Is your sunscreen in the Hall of Shame?

:

When it comes to protecting yourself from the sun, it's easy to go wrong. To help you go right, instead, we whipped up a list of the really bad actors because sometimes, knowing what's on the "avoid" list is a good way to land a safer product. To that end, here are some prime examples of products that typify what's wrong with the sun protection business - and remember, don't buy them - or their marketing claims:

 1. Banana Boat Baby Max Protect, SPF = 100
Sky-high SPF protects against sunburn but leaves skin exposed to damaging UVA rays.
One of at least 79 sunscreens on the market this year with high SPFs (greater than "SPF 50+"), this product protects babies from UVB radiation and the sunburns it causes but leaves them exposed to UVA radiation that penetrates deep into the skin. UVA is known to accelerate skin aging and cause skin cancer (IARC 2009). A standard industry sunscreen model estimates that the actual UVA protection factor for this sunscreen is only 9.3 - a far cry from 100 (BASF 2010). The best possible UVA protection in U.S. sunscreen lotions is currently about 20 (BASF 2010). Sunscreen makers are waiting for the FDA to decide whether to approve a wider selection of chemicals that could help boost UVA protection. In the meantime, high-SPF products may tempt people to stay in the sun too long, suppressing sunburns but upping the risks of other kinds of skin damage. EWG recommends that consumers avoid products labeled with anything higher than "SPF 50+" and reapply sunscreen often, regardless of SPF.

2. IS Clinical SPF 20 Powder & Peter Thomas Roth Instant Mineral Powder SPF 30
Loose powder sunscreens can enter the airways and may move from the lungs to the bloodstream. Health concerns include cancer and tissue damage. These sunscreens are in a loose powder form. The particles of zinc and titanium they contain can offer strong UV protection for the skin, but they end up in the lungs, too, inhaled from a cloud of airborne particles with each use. There, they can cause damage. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies inhaled titanium dioxide as "possibly carcinogenic to humans," based on studies of rats and of people who work in dusty environments (IARC 2006). Once in the lungs, the minerals may move into the bloodstream and throughout the body. In 2008 a research group based in China reported that nanoscale titanium dioxide like that used in many sunscreens can accumulate in the brain and cause lesions and other tissue damage (Wang 2008). Nano and micronized zinc oxide cause lung inflammation (Sayes 2007). The bottom line? Sunscreen belongs on your skin, not in your lungs. EWG recommends that people stick to creams and avoid powders, pumps and sprays.

3. Hawaiian Tropic Baby Creme Lotion SPF 50
"Advanced UVA protection"? Not so much. Many U.S. sunscreens claim to provide "broad spectrum" protection that blocks both UVA and UVB rays, but the reality is that they don't. Hawaiian Tropic Baby Creme Lotion SPF 50 lists "Advanced UVA protection" on its website and "UVB/SPF with UVA" on its label. But it would earn only 1 star in FDA's proposed 4 star UVA labeling scheme, according to EWG analysis using a standard industry sunscreen model. Hawaiian Tropic is not required to back up its claim of "advanced UVA protection," and the fact is that no currently available sunscreen chemical has been shown to block UVA rays effectively. Regulations in Japan and Australia prohibit making such claims altogether for products that provide such weak UVA protection (Diffey 2009), but there is no such restriction in the U.S. Based on a review of partial label information published by online retailers, EWG researchers identified 218 beach sunscreens that claim "broad spectrum" or "full spectrum" protection for 2010. Many would garner only "low" or "medium" UVA protection in FDA's proposed labeling system.

4. Aveeno Baby Continuous Protection SPF 55
"Mild as water." Sure it is. Can a product be "mild as water to the skin" if the label warns to "Stop use and ask a doctor if rash or irritation develops and lasts"? And certainly when swallowed this product is nothing like water: "Keep out of reach of children" and "get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center right away," reads the warning label.

5. Anthony Logistics for Men Sunstick SPF 15
Safe for eyes? Not really. This product's directions tell users to "Apply to eye area," but the warnings advise: "Keep out of eyes." Since there are no regulations to ensure it, you would hope that common sense would lead sunscreen makers to formulate products for use around the eyes that are actually safe for the eyes. No such luck!

Tip for consumers: Wear sunglasses and keep sunscreen (including from sprays) out of your eyes.

6. Panama Jack Naturals Baby Sunblock SPF 50
Potential hormone disruptor in baby sunblock. Panama Jack advises users of this baby product to "apply liberally." Scientists who have researched a key sunscreen chemical in this sunblock, the potential hormone disruptor oxybenzone, advise the opposite: "It would be prudent not to apply oxybenzone to large surface areas of skin for extended and repeated periods of time, unless no alternative protection is available. There may be an additional concern for young children who have less well developed processes of elimination, and have a larger surface area per body weight than adults, with respect to systemic availability of a topically applied dose" (Hayden 1997). This Panama Jack sunscreen is one of at least 26 sunscreens offered in the 2010 season with the word "baby" in their name and the chemical oxybenzone on their ingredient list. EWG advises consumers to avoid sunscreens containing oxybenzone. Plenty of safer products are available. Oxybenzone is readily absorbed through the skin; government studies have detected the compound in 97 percent of the population (Calafat 2008). In rodents, it mimics estrogen and increases the weight of the uterus (Schlumpf 2004). In people, higher maternal exposures to oxybenzone have been linked to decreased birth weight in girls (Wolff 2008). One more thing: This so-called "natural" sunscreen contains at least ten compounds that do not occur in nature. Most are made from petroleum.

7. Banana Boat Ultra Defense Sunscreen Stick SPF 50
"It doesn't break down," says the manufacturer of the Banana Boat sunscreen stick. Maybe it doesn't break down, but it also doesn't last forever. You might think one coat would do you for a whole day. Not so. Even though sunscreen makers like Banana Boat often use stabilizing additives to keep their ingredients from breaking down in sunlight, the product still doesn't last forever on the skin. Sunscreens wash off in water and rub off on clothes and towels.

Tip for sunscreen users: Some sunscreen chemicals break down in the sun. They also wash off in water and rub off on towels and clothes - reapply them as directed.

8. Baby Blanket Tender Scalps Scalp Sunscreen Spray for Babies SPF 45+
"Instantly provides 45 times your babies' natural protection," claims the manufacturer. More like: Instant protection from sunburn, instant exposure to UVA rays. While that may be true for UVB rays and the red burns and blisters they cause, it's not the case for UVA. This product would earn only one of four stars for UVA protection in FDA's proposed rating system, according to EWG's analysis. Your baby's scalp may not get burned, but UVA rays could instantly penetrate deeply and cause skin damage and trigger cancer later in life. At least 18 other products EWG assessed claim "instant" or "immediate" protection.

If your sunscreen made it into our 2010 Hall of Shame, go ahead and find a better one by searching this online database. For a safer, chemical-free sunscreen click here.

Color Them Hyper(active)

By Dr. Stephen Chaney, PhD

Each year between 3 and 10% of school aged children are diagnosed with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), also known as hyperactivity. Most of these children are currently being treated with drugs. And these drugs have side effects - ranging from relatively minor (loss of appetite, weight loss, insomnia and mood swings) to major (suicidal thoughts, psychotic behavior and drug abuse).

So it is only natural for parents to ask whether there is a more natural approach that they could follow and, more specifically, whether diet could make a difference?  To answer that question lets start by looking at just one aspects of children's diets - the increasing prevalence of artificial food colors and preservatives in the diet. The average child today is consuming over 10 pounds of food additives every year!

The idea that food additives - specifically artificial colors and preservatives - might be responsible for hyperactivity was first raised by Dr. Ben Feingold over 30 years ago. He devised the Feingold Diet - a diet that was free of artificial food colors, preservatives and other artificial food additives.

Some small scale clinical studies suggested that the diet might be successful and millions of parents used the diet for their hyperactive children with great success. But the medical authorities pooh-poohed the Feingold Diet. They pointed out that when parents are putting their child on a special diet they are also giving that child more attention - and it might be the parent's increased attention that decreased the child's hyperactive behavior.

They also pointed out when you eliminate food additives from the diet you are decreasing the "junk" food and increasing fresh fruits and vegetables - in short the child's diet is much healthier. So eventually the Feingold Diet lost popularity - but the idea that artificial food colors & preservatives might trigger hyperactivity has refused to go away. In fact, a couple of recent studies have substantially strengthened the link between artificial ingredients and hyperactivity.

The first study was a meta-analysis of 15 previous studies looking at the effect of artificial food colors and preservatives on hyperactivity (Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 25: 423-434, 2004). This meta-analysis concluded that artificial food colors & preservatives caused an increase in hyperactivity in 28% of the children tested. Almost all of the children in those previous studies were selected for the study because they had been diagnosed as hyperactive (ADHD).

However, a more recent study looked at 297 children from Southampton England who had not been diagnosed as hyperactive (Lancet, 370: 1560-1567, 2007). After an 8 week elimination phase in which artificial food colors and preservatives were removed from their diets, they were given a one week challenge consisting of fruit juice containing one of two different mixtures of four artificial food colors and the preservative sodium benzoate or a placebo.

The amount of artificial food colors and sodium benzoate in the fruit juice drinks was designed to match the average amount found in the English diet (which isn't all that different from the American diet). Once again, the results were clear. The amount of artificial food colors and preservatives found in the typical child's diet is enough to trigger hyperactivity in many children.

So what does that mean to you if you have a hyperactive child?  Could the simple act of eliminating artificial colors, flavors & preservatives from your child's diet eliminate hyperactivity and give you back that calm, sweet child that you love?

The available data suggest that removing artificial food additives from your child's diet can make a difference in their behavior, but I tend to side with experts who suggest that a holistic approach is best.

Eliminating food additives from your child's diet is important, but also make sure the diet is a healthy one, that your child is getting all of the nutrients that they need and that they are getting all of the attention and support that they need.


To Your Health!
Dr. Stephen G Chaney

note: If you would like my free information on a natural approach to ADD/ADHD please contact me. Thanks!