Every day we receive multiple impacts of all kinds related to photoprotection: advertisements, blog posts, interviews, opinion articles (like this one) and so on. And as in other spheres of society, positions are polarizing.

But, if it is true that photoprotectors are useful, why are there some voices that recommend stopping using them? And we are not talking about upstarts, but about authoritative voices within medicine and science.

Sunscreens save lives. This is a scientific fact. We have spent more than 30 years studying in detail the relationship between sun exposure, skin damage, skin memory and the appearance of melanoma. There are multiple publications establishing the cause-effect relationship between both and the beneficial effects of the use of photoprotectors on cell protection against damage caused by the Sun.

However, there are still many unknowns that we have not been able to reveal, such as why melanomas sometimes appear in non-photoexposed areas, or why the numbers of skin cancer have increased even with the widespread use of photoprotectors. Many theories have been put forward, such as that the figures go up because we have increased the hours of exposure, or that more is now documented, but no conclusive results have been reached that generate consensus in the scientific community.

On the other hand, we still have gaps in the metabolic cascade triggered by sun exposure. We thoroughly understand cell and DNA damage, but the inflammatory cascade, its relationship with the activation of the immune system, the intervention of the microbiome, or even the connections of the brain-skin axis remain little explored. And if we add to this the lack of knowledge of the effects that a molecule that blocks only part of the radiation spectrum can have (remember that photoprotectors block UVB and UVA radiation, a small portion of the entire solar spectrum that reaches the skin), the quality research we found is very little.

However, affirming that there is little research should not imply denying the thesis of the usefulness of photoprotectors, but rather should invite us to deepen our knowledge of them and advance the science that supports them.

Also, if we look at the last 5 or 10 years, we have received little positive news about photoprotection and a lot of negative.

For example, the validity of the method used to measure the protection index offered by photoprotectors has been questioned. Big brands, benchmarks in the sector, have been called into question due to discrepancies in the method. The data obtained by the authorities, those obtained by the associations and those obtained by the brands all disagreed with each other. Although they all used the same validated method (remember that it is a harmonized ISO method), the results were very different and this is considered “normal”. This is really difficult to convey to the public and erodes trust.

As if this in itself were not enough, in the explanations about the method, it ends up transcending that the method does not replicate the real use of photoprotectors, but uses fictitious application conditions (2mg/cm2 is an unattainable chimera in real application of product) but necessary for the method to be reproducible. This was not a problem 30 years ago when we only had 2 or 3 cosmetic forms available, but today the great variety of formats makes this detail a real problem.

Another example is the results of the growing research on the environmental impact of photoprotectors. We have seen that sunscreens have an impact on corals, the health of coastal ecosystems, accumulate in the seabed, and much more.

And not least, the effects on human health. Suspicions about its allergenic potential or about its effects on the endocrine system are, by themselves, enough to initiate fear of its use.

It is a perfect cocktail to undermine the confidence of the public and part of the scientific community in the use of photoprotectors.

And let's be honest, in the era of clickbait, speaking negatively about what is established, breaking myths, is more profitable than disseminating knowledge.

I myself have used it in the title of this article, I hope you do not take it into account!

And in my opinion, in these 5-10 years we have not generated enough positive news about photoprotection. We have limited ourselves to repeating the same old thing, hoping that it would be enough, but clearly it is not.

If we look at Annex VI of the regulation, in the last 5 years only 4 new filters have been authorized. two of them are the nano forms of existing filters and the other two are new molecules that provide certain benefits over what already exists, but without innovating either in the mechanism of action or in the approach to photoprotection that they do. We could label them as “a little more of the same”.

Likewise, the industry has focused on innovating in textures and forms of application, improving the user experience. This improves compliance, which is in itself relevant. There is evidence to support that a properly applied medium protection sunscreen is more effective than a badly applied high or very high protection sunscreen. So these innovations are no small thing. But it is not enough to counter bad news.

We need to generate new knowledge. Stimulate basic research, not to contradict the attacker, but with a critical spirit. Analyzing the gaps in current knowledge, always seeking to advance and integrate knowledge.

Currently it seems that the conservative positions win; go back to “safer” times, use the remedies of the 19th century. Or stay as we are; if something works, don't change it, the truths of 50 years ago are always valid and remain absolute.

But these positions do not advance us either as individuals or as a society. Progress is achieved by building on what has gone before, with a critical spirit, accepting what is confirmed as useful, but investigating when something does not fit or is outside of the theory. Looking for new ways to achieve the same effects. Looking for new ways of measuring, more reproducible, precise and extrapolated.

And this is a field with a lot of room to grow in knowledge. And it's a very profitable industry, let's not forget. We hope that academic research, industry and dermatology are investigating all these little-known aspects related to sun exposure and that in the short or medium term we will see positive communications in this regard. There is a desire to see authentic innovations in sun protection.

I don't know about you, but in the meantime, I don't go out without my sunscreen.