Many Americans believe a sunscreen can both bronze the skin and protect sun-lovers from skin cancers. This story reinforces this belief by reporting on new sunscreens that contain special ingredients said to block more of the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays. How good is the evidence to buttress the story’s main point—that newer formulations are better than old? Did researchers arrive at this conclusion after comparing the incidence of melanoma in a population of high-risk individuals randomly assigned to use either “new” formulations or “old” ones, then follow them for many years? Or did they study mice in a laboratory, as in one recent Australian experiment? (Br J Dermatol. 2006;155(2):408-15.) In other words, can sun-lovers slather on the new sunscreens with impunity? Or would a word of caution be in order? The questions are important because, in an apparent paradox, increased use of sunscreen has coincided with the spiraling incidence of skin cancer. Is this because sunscreens are merely used improperly (as one expert notes in the story)? Or is it more complicated than that: Do sunscreens have inherent weaknesses? The news story would have served its readers better by telling them more about the quality of evidence to support its rosy outlook. Such an analysis might provide well-founded reassurance about the new sunscreen formulations—or it might instead suggest that the answers to some questions remain unknown. Whatever the case, readers deserve to know.
Although the story suggests that competition in the marketplace for new sunscreen formulations is vigorous, it makes no mention of costs.
Although one source quoted in the story quantifies the potential harm of improper use of sunscreen— inadequate skin coverage causes “25% less value”—there is no attempt to quantify the reported benefit of slathering up with new, specially formulated sunscreens.
The article mentions potential harms associated with older sunscreen formulations (e.g. ashy color, ineffective when exposed to light)—but says nothing about potential harms of the newer versions that are the story’s focus. Do they cause allergic or photoallergic reactions? Could they give sun-lovers unwarranted confidence in the lotions’ prowess? In an apparent paradox, increased use of sunscreen has been associated with the spiraling incidence of skin cancer. Is this because sunscreens are used improperly (as the article suggests)? Or do sunscreens have inherent weaknesses as well?
The news story fails to comment on the quality of evidence to support its contention that special ingredients unique to a select group of sunscreens protect people from the harmful consequences of ultraviolet rays. Does the evidence match the hype? Did researchers arrive at this conclusion after comparing the incidence of melanoma in a population of high-risk individuals randomly assigned to slather up with either “new” formulations or “old” ones, then follow them for many years? Or did they study mice in a laboratory, as in one recent Australian experiment? (Br J Dermatol. 2006;155(2):408-15.)
There is persuasive evidence linking exposure to the sun’s ultraviolet rays to melanoma, a formidable and sometimes fatal skin cancer, as well as to skin wrinkling and age spots, in certain individuals. The article mentions this link once, but does not dwell on it.
The news story quoted two sources from academic institutions. It’s difficult to know whether either individual has a potential conflict of interest.
The story fails to note other measures sun-lovers can take to protect themselves from UV rays. These include the use of protective clothing and avoiding midday sun. (Dermatol Clin. 2002 Oct;20(4):601-6.)
The story focuses largely on the increasing availability of new sunscreen formulations that are believed to protect sun lovers from harmful ultraviolet rays.
This article explains that some sunscreens have been around a long time and others have recently entered the market, formulated with new and supposedly better ingredients.
It is unclear whether the article relied solely or largely on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.