The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has released their annual sunscreen scare report to help mislead consumers about how to take care of their skin. On the 24th of May, the Washington, D.C.-based lobbying group sent out a press release stating that retinyl palmitate (a form of vitamin A) in sunscreens is linked to skin cancer and tumor growth. Not surprisingly, within hours of the release we received a flurry of emails from concerned consumers. Once again, the EWG has propagated incomplete, ridiculous information under the guise of being consumer watchdogs—and once again lots of consumers are eyeing their sunscreens with the same suspicion they’d normally reserve for an unmarked vat of toxic chemicals.

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) was implicated in this report, with the basic sentiment being that the risks associated with retinyl palmitate and skin damage was something they were aware of yet failed to warn the public about. Reading the EWG report, you’d think a large percentage of sunscreen-wearing consumers would be stricken with cancer (never mind that sun exposure in and of itself is the most potent carcinogen we’re exposed to on a daily basis) by the very products they’re using in good faith to prevent this disease. In fact, the EWG report points to the increased use of sunscreen as the cause for the increase in current skin cancer cases. This is the very definition of stupidity. The real reason for rising skin cancer rates is the simple fact that today’s skin cancer cases are the result of decades of long-term unprotected sun exposure. There’s also the fact that research shows only 10% of the population even uses sunscreen on a regular basis. 10%! Now that’s a statistic worthy of a press release!

The EWG’s assertions about sunscreen efficacy flies in the face of hundreds of published, peer-reviewed studies from medical and research centers all over the world proving sunscreen can prevent skin cancer as well as wrinkles and skin discolorations.

In terms of vitamin A in sunscreens being a concern, the EWG seems to be completely ignorant of the fact that retinyl palmitate is one of the primary sources of antioxidant protection found naturally in skin (Source: Toxicology and Industrial Health, May 2006, pages 181–191).

The Personal Care Products Council, lead by former FDA chief John Bailey (himself a scientist), was quick to respond to the allegations in the EWG’s report. This group represents the global cosmetic and personal care industry, and is on the leading edge of not only product innovation, but of safety. Here are the highlights you must know:

Sunscreens: General Info

• The safety and efficacy of sunscreen products have been thoroughly studied and tested by scientists and regulatory authorities throughout the world.

• There is an extensive body of research supporting the safety and efficacy of commercially-available sunscreen actives—far too much to list here.

• Daily use of a well-formulated sunscreen rated SPF 15 or greater is recommended not only by the FDA, but by the American Academy of Dermatology, the Skin Cancer Foundation, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

• Sunscreens in the U.S. are regulated as over-the-counter (OTC) drugs by the FDA and must undergo pre-market approval that involves rigorous scientific assessment including safety and efficacy substantiation according to FDA standards. You will be pleased to know that these standards are among the most rigorous in the world.

The EWG’s Inaccurate Sunscreen Assertions

• EWG’s statements against sunscreens are in direct conflict with the established scientific and FDA safety assessments of sunscreen products and their ingredients. This includes scientific and regulatory bodies in the European Union, Canada, and several other countries.

• According to the Personal Care Products Council, the EWG has invented its own method for calculating how much protection a sunscreen provides; however, this system is “based on very questionable scientific methodology” that has “proven to be inaccurate and unreliable by sunscreen experts around the world.”

• Dermatologist Dr. Zoe Draelos had the following comments about the EWG’s latest report: “I think it’s very sad. A lot of their sunscreen recommendations are based on very old technology, and some of the best sunscreens on the market have newer chemicals that are much more effective. A lot of their opinions are not keeping pace with technology and an understanding of the science of these formulations.”

Vitamin A Isn’t Going to Give You Cancer
Here are the key facts about vitamin A (including the retinyl palmitate form) and sunscreen use that you need to know:

• Retinyl palmitate is approved by the FDA as a food additive, as an over-the-counter (OTC) drug, and a prescription drug. To achieve premarket approval, the FDA requires extensive and rigorous testing. This vitamin wouldn’t be widely used if pre-market tests showed it to be carcinogenic (cancer-causing).

• According to the Personal Care Products Council statement, “In 2000, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) published a notice stating that it would study the potential of retinyl palmitate to enhance UV radiation-induced photocarcinogenisity. While the study is listed as ‘in progress,’ the NTP recently released preliminary data on their Web site; scientific peer review of the entire study is now scheduled for late 2010 or early 2011. Peer review is essential before the results of a study can be accurately interpreted or used to support conclusions. It must be noted that this NTP study was not designed to study retinyl palmitate in the presence or absence of sunscreen formulations.” Therefore, the EWG reached their conclusion based on preliminary, inconclusive data.

• A truly credible scientific organization would never evaluate such preliminary data and make recommendations based upon it, especially those that lead to consumer confusion and fear (with fear being what the EWG seems to thrive on).

• Retinyl palmitate has been shown in UVB exposure studies to offer sun protection all by itself, and it is a potent antioxidant (Sources: International Journal of Pharmaceutics, October 2007, pages 181–189; and Journal of Investigative Dermatology, November 2003, pages 1,163–1,167).

• In vitro (test tube) research showed that pure vitamin A (retinol) has a mutagenic effect on cultured skin cells when exposed to UV light. However, the conclusion reached was as follows: “Vitamin A in the skin resides in a complex environment that in many ways is very different from the chemical environment in solution and in vitro test systems. Relevant clinical studies or studies in animal models are therefore needed to establish whether the pro-oxidant activity of photoexcited vitamin A is observed in vivo [on human skin], and to assess the related risks.”

• The studies examining vitamin A’s role in the presence of UV light did not involve the use of a well formulated sunscreen or credible sunscreen actives. Although damaging effects upon exposure to UV light were tied to vitamin A, there was no comparison to see what would happen if the lab samples were treated with sunscreen prior to UV exposure (Sources: Toxicology and Industrial Health, November 2007, pages 625–631; Toxicology Letters, May 2006, pages 30–43; and International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, June 2006, pages 185–190).

• We know that vitamin A is an antioxidant, and we also know that antioxidants break down in the presence of sunlight, generating by-products that can potentially cause damage. This is how antioxidants work to protect your skin from the greater source of damage, which is sunlight—and it’s precisely why daily sunscreen use is essential!

The EWG’s Own Conflict of Interest

You may have noticed that the EWG recommends a small percentage of sunscreens. But did you also notice that the sunscreens they recommend as safe are available for purchase via links from their site? By linking to the sunscreen manufacturer’s Web site and making a purchase, you are adding to the financial coffers of the EWG, giving them the support they need to continue these unfounded, needlessly alarming reports. This represents the EWG’s commercial interest; they only want you to purchase the sunscreens that they think are safe (and they leave out hundreds of sunscreens we know to be perfectly safe and effective). If they were really concerned about your health and well-being, they would be more open to presenting accurate, peer-reviewed information and would have to admit that their stance on sunscreens is mostly without merit.

In summation, there is no credible, substantiated reason to avoid using sunscreens that contain any form of vitamin A, including retinyl palmitate. Following the EWG’s advice about sunscreen use and which sunscreens are safe not only severely limits your options, but is not based on criteria that even a novice scientist would consider wise.

I have been in London and Amsterdam the past two weeks meeting with beauty reporters from both magazines and newspapers. It has been fascinating. One meeting in particular got me thinking about self-tanners especially now that spring and then summer are approaching.

I was introduced to a reporter who simply had on the worst application of self tanner I had seen in a long time. She had it streaked all over her hands and her face had a strange, dull, orange-looking color, and overall it just made her look sickly. Clearly not the effect she was going after!

I’m not sure what went wrong with her application and I just didn’t have the heart to ask (maybe she didn’t know it looked terrible and would feel insulted and you definitely don’t want to upset a reporter over a personal issue like that). Nonetheless, it got me thinking about the self-tanner I formulated for my Paula’s Choice line of skin-care products. My question is, why apply self-tanner at all?

There certainly are women who know how to apply self-tanner beautifully and it is absolutely the only way to achieve a safe tan (getting tan from the sun, even a little bit is damaging to skin, causing wrinkles, skin discolorations, and increases your risk of getting skin cancer significantly). I even offer a detailed step by step for applying self-tanner on my web site. BUT, why change your skin color at all? Why not love your natural skin color? Why go through the trouble of becoming brown when the shade of skin you have is beautiful as is? Artificial brown (or even getting brown from the sun—God forbid) is not any more beautiful than the real tone of your skin.

Have you noticed that over the past 10 years or so models and Hollywood actresses don’t show up with tans any more? They all wear their own skin color accented with simple to alluring makeup applications. My personal thanks and accolades to those wonderful women for showing us the way.

As an aside, you may wonder why I’m advocating loving the skin color you were born with but freely admit to that I see nothing wrong with coloring my hair (I don’t like my gray hair) and wearing makeup (I do like the feeling of “being a girl” and the glamour part too). On one level that sounds hypocritical, but using self-tanner to change one’s skin color encourages the notion of tanning itself, and the more we encourage the idea that tanned skin is more beautiful than un-tanned skin, the more women will justify risking their skin’s health (and their lives) to reach that dangerous ideal.

So rather than struggling with applying self-tanner (which is a tricky endeavor at best), consider going au naturale by not getting a tan either from a self-tanner and definitely not the sun. I won’t mind if my sales of self-tanner suffer a bit if by doing that, you experience loving how naturally beautiful your skin color is. What a great way to enjoy summer.

I recently visited my hometown to see my family before the holidays. While there, I met with a high school friend of mine that I hadn’t seen in nearly 15 years (where does the time go?). As we caught up on each other’s lives,  naturally we discussed what’s going on with several of our former classmates. I asked about our friend Joanne, as I had lost touch with her and noticed she wasn’t on Facebook (and these days, who isn’t on Facebook?). My friend paused and then revealed some sobering news: Joanne died in August 2006, at age 32, the victim of melanoma. I was stunned. Joanne was a bright, effervescent woman with a quick wit and sense of sly sarcasm that made many boring yet required high school courses much more bearable. I looked forward to seeing her in class and passing her in the hallway, where we’d often make each other laugh with just a silly glance.

As I took this news in, I realized one thing that didn’t click right away: Joanne was a sun worshipper. In fact, my friend mentioned that on sunny days, the two of them would often skip class and lay out on the beach at Lake Lansing, slathered in suntan oil. Joanne had naturally blonde hair and dark eyes, a combination that, along with her light skin tone, allowed her to tan after she became sufficiently freckled. I recalled her stating that she wanted to stay dark enough so that “all the freckles connected”. I also recalled being jealous of how dark she could get. Being lighter than her, it used to bother me that my attempts at tanning were basically useless (not to mention painful) and, as a lucky result, tanning became practice I quickly abandoned despite the pressure to not be pale.

Unfortunately, Joanne learned the hard way that keeping a tan at all costs can end up costing a person their life. Melanoma is the rarest form of skin cancer, but its numbers are on the rise, especially among young women who continue tanning (whether in the sun or, even worse, in tanning beds). The death rate for melanoma is startlingly high: 79% of those diagnosed will succumb. Melanoma is also the second most common cancer in women between the ages of 25–30, though the median age of diagnosis is 45, a time when it may be too late to stop the spread of this deadly skin disease.

Next summer, when the Seattle clouds clear and the rain dissipates, I’ll be paying extra attention to playing it safe in the sun—and thankful for the knowledge I’ve gained after working so closely with Paula on the topic of how sun exposure damages our skin.

Joanne, wherever you are, I hope you’re still making people laugh. You are missed and your untimely passing will serve as a powerful reminder to all who knew you as they consider how to protect their skin from the sun. Joanne’s family left this as her final message: “Wear your sunscreen, hats, protective clothing. DON’T DIE TO BE TAN! Stay away from tanning booths and beds! It’s not just a little spot you have removed and live on. This is a DEADLY BEAST.” I couldn’t agree more!

I will be the first to admit it- I used to be a tanorexic. I look back at pictures and realize I had darker skin than a Chocolate Labrador! And trust me, my true skin color is no where that level of tan.

My days of sun-worshipping began as a child when my summers were spent playing in the pool for hours and coming out with some very distinct tan lines. The idea of applying sunscreen was a foreign concept to my parents. That stuff was just for pale red heads right? Then during my teen years I became obsessed with tan skin, thinking that if I got dark enough my blemishes would be camouflaged, and maybe even dry out. So the vicious cycle began- tanning beds, laying out and lathering on baby oil, hours of softball practice with no sunscreen. I even had so-called “tan offs” with my friends to see who could get the darkest by summer’s end. By this point I knew the dangers of skin cancer, but I had the mentality that it wouldn’t happen to me, and if it did, oh well we are all going to die of cancer somehow if we live long enough. (I know, some of you want to kick me right now! I would kick me if I could go back in time.) All of this carried on through my college years and well…even up until a couple months ago.

You see, I had a job interview with a world-renowned beauty and skin care expert- you guessed it, Paula herself. Near the end of our interview she stopped and asked “How do you feel about losing your tan?” At first, I thought she was making a reference about how hard I would be working, being clammed up in my office and not seeing the light of day. Instead, Paula went on to explain her views on sun damage and handed me her book, The Original Beauty Bible, 3rd Edition. Despite her disparaging comments about my sun-induced skin color, she hired me anyway.

Turning the pages of that book began a life-changing chapter in my relationship with the sun. It may seem like I’m being a bit melodramatic but the truth is, I had been in denial and had never taken the time to truly consider the extent of damage I was doing to my body. Not only did I find out that skin cancer is much more common than I originally thought, but that I was also setting myself up for melasma (brown sun spots), wrinkling, and severe skin aging. I was disturbed when I read that the physical results of sun damage typically do not start to show up until over the age of 30. That means that for the last 25 years that I thought I was invincible, I wasn’t, and I will pay for it sooner rather than later. But by far, my biggest eye-opener was that the sun’s rays are harmful rain or shine, winter or summer. When I realized that UVA rays can penetrate through a window, I was even more shocked! It may not seem like a big deal in the moment, but think about that over a lifespan and imagine the toll it can take on your physical appearance and health.

Now, I don’t want all this to be doom and gloom. I wrote this in the hopes that I could catch the attention of others who have been in denial about their tanning habits and help them to come to the same realization that I did- it’s just not worth it! Let’s face it, most of us like to get a tan for vanity reasons, but you won’t be looking so hot down the road with wrinkly, discolored skin or scars from skin cancer removal. Yes, there is a certain extent of sun damage that is irreversible, but the good news the sooner you start the change, the more you can prevent further damage, decrease the odds of developing skin cancer and lessen the potential signs of aging. First line of defense: wear sunscreen EVERYDAY!

And guess what… thanks to a vast improvement with self-tanners and bronzers on the market you can still look tan when you want to.

I received an email the other day from a woman who wrote to thank us for our advice about using sunscreen and the importance of sun protection. We get complimentary messages like this every so often (and they never fail to delight and motivate us), but this one stood out. The timing of the message coinciding with our latest special report on the best sunscreens plus the fact that it’s summer all coalesced and made this email stand out. Why? Because the dear woman who wrote in included a picture of herself after having had a skin cancer removed from her face. As you will see from the photo below (which she graciously granted us permission to as a powerful visual reminder about the importance of sun protection), removing her skin cancer resulted in a scar in a conspicuous place. Here is the note she sent to us, followed by some additional comments from me:

Paula,
I just read your latest report on sun protection and the guide for the best sunscreens. I wish I had had this information years ago when I was in my early 20’s and thought a tan made me look better. Instead, I believed that using sunscreen just kept me from getting a great tan, so I didn’t bother with it.

Needless to say, here I am at age 57 and am paying the price. Just thought I would send you this picture of what I went through a couple months ago having a tiny basal cell carcinoma removed from my face. Now I’m scarred for life. I NEVER go out without applying sunscreen, but the damage is already done. Hopefully I will not have any more of these skin cancers pop up. I take such good care of my skin now; you can tell from my picture (with no makeup on) that I don’t have any wrinkles thanks to what I learned from you. However, I’m so embarrassed now about the scar down the front of my face.

Please keep up the good work of keeping people informed on the need of using a good sunscreen.

Name withheld by request

This woman’s story of regret and what happened to her after years without sun protection should prompt all of us, whether we want to admit or not, to confront the fact that the sun can cause what no one wants to have: cancer. No matter how good the sun feels on a temperate blue-sky day or how gorgeous you think you look with a deep, dark tan, it’s a sobering fact that the sun can (and does) kill us. Of course, simply applying a well-formulated sunscreen rated SPF 15 or above allows us to enjoy the positive aspects of the sun while severely minimizing its potential to cause damage. Personally, I don’t avoid the sun as much as I enjoy it responsibly, like many other things in life.
I want to thank this woman for sharing her story and photo. I hope it resonates with anyone reading this blog who doesn’t use sun protection or, for whatever reason, continues to tan. Skin cancer isn’t the automatic inevitable outcome of sun damage for everyone, but playing roulette with the health and appearance of your skin is not a bet worth making.

The May issue of Harper’s Bazaar arrived with a stunning photograph of Halle Berry on the cover and an article inside about whether or not a daughter will inherit her mother’s face. The skin care-themed article actually had several good pointers on what to do to avoid making the same mistakes that Mom may have made such as not using sunscreen, smoking, and engaging in yo-yo dieting. Also included were several snapshots of younger celebrities and their mothers. Of course, in every case the younger women looked better than the older women. A woman in her 20s or 30s isn’t going to see much sagging or pronounced wrinkles, but that’s typically not the case as she enters her fourth, fifth, or sixth decade of life, especially if sun protection and sun avoidance wasn’t practiced daily. But in this case, most of the older women (including Ivana Trump and Goldie Hawn) have so obviously had cosmetic corrective procedures done that there’s no way anyone would believe that they’ve chosen to age naturally (just compare their faces to younger pictures of themselves, something Bazaar didn’t include).

Here’s what really got me about this article, though: if you read between the lines, you’ll see it’s essentially a thinly veiled advertisement for the latest anti-aging products from Chanel, Lancome, Estee Lauder, and Olay. All but one of the experts quoted are those behind the very products the article recommends for women at various ages. Noted dermatologist Patricia Wexler recommends women use a sunscreen with antioxidants. OK, that’s great. She doesn’t recommend one of her own products, which is rather objective, but instead her idea of what qualifies as a good sunscreen with antioxidants is Chanel’s UV Essentiel SPF 30+. This sunscreen contains a hefty amount of zinc oxide, but its base formula is mostly water and alcohol (which causes free-radical damage and that hurts skin). Antioxidants or any other beneficial group of ingredients are in short supply, with all but one appearing after the fragrance. And it costs $48 for 1 ounce, so you’ll be replacing this every two weeks if used correctly (meaning liberal application). Talk about bizarre! Dr. Wexler what were you thinking, did they pay you to recommend this?

The article also recommends Olay’s expensive Pro-X eye cream with no mention that their Nutrients, Definity, and Regenerist brands offer nearly identical products for less money. Olay Nutrients just launched and they are as well formulated as any in the Olay groupings, and less money. Other new products that get a sterling recommendation with no regard to formula or packaging include Lauder’s Time Zone daytime moisturizers (the ones packaged in jars—which mean the ingredients won’t stay stable) and Lancome’s overhyped yet truly underwhelming Genifique serum (this formula is just embarrassing). All of these products were deemed “best anti-aging buys” but when you consider what you’re getting for the money, all but one of them are mediocre buys, and that’s being generous. I’m not sure others will notice, but just a quick scan makes it impossible to ignore that it can’t be an accident half of the products recommended in this article had glossy ads appearing elsewhere in Bazaar.

Every day, the emails arrive, asking about the latest anti-wrinkle/firming/lifting/brightening/re-contouring product to hit the cosmetic counters. Message after message implores us to review these items. And all of them are geared toward one burning question: does “Product X” really work as claimed? Don’t get me wrong, we love hearing what our readers want us to review (it is a major factor when we make these decisions) but every now and then I have to step away from my desk, take the dog for a walk, and rant a bit.

Here’s my issue: why do we (as consumers) have such a disconnect when it comes to believing cosmetic companies marketing anti-wrinkle products that seem too good to be true? Why isn’t an air of skepticism our default? Instead, hope springs eternal as month after month all of the major cosmetic lines (and every fashion magazine) herald the arrival of their latest youth-in-a-bottle product. No one ever stops to think about last month’s wonder product because now there’s something new essentially stating it does the same thing.

What never ceases to amaze me is that no matter how many times Paula and I have debunked fantastic-sounding claims (and supported our conclusions with published research) many of our readers remain faithful that the next product will get it right. It doesn’t faze them that Lancome (for example) has had products claiming to work like Botox and lasers, yet none of them performed remotely as claimed. Not a single consumer saw their forehead creases go away or saw their imperfections zapped with laser-like precision. Yet many of us bought the products anyway, hoping against hope (and reality) that they’d work. Now Lancome has a new anti-aging serum claiming to boost the activity of the genes in our skin, resulting in renewed youth. It’s scary how many skin-care products are making ever more remarkable claims, yet rarely are they backed by formulas capable of doing what’s stated in black and white. But still, we believe. We really want to believe these cosmetic companies have our skin’s best interests in mind.

My mother is guilty of this, too. She knows what I do for a living. She’s read the books. She’s met Paula. Yet at least once per month I get an email or phone call from her asking about a line-erasing product or eye cream claiming to tighten bags under the eye and turn back the clock on wrinkles. Every time I tell her the same thing: Mom, stop wasting money on these products and start saving for a cosmetic procedure that really will make a difference—and please Mom, start using sunscreen. I guess she, like many consumers, doesn’t want to face facts. After all, it’s easy to look past the truth when the temptation to get what you want from a readily-accessible skin-care product is all around us.

I apologize for not responding sooner to the wonderful feedback you have all provided on this issue about sunscreens. Unfortunately, the world of sunscreens has gotten more complicated then I ever could have imagined; nanoparticles, micronized actives, synthetic vs. mineral sunscreens, EU regulations versus US regulations or Britain versus Japan regulations, the vitamin D issue, and on and on. Add to that the fact that most synthetic sunscreens have estrogenic properties and there is almost no place to turn where there aren’t complications or controversy for using a sunscreen. I just finished writing the sunscreen section for the new edition of my book The Original Beauty Bible and have not yet updated my web site; I am in the process of doing that now.
 
Bottom line: The sunscreen issue is mind boggling. Here is what I have concluded from the work I’ve done and I will have the details up on my web site in May.

All synthetic sunscreens are more problematic for skin sensitivity and most, if not all, have estrogenic properties. Still, when a sunscreen includes avobenzone (butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane) stabilized by octocrylene (which is the primary way to stabilize avobenzone based on mounting research), Tinosorb, or Mexoryl SX (ecamsule) you will be getting impressive UVA protection.

Because of the way synthetic sunscreen ingredients work they increase free-radical damage in the epidermis and dermis which probably compromises the value of the increased UVA protection. However, choosing a sunscreen with synthetic active ingredients and a cocktail of antioxidants appears to mitigate this propensity for increased free-radical damage, thus allowing skin to better defend itself against sun exposure. Essentially, what happens in skin is that the antioxidants (assuming they’re in stable packaging) form a reservoir in the epidermis to help offset the oxidative damage the sunscreen actives cannot handle on their own (no sunscreen is capable of blocking 100% of UV light) or as a result of how they work to shield skin from sunlight (Sources: Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology, April 2008, pages 24-34 and March 2006, pages 204-213; Molecules, August 2007, pages 1,845-1,858; and Journal of Cosmetic Science, November-December 2003, pages 589-598).

Mineral sunscreen ingredients (titanium dioxide or zinc oxide) are by far safer for most all skin types, though they are not without their own set of controversies. Both nanoparticled versions (under 100 nanometers) and micronized versions (over 100 nanometers) are typical in most all mineral SPF formulations. However, there is reduced UVA protection as a trade off for esthetics when you micronize or nanosize versions of these ingredients. That is why it’s important to apply liberally and reapply as needed (not to mention adding a foundation or pressed powder with sunscreen to your daily routine).

Now this is where my personal opinion and experience come into play: I think mineral sunscreens provide superior protection for many reasons but primarily because they are so benign and opaque (they cover skin well and are tenacious, almost like wrapping it in a security bandage). I know that the back of my hands and face don’t have “sun” spots because of my religious use of this blend of mineral sunscreen ingredients.
 
Synthetic sunscreens are absolutely an option and should not be avoided but in the world of sunscreens but there is no perfect solution. Suffice to say, the risk any combination of sunscreen actives may have is, without question, minor when it comes to the far greater risk of routinely exposing skin to sunlight without any protection from sunscreen.

Next month I’ll be heading south for a vacation in Sarasota, Florida. Although I am looking forward to escaping the cold, rainy Northwest weather, I am always apprehensive about spending time in sunny climates. The temptation to be outdoors for long periods of time (we’re staying in a condo right on the Gulf of Mexico) is there every day, not to mention the number of people on the beach getting darker skin with each passing hour as I remain white like the snow I left behind on the mountain tops in Seattle.

To most people, lazy days on the beach or lounging at poolside sounds divine. But for me, it means the need for me to be extra vigilant about sun protection and paying attention to how long I’ve been in the sun. Call it an unpleasant reality of the research I’ve done on the topic of sun exposure and skin damage, I know how really bad it is for me. It’s to the point now where spending hours in the sun is something to plan and be prepared for rather than being careless and carefree. I know the extra time outdoors or the haphazard application of sunscreen (meaning not applying enough sunscreen or not reapplying when I should) will mean serious skin damage. Now that I’m in my mid-30s and seeing early signs of aging, sun protection is equally tied to keeping up appearances and protecting the health of my skin.

So what am I going to do? Stay inside during the midday sun? Catch up on afternoon soap operas? Practice crossword puzzles? None of these sound too appealing, at least not when those I’m traveling with will be frolicking outdoors.

The solution is to grin (but not too widely—have to watch out for smile lines!) and slather on the sunscreen. I plan on packing a few options from Paula’s Choice, including my favorite sunscreen, Ultra-Light Weightless Finish SPF 30 Sunscreen Spray. For my face, I’m a big fan of mineral sunscreens so I’ll probably tote our Pure Mineral Sunscreen with SPF 15 or one I like from Dr. Denese New York that’s rated SPF 30 and has a soft tint.

Of course, I’ll wear sunglasses, keep a T-shirt on unless I’m heading into the Gulf, and use my towel for more than just drying off. I think these tactics will help keep my sun exposure panic to a minimum. And if I’m still feeling a bit edgy, I’ll just slather on more sunscreen and perhaps order a pina colada to sip on as I lay there under an umbrella, exposed yet protected!

One more thing: part of this panic comes from childhood trips to Florida with my grandparents. My grandmother’s mode was to send my siblings and I out to the beach to play, which we were all too happy to do, except she didn’t put sunscreen on any of us. About four hours later, we’d be back in the house, staring at pink, hot skin and a host of new freckles. It was then that my grandmother would apply sunscreen to us, and send us out again. Even though I didn’t know a thing about sun damage, I knew I didn’t like being sunburned, so would resist going back outside until my burn had turned into a tan! It only takes one bad sunburn to sour a vacation—now that I know better (a lot better, actually) I should be able to enjoy time in the Florida sun without fear!

Just when it seems the message about sunscreen’s importance as part of a person’s daily routine has been widely accepted, along comes more scary information that has consumers wondering whether their sunscreens are as bad for skin as the sun itself. The latest article questioning sunscreens appears in the February issue of Allure. To Allure’s credit, the article was balanced. Its summation was that you shouldn’t skip sunscreen: it does far more good than harm, and the harm doesn’t equate to the fear lots of people feel when they don’t know the whole story. Funny, that’s a lot like many things in life isn’t it? Our fears and reactions come from a one-sided piece of information.

The article in Allure centered on a study published in the October 2006 issue of Free Radical Biology & Medicine. The study found that while sunscreens can protect skin from the free-radical damage sunlight causes, in a short amount of time it causes free-radical damage on its own. Of course, the big question is: are we trading free-radical protection for free-radical damage, thus canceling out the importance of applying sunscreen?

Lots of doctors and researchers took issue with the results of the study for several reasons: it wasn’t done double-blind, it wasn’t conducted on people, the results haven’t been duplicated by other studies, and the study didn’t use commercial sunscreen products, just individual active sunscreen ingredients. That last point is important because as any cosmetics chemist will tell you, how a sunscreen is formulated has a significant impact on how the active ingredients function on skin (from spreading and adhering properly to their stability). Testing individual sunscreen ingredients and extrapolating the results to apply to regular sunscreen formulas is like tasting individual ingredients used to make a cake instead of the finished product and then being surprised that the flour doesn’t taste sweet.

On the flipside, other studies have shown the protective effect of certain sunscreen actives against free-radical formation—and a growing body of research is demonstrating that adding antioxidants to sunscreens offsets the negative effect sunscreen can have on skin, especially if it is not reapplied at regular intervals during long periods of sun exposure.

Well-known dermatologist Dr. Leslie Baumann was quoted in the Allure article as agreeing with the questionable study. She stated, “We’ve actually been talking about this for a couple of years.” Dr. Sheldon Pinnell of Skinceuticals fame also weighed in, stating “It’s known that some sunscreens behave in this manner. They get inside the skin and absorb energy, and that energy becomes free radicals…” Lots of dermatologists would disagree with Pinnell’s assertion, and even Pinnell believes that any free-radical damage sunscreen may cause (including by virtue of how the active ingredients work) is counteracted by antioxidants, whether in your sunscreen or in other skin-care products you apply. So as it turns out, there really isn’t cause for concern.

The only thing that is crystal-clear about the Free Radical Biology & Medicine study is that more research is needed to determine whether sunscreen actives as formulated in consumer sunscreens cause measurable free-radical damage on intact human skin. Until conclusive information is available, it is not a wise decision to stop using sunscreen due to fear of free-radical damage. Even if some sunscreen actives do cause free-radical damage, we know it can be offset by antioxidants. We also know that going without sunscreen exposes skin to a long list of problems, the least of those being free-radical damage!

I’ll finish with a quote in the Allure article from Amy Lewis, assistant Clinical Professor of Dermatology at Yale School of Medicine: “Right now we have one small, inconclusive study versus huge amounts of data that show that lack of sun protection causes DNA damage, melanoma, basal-cell and squamous-cell skin cancer, and horrible deformed moles and wrinkles, and there is great evidence for prolonged use of sunscreen to protect against all of those things. If these chemicals cause something, the sun exposure you’re trading it for is going to cause more free radicals.” I couldn’t have said it better myself!