iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Shady Sunscreens? FDA Pushes For Accurate Labels

Sunscreen Fda

MATTHEW PERRONE   06/14/11 10:00 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — Help is on the way to consumers confused by the jumble of sun protection numbers, symbols and other claims on sunscreens. Starting next summer, consumers can start looking for SPF 15 bottles with the label "broad spectrum" and feel confident they're being protected from an increased risk of cancer.

Currently, standards of protection apply only to one part of the sun's spectrum, ultraviolet B rays, which cause sunburn. Under new rules published Tuesday, they will also have to protect against the more penetrating ultraviolet A rays associated with skin cancer.

The guidelines, which spent more than 30 years in bureaucratic limbo, are designed to enhance the effectiveness of sunscreens and make them easier to use.

The key takeaway for consumers: Look for a sun protection factor, or SPF, of 15 and above that also says "broad spectrum." That's the new buzzword from the Food and Drug Administration to describe a product that does an acceptable job blocking both types of damaging rays.

Starting next summer, sunscreens with less than an SPF of 15 or that aren't "broad spectrum" will have to carry a warning label: "This product has been shown only to help prevent sunburn, not skin cancer or early skin aging."

That will help people like Paul Woodburn, 55, who says he mainly buys brands he trusts and judges sun screen by one factor

"The SPF number is what counts for me," the Indianapolis resident said as he sat next to a public pool. "Beyond the SPF, I don't think anybody really watches." Woodburn said he wasn't familiar with the difference between UVA and UVB rays or the broad spectrum label.

"These changes to sunscreen labels are an important part of helping consumers have the information they need so they can choose the right sun protection for themselves and their families," said Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of FDA's drug division.

The new regulations require testing for the more dangerous ultraviolet A rays, which can penetrate glass and pose the greatest risk of skin cancer and premature aging. Now, the FDA only requires testing for ultraviolet B rays that cause sunburn. That's what the familiar SPF measure is based on.

"For the first time, the FDA has clearly defined the testing required to make a broad-spectrum protection claim in a sunscreen and indicate which type of sunscreen can reduce skin cancer risk," said Dr. Ronald L. Moy, president of The American Academy of Dermatology Association.

Under the new rules:

_ The FDA will prohibit sunscreen marketing claims like "waterproof" and "sweatproof," which the agency said "are exaggerations of performance."

_ The FDA also proposes capping the highest SPF value at 50, unless companies can provide results of further testing that support a higher number.

_ FDA says manufacturers must phase out a four-star system currently used by some companies to rate UVA protection.

In reviewing more than 3,000 comments submitted to the agency, the FDA decided the star system was too confusing. Instead, protection against UVA should be proportional to protection against UVB, which is already measured using SPF.

The SPF figure indicates the amount of sun exposure needed to cause sunburn on sunscreen-protected skin compared with unprotected skin. For example, an SPF rating of 30 means it would take the person 30 times longer to burn wearing sunscreen than with exposed skin.

The rules were decades in the making.

FDA announced its intent to draft sunscreen rules in 1978 and published them in 1999. The agency delayed finalizing its guidelines for years until it could address issues concerning both UVA and UVB protection.

Some consumer advocates complained that the agency's final guidelines were less strict than draft proposals circulated over the years.

"About 20 percent of products that meet the new FDA standards could not be sold in Europe, where UVA standards are strict," said David Andrews, senior scientist with the Environmental Working Group.

Many companies have already adopted the some of the labeling outlined by the government. For example, all Coppertone products from Merck & Co.'s Schering-Plough unit and Neutrogena sunscreens from Johnson & Johnson already boast "broad spectrum UVA and UVB protection."

Most dermatologists recommend a broad spectrum, water-resistant sunscreen of SPF 30 or higher every two hours while outside.

Last year an estimated 68,130 people in the U.S. were diagnosed with melanoma – the most dangerous form of skin cancer – and an estimated 8,700 died, according to the National Cancer Institute. Nearly $2 billion is spent treating the disease each year.

____

AP Business Writer Tom Murphy contributed to this story from Indianapolis

FOLLOW HUFFPOST HEALTHY LIVING

WASHINGTON — Help is on the way to consumers confused by the jumble of sun protection numbers, symbols and other claims on sunscreens. Starting next summer, consumers can start looking for SPF 1...
WASHINGTON — Help is on the way to consumers confused by the jumble of sun protection numbers, symbols and other claims on sunscreens. Starting next summer, consumers can start looking for SPF 1...
Filed by Amanda L. Chan  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 32
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
11:43 AM on 06/15/2011
What happens to a rule deferred?

Does skin dry up
like a raisin in the sun?

The sunscreen claims galore
were all spun.

Were the cancer claims a cheat
and feds would just roll over
for years and drag their feet?

The FDA just sags
with a heavy load.

As the rates explode.

News Short n' Sweet by JFD8
http://twitter.com/JFD8
02:40 PM on 06/14/2011
I love how the FDA only tells about 25% of the TRUTH. Maybe you should be honest about how skin cancer rates sky rocketed at the same time sunscreens were created. Your skin is the largest organ and absorbs everything it comes into contact with. Rubbing man made chemicals all over your body makes no sense. IF ITS NOT SAFE TO EAT DONT PUT IT ON YOUR BODY!
06:06 PM on 06/14/2011
so true....so true you got a fan:)
02:38 PM on 06/14/2011
While this new reg seems ok- let's take a peak at what the FDA has done to help the American business that makes these products. Titanium Dioxide is the main sunblock ingrediant used today the amount used in the formula gives the SPF rating. The FDA classes a sunblock as an over the counter drug. Along with that comes the incredible OTC regulations. The new "paperless" registration adopted by the FDC in place of the 1 page registration process is costing each manufacturer tens if not hun dreds of thousands of dollars associated with the revamping of their computer systems to interface with the FDA. (the kinks at the FDA are still not worked out) . If you want your product to say SPF you have to go through this. But here's the kicker- you can have the exact same formula or amount of titanium dioxide in your product and the FDA does not consider it to be an OTC drug if you do not claim STF protection. Same formulas- 2 sets of regulations. This is just one example of the regulations that hurt our economy and do nothing but add to the cost of the product.
02:38 PM on 06/14/2011
Hooray, finally the FDA acts. The Environmentlal Working Group (ewg.org) has been posting the hazards of sunscreens, and all the carcingens in them. The FDA is a day late and a dollar short
photo
kasel1
Sarcastic physicist, musician, author
02:16 PM on 06/14/2011
For more than 20 years, my colleagues and I tried to lobby the FDA to change it's measurement criteria to reflect reality. But beaurocracy is a monolith and they dragged their heals for decades insisting on burning people rather than institute non harmful methods. Governments stall progress. If we had people with brains in office, there wouldn't be an energy crisis and there wouldn't be a medical crisis. But we insist on electing people who's only qualification to run for office is how much money they can raise.
photo
undrgrndgirl
what's so funny 'bout peace, love & understanding?
02:10 PM on 06/14/2011
here's some truth in labeling: sunscreen = skin cancer.
01:51 PM on 06/14/2011
I have an idea to avoid cancer. Do not go to the beach and lay out in the sun and bake yourself, Try that and save the SPF sunscreen. When i go to the beach I stay out of the sun under an umbrella.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kleighhoff
Relief is the order of business...
01:22 PM on 06/14/2011
How about the FDA make these companies disclose the truth on their products. Like "There is no such thing as sunscreen with an spf higher than 15. Anything above that is a waste of your money as a result of a marketing ploy."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SickHippie
No, YOUR micro-bio is empty.
01:35 PM on 06/14/2011
As an Irish man, I can tell you that's simply not true. SPF 15 and I burn to a crisp in about an hour. SPF 50 and I burn to a crisp in about 3 hours.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kelly Jade
04:22 PM on 06/14/2011
Exactly! I am Irish German Swedish and Dutch (translation pale pale pale) and I LIKE it. I want to remain pale. I LIKE how I look pale. So I am great about sunscreen and constantly apply it and try and stay under an umbrella or wear a hat when I am going to be outside for a long time. I used a friends SPF 15 once when I forgot mine, constantly reapplied it got totally burned. It was not enough. I normally wear SPF 50 or above and reapply every hour or so.
05:32 PM on 06/14/2011
Take a vitamin d supplement. I used to burn in minutes took a reasonable amount of vitamin d and now I don't.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DevonTexas
Eternal Optimism
01:20 PM on 06/14/2011
Why all the "regulations"?! Why regulate sun screen that might prevent skin cancer. After all, melanoma is a real job creator. Think of all the cancer centers and technicians, doctors, nurses, pharmacists who aid the victims!

tragically, these are long-needed. People use sunscreen with certain expectations and they should be properly informed about their effectiveness and suitability.
01:14 PM on 06/14/2011
The government and Big pharma and the beauty industry does not protect the public, is only interested in making money and has had no new laws since 1938 on any personal care products put on the market, no testing, no regulations, no requirements on ingredients used. formulations have changed little since 1938, and over 32000 new chemicals have been added to our products since then without testing. Neways Int. is a 25 year old manufacturer of safe and healthy products without the controversial or questionable ingredients or known carcinogens.
positivehealthyliving.ineways.com
01:04 PM on 06/14/2011
I am so happy the FDA is coming down on chemicals in products, especially sunscreen. There are so many controversial and questionable and known carcinogens in many of the products on the market, finally the public is being made aware of these dangers. I have been using Sombrero by Neways (25 year old manufacturer) for over 17 years, and do not get sunburn. the best ingredients for the skin without harmful ingredients. positivehealthyliving.ineways.com
Michael5555
I built it despite you people
12:59 PM on 06/14/2011
$4.00 dollar a gallon gasoline, 9.1% unemployment, possibly heading for another econimc slowdown and here we are talking about sun lotion and weiner .........
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:06 PM on 06/14/2011
He probably needs sun lotion on that weiner as much as it has been out lately.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SickHippie
No, YOUR micro-bio is empty.
01:40 PM on 06/14/2011
Zing!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Kim0330
Purr, and the world purrs with you...
12:56 PM on 06/14/2011
I wonder why this wasn't required earlier.
photo
undrgrndgirl
what's so funny 'bout peace, love & understanding?
02:10 PM on 06/14/2011
profit.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
eugenemyst
Intentionally blank
12:47 PM on 06/14/2011
and my friends didn't believe me when I told them that any SPF over 50 was of miniscule importancel. Advertisements work.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
OneTop
Uh, is that a beer hall?
12:39 PM on 06/14/2011
I thought the free market was supposed to take care of things like this?

It's hard to believe that Corporations trying to make a buck would "over-sell" the merits of a product.

Soon enough the TP/GOP will rule and get rid of these needless regulators like the FDA.
Michael5555
I built it despite you people
01:06 PM on 06/14/2011
The FDA is a corrupt government agency.
photo
undrgrndgirl
what's so funny 'bout peace, love & understanding?
02:12 PM on 06/14/2011
the fda should be gotten rid of...the fda does not do what you think it does...it is nothing more than an arm of the pharma industry...and no i'm not a free market libertarian...