I thought long and hard about this article before sitting down to write it. With the arrival of good weather, not only does the heat make an appearance, but the same alarmist messages appear as every year. And the undisputed protagonists are sunscreens!
I am almost 100% sure that you are familiar with the connection of sunscreens with words like endocrine disruptors or carcinogens. The truth is that, with these messages, it seems that the cosmetics industry has set out to intoxicate people, don't you think? But I wonder, how much truth is behind all this information? Read on, and let's find out.
First of all, it is important to note that the filters that are listed in Annex VI of regulation 1223/2009, have been toxicologically examined and subjected to different tests to check that they are safe for use. Because of their complexity, they are under scrutiny, and whenever new "tests" or anomalies appear, they are reviewed. If necessary, action is taken. Take 4-MBC, for example. Following findings that showed its oestrogenic potential at its maximum permitted concentration (4%), it is being reviewed to re-evaluate its use concentration. Will it be reduced? Will it be banned? We will be watching closely.
At this point, there will be those who may shake their heads. But I think it is important to realise that science is moving forward and that it is not static. And that, when it comes to health issues, the competent authorities are not playing Russian roulette. There is no such thing as absolute truth and I believe that the work they do should not be underestimated, especially when it comes to ingredients that are so necessary to prevent devastating diseases such as cancer.
What would we do in summer without sunscreen? Protection is important at 360º and for that the evidence must always be reliable.
Look, if there is one thing I will always defend is that the cosmetics industry does not intend to intoxicate anyone (oh, if I were to talk about non-toxic products...). The main premise is the safety of consumers, and I think that pretending otherwise is playing dirty.
It is always important to contextualise information and not to launch alarmist messages without real evidence to back them up. What do you think when you read this headline?
"These are the ingredients that have to avoid in the protective solar.Specifically, the homosalate and the octocrylene are two components to avoid by the fault of scientific evidence".
My first thought is that I should avoid them, because they have not been sufficiently studied (when this is not true).
But some paragraphs further down say: "the scientific proofs are not conclusive, some studies suggest that the homosalate can interfere in the normal operation of the endocrine system".
Okay, so there's really nothing conclusive. What if they said it from another perspective? Without generating fear of something that has not been proven, and that may or may not be true.
Wait, this other example will be perfect for me. A few years ago, octocrylene was accused of being photosensitising. After studying the cases, it was found that the reaction was due to the topical use of anti-inflammatory gels. So, it was not photosensitising. And that is why I insist that contextualising the information is important.
In an article published in 2019, it was concluded that some filters were absorbed and reached the bloodstream.
If we stick with this premise alone, I would be the first to jump ship, but once again: context is important. The paper opened the door to further studies to assess the safety of the filters. But (and the article itself says so), the results are not extrapolable to actual use. Let's look at the conditions of the study:
Subjects applied the sunscreens 4 times a day, with applications of 2mg/cm2, on 75% of the body. In addition, for the duration of the study, subjects did not leave the clinic at any time.
And yes, there was absorption. But why can't we extrapolate these results?
- Because when we stay indoors, we do not apply sunscreen to 75% of our bodies.
- Realistically, the amount of 2mg/cm2 is much higher than what we apply.
- When we are outdoors, such as at the beach, we do apply the product to 75% of our body. But taking into account the above premise and the fact that sun, sweat and bathing reduce the amount of product that remains on the skin, the concentration absorbed in the study is not representative.
Could he be right in the long run? Sure, but it is important that it is demonstrated under the right conditions, don't you think?
Also, another example, just because an ingredient is irritating at 50%, doesn't mean that at 2% it is also irritating. That's why contextualisation is always important!
So, in short, I don't think that facts should be hidden if there are suspicions about something, because reporting should always be important. But it is also important to do it without biasing the information. Because as I always say, the consumer must be free to decide, in full knowledge of the facts, which cosmetics he or she chooses and why. Without manipulation and without fear.