The American magazine Consumer Reports reports that a third of sunscreens contain less than half of the sun protection filters (SPF) listed on the label.
An annual study of sunscreens by experts from the nonprofit Consumers Union has shown surprising results. Of the 73 brands analyzed, 24 had only half the SPF of the data on the bottles.
Interestingly, none of the mineral, natural, or organic creams offered the protection promised to consumers and could not protect them from ultraviolet radiation to the extent recommended by doctors. According to experts from the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), sunscreen should have at least 30 SPF. It must protect not only from UV rays penetrating into the deep layers of the skin, but also from UV radiation that burns the surface of the skin.
The products that became the leaders in the rating contained such active ingredients as avobenzone, oxybenzone and octinox. Moreover, the different composition and different concentrations of protective components became the reason that two creams with the same SPF actually gave a completely different effect, regardless of the cost of the drug.
So, the best was recognized as the Anthelios sunscreen lotion worth $ 36, and the second place was taken by Equate Sport Lotion SPF 50, which is produced by a large retail network and sells for only $ 5. “There is no relationship between the real cost and the effectiveness of sunscreens,” explains expert Trisha Calvo.
The worst were CeraVe's Body Lotion SPF 50, containing only zinc oxide, and Babyganics's Mineral-based Sunscreen 50 + SPF, which contains octisalate - a substance that is not a UV filter at all, and EltaMD UV Aero Broad-Spectrum SPF 45 spray - all these means did not give even half of the promised protection.
The danger with these products is that the people who use them get a false sense of security. But "there is no safe tanning", and when using such "defective" creams, a person will receive an additional dose of UV radiation that is harmful to his health.