penetrates the top layer of the skin and is the primary cause of sunburns UVB is the main cause of melanoma, as well as basal cell and squamous cell skin cancers
UVA radiation penetrates more deeply into the skin, causes photoaging (wrinkling and leathering), and increases oxidative stress, which indirectly causes mutations increasing your risk for developing melanoma and other skin cancers
How are Tanning and Burning Related to UV Damage?
When ultraviolet (UV) rays of the sun penetrate your skin’s top two layers the epidermis and dermis the UV rays cause DNA damage to the cells in both layers Melanocytes live at the basal layer of your skin, the deepest part of the epidermis, and when they get hit with UV light, your melanocytes respond by making little melanin packets little umbrellas and send those packets out to protect other skin cells The melanin serves as a shield for your skin, trying to help it avoid further damage Your skin produces melanin (and darkens, or “tans”) as a means of self-protection: Your skin tans to protect itself from burning
You burn when your skin cannot produce enough melanin to prevent UV rays from injuring the skin’s surface and capillaries The amount of damage has exceeded what the cells can take Every burn increases your risk of developing melanoma In fact, your risk for melanoma doubles if you’ve had more than five sunburns, and just one blistering sunburn in childhood or adolescence more than doubles your chances of developing melanoma later in life
The darkening of your skin whether tanned or burned is objective evidence of DNA damage The more you damage your DNA, the greater your risk of developing melanoma
How Does Sunscreen Work?
Sunscreen contains one or more active ingredients (UV filters) that protect the skin from exposure to UV rays UV filters can be classified into two groups: mineral and organic
Mineral filters sometimes called inorganic or physical work by deflecting and reflecting UV light, preventing the UV light from hitting your skin They are effective at protecting against both UVA and UVB radiation The two mineral filters (active ingredients) used in U S sunscreen are zinc oxide and titanium dioxide
Organic filters sometimes called chemical work by absorbing UV light energy They can protect against UVA, UVB, or both The six organic filters (active ingredients) most commonly used in U S sunscreens are avobenzone, homosalate, octinoxate, octisalate, octocrylene, and oxybenzone
Broad spectrum sunscreen has filters that protect against both UVA and UVB rays Most U S sunscreens combine two or three of the above eight filters to get the best performance Importantly, only three of these ingredients oxybenzone, avobenzone, and zinc oxide protect significantly in the UVA range
What active ingredients (UV filters) are available in the U.S. as of today?
There is a simple and a complicated answer to this question and the bulk of this article will explain the complicated answer
But, as of this writing, the simple answer is: Sixteen active ingredients are available to be marketed in the U S and are currently designated as generally recognized as safe and effective, or GRASE These 16 ingredients are the same ingredients that have been available to U S consumers for several decades
They are:
The two mineral filters noted above: zinc oxide and titanium dioxide
The six organic filters most commonly used in U.S. sunscreen, noted above: avobenzone, homosalate, octinoxate, octisalate, octocrylene, and oxybenzone
Six other organic filters less commonly used in U.S. sunscreen: cinoxate, dioxybenzone, ensulizole, meradimate, padimate O, and sulisobenzone
Two organic filters no longer used in U.S. sunscreen: aminobenzoic acid (PABA) and trolamine salicylate
How we got to this moment with these 16 ingredients designated GRASE is a convoluted story.
July 2024 UPDATE:
The simple answer is still that these same 16 ingredients continue to be designated GRASE as of July 2024. The complicated answer is explained in the rest of this article.
One blistering sunburn in childhood or adolescence more than doubles your chances of developing melanoma later in life.
SO WHAT IS GOING ON WITH SUNSCREEN? IT IS ALWAYS IN THE NEWS!
There are at least four sunscreen issues that have appeared in the news over the last few years. All of these issues relate to active ingredients, but we’ll look at each issue separately.
“New” UV Filters
If you were to go back in time 20 years and travel to Europe, you’d find a wide variety of sunscreens/active ingredients available that you would not find for sale in the U S You might learn that some of these sunscreens are reportedly more effective than U S sunscreens, and you might hear that many consumers indicate a preference for the “feel” of these sunscreens over the ones in the U S
Demand for these sunscreens began to grow, and as would be expected, the companies that make these products applied for their sunscreens/ingredients to be marketed in the U S There was even a new approval process introduced by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2002, called a “time and extent application” (TEA) that attempted to provide a faster approval route for over-the-counter (OTC) drugs like sunscreens whose safety and efficacy could be reviewed and determined based on a minimum of five continuous years of safe use elsewhere
Important note: In the U S , the FDA regulates sunscreens as OTC drugs, unlike Europe, which categorizes them as cosmetics
Eight “new” (to the U S ) active ingredients were submitted for FDA approval using the TEA process between 2002 and 2009
These are: amiloxate, enzacamene, octyl triazone, bemotrizinol, bisoctrizole, iscotrizinol, ecamsule, drometrizole, and trisiloxane Again: These eight ingredients are different from the 16 noted above
These TEA applications were good news, especially in light of the July 2014 U S Surgeon General’s issuance of A Call to Action to Prevent Skin Cancer, stating that nearly 5 million Americans each year are treated for skin cancer; that most cases are preventable, as they are related to UV exposure; and that the annual treatment cost was estimated at $8 1 billion More options for protection, especially if they are better products, is a good thing for consumers
July 2024 UPDATE
Even now, two years later, none of the “ new ” ingredients are approved in the U.S.
Now, it’s been nearly 10 years since the SIA was enacted, 22 years since the first filter was submitted via the TEA process, and 15 years since the last filter was submitted via the TEA process—but none of these eight ingredients are yet approved to be marketed in the U.S. in an OTC sunscreen. U.S. consumers can buy sunscreen products with these ingredients if they are outside the U.S. (or online).
To summarize the 24 active ingredients that this article has introduced: Currently, there are 16 active ingredients available to be marketed in the U.S. and deemed GRASE, of which eight are commonly used (six organic and two mineral); and there are eight “ new ” filters not yet approved for use in the U.S
Unfortunately, even after the Call to Action in 2014, the FDA still had not ruled on any of these eight ingredients Frustration about this lack of review and lack of new product availability was building
Congress got involved The Sunscreen Innovation Act (SIA) was enacted on November 26, 2014, creating a modified process for FDA review of new active ingredients, and setting timeframes for review SIA was intended to get a decision from the FDA on these eight new filters and many hoped for a positive decision
But that’s not what happened Prompted by SIA, FDA finally reviewed the ingredients and in 2015 gave all eight new filters an initial determination of NOT GRASE due to insufficient data FDA asked the companies who manufacture these products for further testing results testing that didn’t need to be done for Europe and therefore didn’t exist in their records
As far as we know, that’s the stalemate: On one hand, companies are being asked for testing that hasn’t been performed Some of the tests are daunting and expensive to perform now long after their products became available in other countries On the other hand, the FDA is earnest in its role to protect the American public and is also wanting to acquire this safety data as part of a larger attempt to finalize the sunscreen monograph (more on the monograph, below)
What is frustrating to many is that these “new” filters are not new at all: They’ve been used in Europe for decades
It’s been more than seven years since the SIA was enacted, 20 years since the first filter was submitted via the TEA process, and 13 years since the last filter was submitted via the TEA process but none of these eight ingredients are yet approved to be marketed in the U S in an OTC sunscreen U S consumers can, however, buy sunscreen products with these ingredients if they are outside the U S
To summarize so far, because this article has introduced you to 24 active ingredients: Currently, there are 16 active ingredients available to be marketed in the U S and deemed GRASE, of which eight are commonly used (six organic and two mineral); and there are eight “new” filters not yet approved for use in the U S
The Monograph
The SIA also required the FDA to finalize and put into effect the sunscreen monograph within five years of SIA enactment, or by November 26, 2019
Some background is necessary to understand what a monograph is and why the sunscreen monograph was particularly problematic:
Created in 1972, the monograph program was intended to create a system to ensure the safety of OTC drugs that were already being sold in the U S as well as those that would be introduced in the future It established conditions (such as active ingredients, dosage level, warnings, and adequate directions for use) under which an OTC drug in a given therapeutic category (such as sunscreen, antacids, and cold remedies approximately 25 categories) is GRASE for its intended use
The monograph program was supposed to be an efficient mechanism through which compliant OTC drugs could be marketed without the extensive and expensive individual approval that’s required of non-OTC drugs For example, if Company X makes several different cold remedies that comply with that product’s monograph conditions, the company can market all of those products in the U S without getting each product approved individually
But the monograph program faced challenges, such as the fact that some monographs had never been finalized and/or put into effect in the years since 1972
The sunscreen monograph was one of those that was never put into effect (until 2020; more on this date, below) In 1999, after more than two decades of discussions and drafts, the “final monograph” was published, and the 16 active ingredients noted above were deemed GRASE But importantly this final monograph was stayed (not put in effect) indefinitely because at that time FDA had not yet established UVA/broadspectrum testing and labeling requirements So for the last 20 years, with no finalized sunscreen monograph in effect, the 1999 version was generally followed by default (and in 2011, the FDA issued guidance saying industry should follow the 1999 stayed monograph and the 2011 testing and labeling requirements until a final monograph was put into effect) So these 16 ingredients were deemed GRASE but the monograph itself was in limbo due to the stayed status
In February 2019 as the November 2019 final monograph deadline set by SIA neared the FDA issued a “proposed rule,” which was the mechanism at that time to announce an intended change in the monograph and to ask for public comment
This proposed rule took many people by surprise, because it looked entirely different from the stayed final monograph of 1999:
The two mineral filters, zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, were proposed Category I, or GRASE.
The six organic filters most commonly used in U.S. sunscreen avobenzone, homosalate, octinoxate, octisalate, octocrylene, and oxybenzone AND
Six other organic filters less commonly used in U.S. sunscreen cinoxate, dioxybenzone, ensulizole, meradimate, padimate O, and sulisobenzone were all proposed Category III, which means more data is needed before GRASE status will be given.
Two organic filters no longer used in U.S. sunscreen aminobenzoic acid (PABA) and trolamine salicylate were proposed Category II, or NOT GRASE, because of safety issues.
This rule was confusing for the general public. Why these drastic changes? If these active ingredients have been on the market for decades, how can some not be GRASE, and how can others still need to be tested? It’s important to note that six of these 12 organic filters were then and are now used in a majority of the sunscreens on the market in the U.S.
FDA’s press release was straightforward but didn’t quell the confusion: It noted that since initial evaluation of these products, we know much more about the effects of the sun, we know more about absorption through the skin, and sunscreen formulations have evolved Further, we use more sunscreen and more frequently than we did previously All of this change means more information is needed
The explanation of monograph reform is not easy to deliver to the general public But if you’re still reading this article, you are understanding that because the ingredients were last revisited in 1999, up-to-date information and data needed to be collected on all ingredients in order to finalize/put into effect the monograph FDA felt it had enough data on the mineral filters to propose them as GRASE; enough data on the two organic filters (PABA and trolamine salicylate) to propose them as NOT GRASE (and they’re no longer used, anyway); and not enough data on the other 12 organic filters
Meanwhile, SIA’s November 2019 deadline to finalize the monograph was fast approaching, and the question was whether the new finalized monograph would be more like the 1999/2011 stayed version, with 14 GRASE active ingredients (PABA and trolamine salicylate likely excluded); or more like the “proposed rule” that deemed only two mineral ingredients GRASE, 12 organic ingredients NOT GRASE because they (still) needed more data, and two organic NOT GRASE for safety reasons But we did not get the answer because November 2019 passed without a finalized sunscreen monograph from the FDA
Important: Note that at this point in time the end of 2019 the status quo is a stayed 1999 monograph with 16 ingredients GRASE yet a proposed rule indicating something entirely different
In March 2020, Congress passed the CARES Act, which mostly focused on COVID relief but also had provisions to reform the monograph process and finalize all outstanding monographs, including and especially sunscreen First, CARES changed the entire monograph system from a “rule” process to a more streamlined and effective “order” process Second, CARES established that the 1999/2011 stayed sunscreen monograph was now officially in effect and called it a “deemed final order ”
In other words, the sunscreen monograph was no longer in limbo, and all 16 active ingredients from the 1999 stayed monograph were now officially GRASE. Third, CARES said FDA needed to issue a proposed order to revise this deemed final order no more than 18 months later by September 27, 2021. In other words, Congress knew FDA wanted changes to the 1999 monograph, given the 2019 proposed rule, but because of CARES Act reform, FDA needed to issue that rule as an order and issue it in a timely fashion.
The FDA fulfilled the CARES Act requirements by posting two “orders” on the same day in September 2021. Those orders appeared contradictory for those who didn’t know the history of the monograph and the changes required by the CARES Act.
July 2024 UPDATE:
The status quo that we reported in 2022 remains, which means the “proposed order” is still proposed, and we understand that an industry consortium continues to work with the FDA on a test plan for some or all of the eight most often used organic filters (avobenzone, homosalate, octinoxate, octisalate, octocrylene, oxybenzone, ensulizole, and meradimate) to satisfy the FDA GRASE requirements.
Until a final order is announced, the “deemed final order” stands. That’s why we currently have 16 ingredients (still) officially designated as GRASE.
The first was the “deemed final order” noted above, which officially announced to the public that the stayed 1999 monograph (and 2011 labeling requirements) are in effect, and all 16 active ingredients that have long been marketed in the U S are GRASE
The second order was the “proposed order,” and the information was substantially the same as the “proposed rule” of 2019 (but it had to be reissued as an order because of monograph reform):
The two mineral filters are proposed as GRASE; PABA and trolamine salicylate are proposed as NOT GRASE because of safety; and the 12 organic filters need more data Note that the order is “proposed ”
So what does this all mean to you, the consumer?
The “deemed final order” made the longexisting status quo official: All the sunscreens you know are available to you, and all 16 ingredients are GRASE for now
The “proposed order” reflects FDA’s proposed requirements for the future, and it’s an official way of saying more data is needed to those who manufacture sunscreens with those 12 ingredients Currently, an industry consortium is working with the FDA on a test plan for eight most often used organic filters (avobenzone, homosalate, octinoxate, octisalate, octocrylene, oxybenzone, ensulizole, and meradimate) to satisfy the FDA GRASE requirements
This testing process will likely take time, and meanwhile, the “deemed final order” stands. That’s why we currently have 16 ingredients officially designated as GRASE.
We assume that once the FDA feels like it has enough information on the eight ingredients, it will post a “final order,” which will replace the “deemed final order,” and that final order will be the new sunscreen monograph. The CARES Act did not give a deadline by which the FDA must post this final order.
Sun damage builds up over time, so even tanning every once in a while can have unintended consequences over the course of your lifetime. Cumulative sun exposure is linked to development of basal cell and squamous cell skin cancers, as well as melanoma.
Absorption
As you’ve read earlier in this article, monograph reform specifically, the back and forth regarding which ingredients need more testing has been confusing news to the general public
Part of the reason for more testing relates to a May 2019 FDA-sponsored study that also made headlines: “Application of four commercially available sunscreens under maximal use conditions resulted in plasma concentrations that exceeded the threshold established by the FDA for potentially waiving some nonclinical toxicology studies for sunscreens The systemic absorption of sunscreen ingredients supports the need for further studies to determine the clinical significance of these findings These results do not indicate that individuals should refrain from the use of sunscreen ” The filters in this study were three of the six most commonly used organic filters and one of the “new” filters: avobenzone, oxybenzone, octocrylene, and ecamsule
Some in the general public were now confused AND scared Phrases like “systemic absorption” and “plasma concentrations that exceeded the threshold” seemed incompatible with the idea that sunscreen with these ingredients was beneficial Other people were unfazed, knowing these sunscreen ingredients have been in use for decades And it was helpful when media reported the language accurately: The concentrations did not exceed safety thresholds; they exceeded the threshold for waiving toxicology studies
FDA messaging attempted to explain the nuance: “The fact that an ingredient is absorbed through the skin and into the body does not mean the ingredient is unsafe ” But the overall messaging was not clear or robust Media coverage often made the situation more confusing
In January 2021, the FDA announced the results of a followup study of absorption of the active ingredients in certain sunscreen filters into the body’s bloodstream This study confirmed the absorption found in the first study and included all six commonly used organic filters: avobenzone, oxybenzone, octocrylene, homosalate, octisalate, and octinoxate
This time around, the communication from the FDA was clearer: “Absorption does NOT equal risk – The FDA advises continued use of sunscreens. The findings in these studies do not mean that the FDA has concluded that any of the ingredients tested are unsafe for use in sunscreens, nor does the FDA seeking further information indicate such ”
For consumers, the most important messages are that “absorption does not equal risk” and “the findings in these studies do not mean that the FDA has concluded that any of the ingredients tested are unsafe for use in sunscreens ” Many products that we put on our skin are absorbed Simply put, the FDA has certain thresholds for absorption: Further testing is needed when a threshold is exceeded And collecting new data in light of increased use and new science is appropriate
So where are we on the absorption question?
The absorption question is part of the monograph reform process noted above: Manufacturers are working with the FDA on testing, including for absorption, to satisfy the GRASE requirements for eight of the 12 ingredients that need more data.
There have been no new announcements from the FDA on absorption studies nor, as noted above, on the proposed order becoming a final order. July 2024 UPDATE:
Coral Reefs Sunscreen
In the last 20 years, coral reef bleaching and die-off around the world have been extremely concerning. The Great Barrier Reef in Australia, reefs in Hawai’i, and others have been affected by several widescale bleaching events, among other damaging global stressors.
Climate change is well documented as the main cause of coral bleaching and death. In a 2021 paper “Designing a blueprint for coral reef survival,” Joan Kleypas from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA, et al , wrote: “Coral reefs are succumbing rapidly to rising ocean temperatures, and the recent and rapid degradation of reefs worldwide is well documented (Bindoff et al , 2019) Passive recovery (i e , natural recovery without human intervention) is proving increasingly inadequate (Ortiz et al , 2018) as coral bleaching and mortality events become more frequent and severe, adding to the impacts of local anthropogenic stressors such as overfishing and pollution (Hughes et al , 2018) ”
In a 2020 paper, “A Critical Review of Organic UV Filter Exposure, Hazard, and Risk to Corals,” coral reef expert Carys Mitchelmore, professor of environmental science/aquatic toxicology at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, et al , wrote: “In recent years, coral reef health globally has significantly declined as a result of climate change impacts (sea level rise, ocean acidification), and repeated bleaching events from sustained elevated temperature events have occurred (Hoegh-Guldberg et al 2017; Hughes et al 2018) Meanwhile, localscale stressors including municipal and industrial wastewater effluents, overfishing, recreational activities, and overland runoff (urban and agricultural inputs) have also been shown to directly contribute to coral decline and/or reduce the resilience of corals to global stressors (Owen et al 2005; Negri and Hoogenboom 2011; Spalding and Brown 2015; Duprey et al 2016) ”
In the last decade, a number of laboratory studies have linked certain UV filters to toxicological effects on coral The big question was whether UV filters are another local stressor to a reef environment Oxybenzone (an organic filter) was of particular concern
These studies were widely shared by mainstream media and social media In our environmentally conscious age, people were aghast that a product that we apply to our bodies at the beach might be harming the corals just offshore And, as with the issues noted above, the general public was confused: Should people avoid certain sunscreens, or was this a false alarm?
”
"Coral reefs are succumbing rapidly to rising ocean temperatures, and the recent and rapid degradation of reefs worldwide is well documented. Passive recovery (i.e., natural recovery without human intervention) is proving increasingly inadequate as coral bleaching and mortality events become more frequent and severe, adding to the impacts of local anthropogenic stressors such as overfishing and pollution .
Joan Kleypas
The National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder, CO, USA
As with the issues noted earlier in this article:
Should people avoid certain sunscreens, or was this a false alarm?
Calls to ban oxybenzone immediately emerged in some coastal areas, including Hawai’i, Florida, and Aruba. Hawai’i did pass a law in 2018 that banned oxybenzone and octinoxate starting in 2021. (Maui recently passed further laws banning all but mineral sunscreens.)
Sunscreen manufacturers hurried to place “Reef Safe” labels on sunscreens that didn’t contain certain ingredients, despite the fact that there is no regulation or rule as to what “Reef Safe” actually means.
In response to the situation, in 2018 the International Coral Reef Initiative came out with a review of studies related to sunscreen and coral reefs called Impacts of Sunscreens on Coral Reefs. The finding was that “further research is needed to better understand which ingredients are safe and which pose a realistic threat to marine ecosystems.”
The report concluded that further research is needed because “there is a lack of firm evidence of widespread negative impacts at reef community and/or ecosystem level. The evidence available may not properly reflect conditions on the reef, where pollutants may rapidly disperse and be diluted. Concentrations of UV filters used in experimental work have generally been higher than those likely to been countered in the reef environment.” In other words, the studies in the lab didn’t reflect real reef conditions.
Since then, more studies have attempted to evaluate if and how UV filters affect the reef environment, and other studies have attempted to show whether there are concerning levels of any filters in the waters of certain reef communities A lot of effort and time has been spent trying to assess this issue
Some coral reef experts are asking that we refocus our attention Ku’ulei Rodgers, Ph D , University of Hawai’i, Hawai’I Institute of Marine Biology, Coral Reef Ecology Lab Principal Investigator, explains it this way:
“We must not lose track of the larger goal of carbon reduction and the search for solutions to protecting corals from temperature increase, the number one global cause of coral loss The energy and funding spent in concentrating on lesser impacts does coral reefs a great disservice While it is inviting to think that a critical problem like coral reef decline can be impacted by something as simple as selecting a different sunscreen, the reality is not so easy. Focusing on an issue such as sunscreens, that have not been shown in the overall literature to damage reefs and have not been substantiated in the ocean, detracts from the real issues and shifts the efforts away from effective conservation and restoration efforts.”
Meanwhile, skin cancer prevention groups (among many others) are asking, how do we balance the very real threat of UV damage to our skin from which sunscreen helps protect us with our fear of potentially harming our environment?
Congress has directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to work with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to “conduct a review of the scientific literature of currently marketed sunscreens’ potential risks to the marine environment and the current scientific literature on the potential public health implications associated with reduced use of currently marketed sunscreen ingredients for protection against excess ultraviolet radiation ” This report is due soon, in summer 2022, and it should offer some further guidance
July 2024 UPDATE
The NAS issued their report (public briefing available here). The report states that there is currently insufficient data about the impact of sunscreens on aquatic environments and calls on the U.S. EPA to conduct an ecological risk assessment of UV filters to characterize possible risks to aquatic ecosystems and the species that live in them. The report notes that environmental variables, including increasing temperatures, are of particular concern for aquatic ecosystems due to the potential for increasing cumulative and interacting impacts from climate change.
They also note that restrictions on certain UV filters may have negative impacts on the use of sunscreen to prevent skin cancer, sunburn, and photoaging if they lead to reduced sunscreen usage. The ability to purchase broad-spectrum, SPF 30+ sunscreen that people will actually use is a key determinant of health outcomes, with increased use of sunscreen the scenario most likely to lead to positive effects on health.
The Bottom Line
AIM will certainly announce when the NAS report is published, and we will also announce updates on all of the information presented in this article as updates become available
But we realize you still might be wondering how to assess all of this information
Here is AIM's answer:
We know that UV rays are a major risk factor for skin cancer; skin cancer is the most common cancer in the U S ; and melanoma is the deadliest form of skin cancer In fact, we know that over 7000 people will die of melanoma in the U S this year alone We know that broad-spectrum sunscreen is a proven way to reduce the likelihood of developing skin cancers, including melanoma We must keep these facts front and center.We also know that the best sunscreen for you is the sunscreen you will use. The feel and look of a sunscreen on the skin matters to many people, so test a number of them on your face and body to find one you prefer
If any of the above information about potential absorption or environmental questions concerns you or if you live in or travel to Hawai’i select a sunscreen with mineral filters. If you travel to Europe, you can try one of the “new” filters and see what you think. There are myriad types, formulations, and brands of sunscreen to choose from The bottom line? Find the sunscreen you will use and use it!
July 2024 UPDATE
Our message is still the same: UV rays are a major risk factor for skin cancer; skin cancer is the most common cancer in the U.S.; and melanoma is the deadliest form of skin cancer. Wearing protective clothing and hats, applying sunscreen, and seeking shade are simple and effective strategies to protect yourself from the sun ’ s UV rays. Use one or all of these strategies to keep your skin safe. And the bottom line for sunscreen is, still: The best sunscreen for you is the sunscreen you will use.
UV: ultraviolet
GRASE: generally recognized as safe and effective
FDA: Food and Drug Administration
TEA: Time and Extent Application
OTC: over the counter
SIA: Sunscreen Innovation Act
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency
NAS: National Academy of Sciences