by Rachel Stewart

We’ve known each other for a while now and you know that I’m a naturally suspicious person whenever I’m told what to think by “experts” and mainstream media and corporations. You too?

And given we’re in the thick of a hot South Pacific February the issue of sunscreen has once again slip, slop, slapped its way into my consciousness.

I don’t use it, never really have, and most of my life it’s because I’ve been too cocky and too old-school rural to bother with it. I use hats, and trees, and common sense. If it’s too hot I stay out of the sun as much as possible.

But what’s interesting of late is the amount of sensible-ish young people who I know bringing up their seemingly valid concerns around using the stuff on themselves and their kids – and many are now choosing not to. But, why?

I thought I’d find out and discovered quite an alarming array of data causing doubts. And you’d be a fool to ignore that, right? And while many dermatologists stress that sunscreen is essential for preventing skin cancer and premature aging, studies and consumer reports have cast a shadow over their claims, particularly in New Zealand, Australia, and the US.

First of all let’s look at efficacy. Recent testing by consumer advocates – and namely by CHOICE in Australia – has found that a significant number of popular sunscreens did not meet their labelled SPF (Sun Protection Factor) claims.

In fact, 16 out of 20 failed their SPF claims. One product – Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF50+ Mattifying Zinc Sunscreen – only returned an SPF of 4. CHOICE tested the sunscreen again at a second lab to confirm this result and got a similar low SPF of 5. This sunscreen was also sold in New Zealand at the time but has now been removed from the shelves.

Due to these findings, there is renewed pressure on authorities to enforce stricter, mandatory testing for SPF ratings, moving away from voluntary standards. Yes, the regulatory aspect just isn’t there – and is a work in progress both in Australia and here.

The second big red flag to consider is the issue of ingredient safety. There are two types of sunscreens: chemical filters (e.g., oxybenzone, avobenzone) that absorb UV, and mineral filters (zinc oxide, titanium dioxide) that reflect it.

A 2019 study by the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found that several active chemical ingredients can be absorbed through the skin into the bloodstream at levels higher than previously thought.

Researchers found traces of organic UV filters, namely avobenzone, oxybenzone, octocrylene and ecamsule, in people’s blood after applying sun cream. The concentrations exceeded the level at which the FDA recommends companies do specific tests for toxic effects.

More questions surround organic UV filters such as oxybenzone. These are endocrine disruptors, meaning they mimic natural hormones. Whether they cause harm at the doses people get from wearing sun cream is unclear, but a number of studies have looked at levels of benzophenones (which include oxybenzone) in urine and linked higher levels to effects on sperm and fertility, with affected couples taking longer to conceive.

The inorganic UV filters, zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, raised less concerns because they are not easily absorbed into the bloodstream. They still, however, have a proven environmental impact when they wash off sun cream-covered swimmers and accumulate in water and marine life, which is a whole ‘nother issue.

And it’s worth noting that there is no official, legal definition for “reef-safe” or “ocean-friendly.” Many brands use these terms purely for marketing purposes, even if their products contain other ingredients that are harmful to the environment.

Despite all of these impacts having been proven, the scurrying and weaselling by the big business sunscreen defenders is unending. They mince their words, twist logic, and generally deny there’s a problem – and claim you’re cuckoo for thinking otherwise.

But the biggest unknown right now is whether using sunscreen in its chemical form actually causes cancer, as some toxicologists, vitamin D specialists, and even some breakaway dermatologists are increasingly saying. And, conversely, a lot of time, effort and money is being invested to shut them up.

But here’s a clip that seems fair and balanced based on my research above. Here they review everything I’ve so far mentioned in a non-dramatic, measured fashion that gives them a certain credibility. I couldn’t fault it given what I now know.

And sure, it’s from a plant-based group but they’re don’t appear to be wrong and, anyway, since when have chemicals trumped more natural products? Well, since all of our collective births probably, but humanity consistently following the money has a way of doing that.

The global sunscreen market is estimated to be worth between $13 billion and $17.8 billion in 2024–2025, with projections suggesting it will grow to over $20–38 billion by the mid-2030s. This growth is apparently fuelled by “increased awareness of UV damage and climate change”.

In the meantime, I’m not slip, slop, slapping but then what’s new? How about you?

Listen to the full episode of Riding Shotgun here.