How safe are the chemicals in sunscreen? A pharmacology expert explains

10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

Last week, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) released its safety review of seven active ingredients commonly used in sunscreens.

It found five were low-risk and appropriate for use in sunscreens at their current concentrations.

However, the TGA recommended tighter restrictions on two ingredients – homosalate and oxybenzone – to reduce how much can be used in a product. This is based on uncertainty about their potential effects on the endocrine system, which creates and releases hormones.

This news, together with recent reports some products may have inflated their claims of SPF coverage, might make Australians worried about whether their sunscreen products are working – and safe.

But it’s not time to abandon sunscreens. In Australia, all sunscreens must pass a strict approval process before going on the market. The TGA tests the safety and efficacy of all ingredients, and this recent review is part of the TGA’s continuing commitment to safety.

The greatest threat sunscreen poses to Australians’ health is not using it.

Australia has the highest incidence of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer worldwide, and approximately 95% of melanoma cases in Australia are linked to ultraviolet (UV) exposure.

Still, it’s understandable people want to know what’s in their products, and any changes that might affect them. So let’s take a closer look at the safety review and what it found.

aquaArts studio/Getty

What are the active ingredients in sunscreen?

There are two main types of sunscreen: physical and chemical. This is based on the different active ingredients they use.

An active ingredient is a chemical component in a product that has an effect on the body – basically, what makes the product “work”.

In sunscreens, this is the compound that absorbs UV rays from the Sun. The other ingredients – for example, those that give the sunscreen its smell or help the skin absorb it – are “inactive”.

Physical sunscreens typically use minerals, such as titanium dioxide and zinc oxide, that can absorb the Sun’s rays but also reflect some of them.

Chemical sunscreens use a variety of chemical ingredients to absorb or scatter UV light, both long wave (UVA) or short wave (UVB).

The seven active ingredients in this review are in chemical sunscreens.

Why did the TGA do the review?

Our current limits for the concentrations of these chemicals in sunscreen are generally consistent with other regulatory agencies, such as the European Union and the US Food and Drug Administration.

However, safety is an evolving subject. The TGA periodically reexamines the safety of all therapeutic goods.

Last year, the TGA revised its method of estimating sunscreen exposure to more closely model how skin is exposed to sunscreens over time.

This model considers how much sunscreen someone typically applies, how much skin they cover (whole body versus face and hands, or just face) and how it’s absorbed through the skin.

Given this new model – along with changes in the EU and US approaches to sunscreen regulation – the TGA selected seven common sunscreen ingredients to investigate in depth.

Determining what’s safe

When evaluating whether chemicals are safe for human use, testing will often consider studies in animals – especially when there is no or limited data on humans. These animal tests are done by the manufacturers, not the TGA.

To take into account any unforeseen sensitivity humans may have to these chemicals, a “margin of safety” is built in. This is typically a concentration 50–100 times lower than the dose at which no negative effect was seen in animals.

The sunscreen review used a margin of safety 100 times lower than this dose as the safety threshold.

For most of the seven investigated sunscreen chemicals, the TGA found the margin of safety was above 100.

This means they’re considered safe and low-risk for long-term use.

However, two ingredients, homosalate and oxybenzone, were found to be below 100. This was based on the highest estimated sunscreen exposure, applied to the body at the maximum permitted concentration: 15% for homosalate, 10% for oxybenzone.

At lower concentrations, other uses – such as just the hands and face – could be considered low-risk for both ingredients.

What are the health concerns?

Homosalate and oxybenzone have low acute oral toxicity – meaning you would need to swallow a lot of it to experience toxic effects, nearly half a kilogram of these chemicals – and don’t cause irritation to eyes or skin.

There is inconclusive evidence about oxybenzone potentially causing cancer in rats and mice – but only at concentrations to which humans will never be exposed via sunscreens.

The key issue is whether the two ingredients affect the endocrine system.

While effects have been seen at high concentrations in animal studies, it is not clear whether these translate to humans exposed to sunscreen levels.

No effect has been seen in clinical studies on fertility, hormones, weight gain and, in pregnant women, fetal development.

The TGA is being very cautious here, using a very wide margin of safety under worst-case scenarios.

What are the recommendations?

The TGA recommends the allowed concentration of homosalate and oxybenzone be reduced.

But exactly how much it will be lowered is complicated, depending on whether the product is intended for adults or children, specifically for face, or the whole body, and so on.

However, some sunscreens would need to be reformulated or warning labels placed on particular formulations. The exact changes will be decided after public consultation. Submissions close on August 12.

What about benzophenone?

There is also some evidence benzophenone – a chemical produced when sunscreen that contains octocrylene degrades – may cause cancer at high concentrations.

This is based on studies in which mice and rats were fed benzophenone well above the concentration in sunscreens.

Octocrylene degrades slowly over time to benzophenone. Heat makes it degrade faster, especially at temperatures above 40°C.

The TGA has recommended restricting benzophenone to 0.0383% in sunscreens to ensure it remains safe during the product’s shelf life.

The Cancer Council advises storing sunscreens below 30°C.

The bottom line

The proposed restrictions are very conservative, based on worst-case scenarios.

But even in worst-case scenarios, the margin of safety for these ingredients is still below the level at which any negative effect was seen in animals.

The threat of cancer from sun exposure is far more serious than any potential negative effect from sunscreens.

If you do wish to avoid these chemicals before new limits are imposed, several sunscreens are available that provide high levels of protection with little or no homosalate and oxybenzone. For more information, consult product labels.

Ian Musgrave, Senior Lecturer in Pharmacology, University of Adelaide

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Learn to Age Gracefully

Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Gut Renovation – by Dr. Roshini Raj, with Sheila Buff

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Unless we actually feel something going on down there, gut health is an oft-neglected part of overall health—which is unfortunate, because invisible as it may often be, it affects so much.

    Gastroenterologist Dr. Roshini Raj gives us all the need-to-know information, explanations of why things happen the way they do with regard to the gut, and tips, tricks, and hacks to improve matters.

    She also does some mythbusting along the way, and advises about what things don’t make a huge difference, including what medications don’t have a lot of evidence for their usefulness.

    The style is easy-reading pop-science, with plenty of high-quality medical content.

    Reading between the lines, a lot of the book as it stands was probably written by the co-author, Sheila Buff, who is a professional ghostwriter and specializes in working closely with doctors to produce works that are readable and informative to the layperson while still being full of the doctor’s knowledge and expertise. So a reasonable scenario is that Dr. Raj gave her extensive notes, she took it from there, passed it back to her for medical corrections, and they had a little back and forth until it was done. Whatever their setup, the end result was definitely good!

    Bottom line: if you’d like a guide to gut health that’s practical and easy to read, while being quite comprehensive and certainly a lot more than “eat probiotics and fiber”, then this book is a fine choice.

    Click here to check out Gut Renovation, and renovate yours!

    Share This Post

  • How to live a long and healthy life, according to the ancients

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Just like in the modern world, people in ancient times wanted to know how to live a long and healthy life.

    Greeks and Romans heard fantastic tales of far-away peoples living to well beyond 100.

    Greek essayist Lucian (about 120–180 CE) writes:

    Indeed, there are even whole nations that are very long-lived, like the Seres [Chinese], who are said to live 300 years: some attribute their old age to the climate, others to the soil and still others to their diet, for they say that this entire nation drinks nothing but water. The people of Athos are also said to live 130 years, and it is reported that the Chaldeans live more than 100, using barley bread to preserve the sharpness of their eyesight.

    Portrait of Lucian of Samosata
    Greek essayist Lucian had lots to say about how to live a long and healthy life, as did ancient doctors. Library of Congress, Washington DC/Wikimedia

    This is how they thought this could happen.

    Whatever the truth of these tales, many ancient Greeks and Romans wanted a long and healthy life.

    Tyler Bell/Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli/Wikimedia, CC BY-SA

    An ancient doctor’s perspective

    Ancient doctors were interested in what people who lived long lives were doing every day and how this might have helped.

    The Greek physician Galen (129–216 CE), for example, discusses two people he knew personally in Rome who lived to old age.

    First, there is a grammarian (someone who studies and teaches grammar) called Telephus, who lived to almost 100.

    According to Galen, Telephus ate just three times a day. His diet was simple:

    gruel boiled in water mixed with raw honey of the best quality, and this alone was enough for him at the first meal. He also dined at the seventh hour or a little sooner, taking vegetables first and next tasting fish or birds. In the evening, he used to eat only bread, moistened in wine that had been mixed.

    Galen also tells us Telephus had some bathing habits that might seem unusual to us today. Telephus preferred to be massaged with olive oil every day and only have a bath a few times a month:

    He was in the habit of bathing twice a month in winter and four times a month in summer. In the seasons between these, he bathed three times a month. On the days he didn’t bathe, he was anointed around the third hour with a brief massage.

    Second, there was an old doctor named Antiochus, who lived into his 80s.

    According to Galen, Antiochus also had a simple diet.

    In the morning, Antiochus usually ate toasted bread with honey. Then, at lunch, he would eat fish, but usually only fish “from around the rocks and those from the deep sea”. For dinner, he would eat “either gruel with oxymel [a mix of vinegar and honey] or a bird with a simple sauce”.

    Alongside this simple diet, Antiochus went for a walk every morning. He also liked to be driven in a chariot, or had his slaves carry him in a chair around the city.

    Galen also said Antiochus “performed the exercises suitable for an old man”:

    There is one thing you should do for old people in the early morning as an exercise: after massage with oil, next get them to walk about and carry out passive exercises without becoming fatigued, taking into account the capacity of the old person.

    Galen concludes that Antiochus’ routine probably contributed to his good health well into advanced age:

    Looking after himself in old age in this way, Antiochus continued on until the very end, unimpaired in his senses and sound in all his limbs.

    Galen stresses that Telephus and Antiochus had some obvious things in common. They ate just a few times a day; their diet was of wild meats, whole grains, bread and honey; and they kept active every day.

    Depiction of eye examination, Roman copy of Greek original
    An eye exam is under way. But there was more to staying healthy in ancient times. Rabax63/Wikimedia, CC BY-SA

    What can you do?

    Not all of us can live to 100 or more, as the Greeks and Romans were well aware.

    However, Lucian offers us some consolation in his essay On Octogenarians:

    On every soil and in every climate people who observe the proper exercise and the diet most suitable for health have been long-lived.

    Lucian advised that we should imitate the lifestyles of people who have lived long and healthy lives if we want to do the same.

    So, if you lived in Rome in the 2nd century CE, people like Telephus and Antiochus, who had a simple diet and kept active all their lives, would be good role models.

    Konstantine Panegyres, Lecturer in Classics and Ancient History, The University of Western Australia

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Share This Post

  • The Immune System Recovery Plan – by Dr. Susan Blum

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    The subtitle of the book is “A Doctor’s 4-Step Program to Treat Autoimmune Disease”, so we’ll not keep the four steps a secret; they are:

    1. Using food as medicine
    2. Understanding the stress connection
    3. Healing your gut and digestive system
    4. Optimizing liver function

    Each of these sections gives a primer in the relevant science, worksheets for personalizing your own plan to your own situation, condition, and goals, and of course lots of practical advice.

    This is important and perhaps the book’s greatest strength, since there are dozens of possible autoimmune conditions, and getting a professional diagnosis is often a long, arduous process. So while this book can’t necessarily speed that up, what it can do is give you a good head-start on managing your symptoms based on things that are most likely to help, and certainly, there will be no harm trying.

    While it’s not primarily a recipe book, there are also recipes targeting each part of the whole, as well as an extensive herb and supplement guide, before getting into lots of additional resources.

    Bottom line: if you are, or suspect you are, suffering from an autoimmune condition, the information in this book can make your life a lot easier.

    Click here to check out The Immune System Recovery Plan, and help yours to help you!

    Share This Post

  • The Best Way To Get Flexible, By Science

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Liv Townsend, of Livinleggings fame, comes bearing research papers:

    Little and often

    Science was done (references in the video), and found:

    • Stretching for 5 minutes or less total across the week? Not great results.
    • Stretching for between 5 and 10 minutes? Much better.
    • Stretching for more than 10 minutes? Little to no extra benefit.

    So, 5–10 minutes per week? That sounds easy. Shall we do it all on a Monday morning and get it over with?

    Nope, because the science also found:

    • Stretching six days a week gave the absolute best results.
    • Stretching three times per week also gave improvements.
    • Stretching once per week gave no significant improvements.

    So, spread out over several days per week, if not every day, seems ideal. Now, how long to spend per stretch? Research is consistent on this:

    • 30 seconds per stretch (holding the stretch) is the sweet spot.
    • 30 seconds is better than 15 seconds.
    • 60 seconds brings no extra benefit over 30 seconds, so don’t waste your time!*

    *Unless you want to, of course. Time you enjoyed wasting was not time wasted 🙂

    Now, will science tell us how many sets to do? Yes it will:

    • Doing two to four sets of each stretch produces the best gains.
    • After that, doing more sets doesn’t give extra flexibility.

    Example: Stretching Your Hamstrings

    Here’s how it would look:

    1. Hold a hamstring stretch for 30 seconds.
    2. Rest (or switch to the other leg).
    3. Repeat for three sets each side.

    This takes about three minutes total. Do this three times per week, and you’ve only spent nine minutes, yet you’ll see big flexibility gains!

    For more on all of this (including the actual study references), plus visual demonstrations of some other stretches for a more comprehensive stretching routine, enjoy:

    Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!

    Want to learn more?

    You might also like:

    Yoga Teacher: “If I wanted to get flexible (from scratch) in 2025, here’s what I’d do”

    Take care!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Why the WHO has recommended switching to a healthier salt alternative

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    This week the World Health Organization (WHO) released new guidelines recommending people switch the regular salt they use at home for substitutes containing less sodium.

    But what exactly are these salt alternatives? And why is the WHO recommending this? Let’s take a look.

    goodbishop/Shutterstock

    A new solution to an old problem

    Advice to eat less salt (sodium chloride) is not new. It has been part of international and Australian guidelines for decades. This is because evidence clearly shows the sodium in salt can harm our health when we eat too much of it.

    Excess sodium increases the risk of high blood pressure, which affects millions of Australians (around one in three adults). High blood pressure (hypertension) in turn increases the risk of heart disease, stroke and kidney disease, among other conditions.

    The WHO estimates 1.9 million deaths globally each year can be attributed to eating too much salt.

    The WHO recommends consuming no more than 2g of sodium daily. However people eat on average more than double this, around 4.3g a day.

    In 2013, WHO member states committed to reducing population sodium intake by 30% by 2025. But cutting salt intake has proved very hard. Most countries, including Australia, will not meet the WHO’s goal for reducing sodium intake by 2025. The WHO has since set the same target for 2030.

    The difficulty is that eating less salt means accepting a less salty taste. It also requires changes to established ways of preparing food. This has proved too much to ask of people making food at home, and too much for the food industry.

    A salt shaker spilling onto a table.
    There’s been little progress on efforts to cut sodium intake. snezhana k/Shutterstock

    Enter potassium-enriched salt

    The main lower-sodium salt substitute is called potassium-enriched salt. This is salt where some of the sodium chloride has been replaced with potassium chloride.

    Potassium is an essential mineral, playing a key role in all the body’s functions. The high potassium content of fresh fruit and vegetables is one of the main reasons they’re so good for you. While people are eating more sodium than they should, many don’t get enough potassium.

    The WHO recommends a daily potassium intake of 3.5g, but on the whole, people in most countries consume significantly less than this.

    Potassium-enriched salt benefits our health by cutting the amount of sodium we consume, and increasing the amount of potassium in our diets. Both help to lower blood pressure.

    Switching regular salt for potassium-enriched salt has been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease, stroke and premature death in large trials around the world.

    Modelling studies have projected that population-wide switches to potassium-enriched salt use would prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths from cardiovascular disease (such as heart attack and stroke) each year in China and India alone.

    The key advantage of switching rather than cutting salt intake is that potassium-enriched salt can be used as a direct one-for-one swap for regular salt. It looks the same, works for seasoning and in recipes, and most people don’t notice any important difference in taste.

    In the largest trial of potassium-enriched salt to date, more than 90% of people were still using the product after five years.

    A female nurse taking a senior man's blood pressure.
    Excess sodium intake increases the risk of high blood pressure, which can cause a range of health problems. PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock

    Making the switch: some challenges

    If fully implemented, this could be one of the most consequential pieces of advice the WHO has ever provided.

    Millions of strokes and heart attacks could be prevented worldwide each year with a simple switch to the way we prepare foods. But there are some obstacles to overcome before we get to this point.

    First, it will be important to balance the benefits and the risks. For example, people with advanced kidney disease don’t handle potassium well and so these products are not suitable for them. This is only a small proportion of the population, but we need to ensure potassium-enriched salt products are labelled with appropriate warnings.

    A key challenge will be making potassium-enriched salt more affordable and accessible. Potassium chloride is more expensive to produce than sodium chloride, and at present, potassium-enriched salt is mostly sold as a niche health product at a premium price.

    If you’re looking for it, salt substitutes may also be called low-sodium salt, potassium salt, heart salt, mineral salt, or sodium-reduced salt.

    A review published in 2021 found low sodium salts were marketed in only 47 countries, mostly high-income ones. Prices ranged from the same as regular salt to almost 15 times higher.

    An expanded supply chain that produces much more food-grade potassium chloride will be needed to enable wider availability of the product. And we’ll need to see potassium-enriched salt on the shelves next to regular salt so it’s easy for people to find.

    In countries like Australia, about 80% of the salt we eat comes from processed foods. The WHO guideline falls short by not explicitly prioritising a switch for the salt used in food manufacturing.

    Stakeholders working with government to encourage food industry uptake will be essential for maximising the health benefits.

    Xiaoyue (Luna) Xu, Scientia Lecturer, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney and Bruce Neal, Executive Director, George Institute Australia, George Institute for Global Health

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Bamboo Shoots vs Tomato – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing bamboo shoots to tomato, we picked the bamboo.

    Why?

    Both are great! But…

    In terms of macros, bamboo has 2x the fiber, 3x the protein, and slightly more carbs, winning in this category.

    In the category of vitamins, bamboo has more of vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B7, E, while tomato has more of vitamins A, B9, and C, yielding a 7:3 win to bamboo.

    Looking at minerals, bamboo has more calcium, copper, iron, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc, while tomatoes have more magnesium, making this round an 8:1 win for bamboo.

    In other considerations, tomatoes are famously a good source of lycopene, which is one point in their favor.

    Adding up the sections makes for a clear overall win for bamboo, but by all means do enjoy either or both, as diversity is best!

    Want to learn more?

    You might like:

    Enjoy!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: