Worried after sunscreen recalls? Here’s how to choose a safe one
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.
Most of us know sunscreen is a key way to protect areas of our skin not easily covered by clothes from excessive ultraviolet (UV) radiation.
But it’s been a rough year for sunscreens.
In June, testing by Choice identified 16 products on Australian shelves that don’t provide the SPF protection they claimed.
In July, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) released a review recommending the amount of certain chemical ingredients allowed in sunscreens should be lowered.
Since then, several other sunscreens have been recalled or are under review, either due to manufacturing defects or concerns about poor SPF cover.
All this has left many of us feeling confused about which sunscreens are safe, effective and do what they say on the label.
Here’s what you need to know so you can stay safe this summer.
The good news first
There’s very little evidence sunscreens cause cancer and plenty of evidence they prevent skin cancer.
This is vital in Australia, where two in three people will get skin cancer at some point in their lives.
One randomised controlled trial in Queensland, run over four and a half years between 1992 and 1996, asked 1,621 people to either use sunscreen every day or continue their usual use (usually one or two days a week or not at all).
It found using sunscreen every day reduced the numbers of squamous cell carcinomas by 40%, compared to the group that didn’t change their habits. Ten years after the study, the number of invasive melanomas was reduced by 73% in the daily sunscreen group.
Significantly, this study was conducted in the 90s using SPF 16 sunscreen. Modern sunscreens are expected to routinely provide SPF 30+ or 50+ protection.
Companies should provide the SPF levels they’re advertising. But this research shows even sub-par sunscreen (by modern standards) provides significant protection with daily use.
Making sure SPF claims stack up
In Australia, the TGA regulates how SPF is assessed in sunscreens, but doesn’t do the testing itself. Instead, companies perform or outsource the testing, which must be done on human skin, and provide the TGA with their results.
But when Choice independently tested 20 Australian sunscreens, it found 16 did not meet the SPF factor on the label.
An ABC investigation pinpointed two potential sources of the problems: a poor quality base ingredient manufactured by Wild Child Laboratories, and suspicious SPF testing data from Princeton Consumer Research, which many of the brands relied on.
The TGA has since recommended that people stop using 21 products that contain the Wild Child base, listed here.
What about the chemical ingredients?
The TGA regularly reviews scientific research to make sure Australian sunscreens keep up with advances in safety and effectiveness. To be sold in Australia, sunscreens must use active ingredients from a specific list, limited at maximum concentrations.
July’s safety review found evidence that two permitted ingredients – homosalate and oxybenzone – can cause hormone disruptions in some animals exposed to high doses for a long time. These doses were far higher than someone would be exposed to from sunscreen – even at the maximum usage – thanks to the TGA’s ingredient limits.
Still, chemical risks are managed strictly. The amount absorbed during consistent, high-dose sunscreen use, year-round, must be less than 1% of the dose known to cause problems in animals.
The new results suggest that absorption could go over this “margin of safety”. So the TGA has recommended the amount allowed be reduced.
Homosalate and oxybenzone are not being banned, and you don’t need to throw out sunscreens containing these ingredients.
But if the idea of using them makes you nervous, you can check ingredient lists and buy sunscreens without them.
What should I look for in a sunscreen?
When buying a sunscreen there are four non-negotiables. It must have:
- 30+ or 50+ SPF
- broad spectrum UV protection (filters both UVB and UVA rays)
- water-resistant (for staying power in Australia’s sweaty climate)
- TGA approval mark on the packaging (“AUST L” followed by a number).
Sunscreen only works if you use it, so choose a sunscreen you like enough to actually wear.
There are milks, gels and creams, unscented, matte, tinted and many other varieties. Since faces are often the most sensitive, many people use a specialty sunscreen for the face and a cheaper, general one for the rest of the body.
Spray-on sunscreen is not recommended, however, because it’s too hard to apply enough.
You need to apply more than you think
Sunscreen works best when you apply it 20 minutes before you go into the sun, and reapply every two hours and after swimming, sport or towel drying.
How you apply it affects how well it works. You need about one teaspoon each for:
- your face and neck
- back
- chest and abdomen
- each arm and leg.
It’s also common to miss your ears, hands, feet and back of the neck – don’t forget these either.
Sunscreen usually lasts two to three years stored below 30°C, so keep an eye on the use-by date and follow any instructions about shaking before use.
If the sunscreen seems to have separated into thinner and thicker layers even after shaking, the ingredients providing SPF may not be mixed evenly throughout and might not work properly.
But remember – sunscreen isn’t a suit of armour
If you’re planning to be out in the sun for more than a few minutes at a time, slip on sun-protective clothing and slap on a hat. Use sunscreen to protect the areas you can’t easily cover.
Slide on sunnies and seek shade where possible to complete your sun-protection practice for a burn-free summer.
Katie Lee, Postdoctoral Researcher, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland
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!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Scheduling Tips for Overrunning Tasks
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.
Your Questions, Our Answers!
Q: Often I schedule time for things, but the task takes longer than I think, or multiplies while I’m doing it, and then my schedule gets thrown out. Any ideas?
A: A relatable struggle! Happily, there are remedies:
- Does the task really absolutely need to be finished today? If not, just continue it in scheduled timeslots until it’s completed.
- Some tasks do indeed need to be finished today (hi, writer of a daily newsletter here!), so it can be useful to have an idea of how long things really take, in advance. While new tasks can catch us unawares, recurring or similar-to-previous tasks can be estimated based on how long they took previously. For this reason, we recommend doing a time audit every now and again, to see how you really use your time.
- A great resource that you should include in your schedule is a “spare” timeslot, ideally at least one per day. Call it a “buffer” or a “backup” or whatever (in my schedule it’s labelled “discretionary”), but the basic idea is that it’s a scheduled timeslot with nothing scheduled in it, and it works as an “overflow” catch-all.
Additionally:
- You can usually cut down the time it takes you to do tasks by setting “Deep Work” rules for yourself. For example: cut out distractions, single-task, work in for example 25-minute bursts with 5-minute breaks, etc
- You can also usually cut down the time it takes you to do tasks by making sure you’re prepared for them. Not just task-specific preparation, either! A clear head on, plenty of energy, the resources you’ll need (including refreshments!) to hand, etc can make a huge difference to efficiency.
See Also: Time Optimism and the Planning Fallacy
Do you have a question you’d like to see answered here? Hit reply or use the feedback widget at the bottom; we’d love to hear from you!
Share This Post
-
Built to Move – by Kelly starrett & Juliet Starrett
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.
In our everyday lives, for most of us anyway, it’s not too important to be able to run a marathon or leg-press a car. Rather more important, however, are such things as:
- being able to get up from the floor comfortably
- reach something on a high shelf without twinging a shoulder
- being able to put our socks on without making a whole plan around this task
- get accidentally knocked by an energetic dog or child and not put our back out
- etc
Starrett and Starrett, of “becoming a supple leopard” fame, lay out for us how to make sure our mobility stays great. And, if it’s not already where it needs to be, how to get there.
The “ten essential habits” mentioned in the subtitle “ten essential habits to help you move freely and live fully”, in fact also come with ten tests. No, not in the sense of arduous trials, but rather, mobility tests.
For each test, it’s explained to us how to score it out of ten (this is an objective assessment, not subjective). It’s then explained how to “level up” whatever score we got, with different advices for different levels of mobility or immobility. And if we got a ten, then of course, we just build the appropriate recommended habit into our daily life, to keep it that way.
The writing style is casual throughout, and a strong point of the book is its very clear illustrations, too.
Bottom line: if you’d like to gain/maintain good mobility (at any age), this book gives a very reliable outline for doing so.
Click here to check out Built to Move, and take care of your body!
Share This Post
-
Xylitol vs Erythritol – 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 xylitol to erythritol, we picked the xylitol.
Why?
They’re both sugar alcohols, which so far as the body is concerned are neither sugars nor alcohols in the way those words are commonly understood; it’s just a chemical term. The sugars aren’t processed as such by the body and are passed as dietary fiber, and nor is there any intoxicating effect as one might expect from an alcohol.
In terms of macronutrients, while technically they both have carbs, for all functional purposes they don’t and just have a little fiber.
In terms of micronutrients, they don’t have any.
The one thing that sets them apart is their respective safety profiles. Xylitol is prothrombotic and associated with major adverse cardiac events (CI=95, adjusted hazard ratio=1.57, range=1.12-2.21), while erythritol is also prothrombotic and more strongly associated with major adverse cardiac events (CI=95, adjusted hazard ratio=2.21, range=1.20-4.07).
So, xylitol is bad and erythritol is worse, which means the relatively “healthier” is xylitol. We don’t recommend either, though.
Studies for both:
- Xylitol is prothrombotic and associated with cardiovascular risk
- The artificial sweetener erythritol and cardiovascular event risk
Links for the specific products we compared, in case our assessment hasn’t put you off them:
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
- The WHO’s New View On Sugar-Free Sweeteners ← the WHO’s advice is “don’t”
- Stevia vs Acesulfame Potassium – Which is Healthier? ← stevia’s pretty much the healthiest artificial sweetener around, though, if you’re going to use one
- The Fascinating Truth About Aspartame, Cancer, & Neurotoxicity ← under the cold light of science, aspartame isn’t actually as bad as it was painted a few decades ago, mostly by a viral hoax letter. Per the WHO’s advice, it’s still good to avoid sweeteners in general, however.
Take care!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Apricot vs Mango – 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 apricots to mango, we picked the apricots.
Why?
In terms of macros, apricots have more fiber and protein, while mangos have more carbs. An easy win for apricots.
In the category of vitamins, apricots have more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B5, B7, and E, while mangos have more of vitamins B3, B6, B9, C, K, and choline, making a 6:6 tie in this round.
When it comes to minerals, apricots have more calcium, copper, iron, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc, while mangos have more copper and selenium. A clear win for apricots.
Looking at other considerations, apricots have specific anticancer properties that mangos can’t claim, so that’s another point in apricots’ favor.
Adding up the sections makes for a clear overall win for apricots, but by all means enjoy either or both; diversity is good!
Want to learn more?
You might like:
Top 8 Fruits That Prevent & Kill Cancer
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:
-
HRT Cycling: Should You Do It?
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.
It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!
Have a question or a request? We love to hear from you!
In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!
As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!
So, no question/request too big or small 😎
❝I started HRT about 6 months ago, I take it every day, but now I’m reading there may be some benefits to skipping days like with birth control, to simulate a cycle. What does science say about this?❞
We will start by assuming that you began HRT at clinical menopause, that is to say, one year after your last period, or else that you began it after that point, not before. We realize this assumption may be incorrect, but it affects the answer, as we will explain, so it’s necessary to state this assumption up-front.
With that in mind…
The quickest and easiest answer is that if everything is fine as it is, there’s no need to fix what isn’t broken! That is to say, if you are not experiencing menopause symptoms, your serum hormone levels are equivalent to a normal premenopausal average, and you are not experiencing vaginal bleeding, then probably all is well.
With regard to “vaginal bleeding”, we do use those words and not “menstruation” in this case, because not all vaginal bleeding is menstruation.
Within the first 6 months or so postmenopause, it’s very common to have a brief, light, reprise of menstruation. There’s no egg involved, but your uterus (assuming you have one) will be cued to shed its lining as before. Obviously, this won’t happen if you’ve had a hysterectomy—but you may still get other period symptoms, including cramps in the uterus you don’t have.
You may be wondering how this latter happens: hormones are just messengers, and will deliver their message as best they can. In the case of having an important message to deliver to the uterus, and there being no uterus there to receive it, the message will be left with the nearest tissue resembling the uterus, which is the very similar (almost identical, in fact) smooth muscle of the gut. Which will then cramp, because it got instructions saying “cramp now”.
For more on that, see: HRT Side Effects & Troubleshooting
Later postmenopause, you should not be bleeding down there, at all, ever, and if you are, it’s cause for concern. Not cause for panic though; just, concern. The reason for such bleeding may be anything from fibroids to endometrial cancer, and it’s worth getting check out.
For more information about that, see: When A Period Is Very Late (Post-Menopause)
Non-bleeding period symptoms can (and often will) still occur in the case of taking menopausal HRT, even without cycling (i.e., skipping a few consecutive days each month; exact number of days may vary from prescriber to prescriber, but is invariably 3–7 days, with 5 days being common).
The reason for this is because even if you’re taking the hormones at the same amounts each day, your hypothalamus can and will influence the body’s use of those hormones (e.g. how much to metabolize). Premenopause, it is your hypothalamus, and not your uterus, your ovaries, or the phase of the moon, that regulates the monthly hormonal cycle. So, it can (and often will) do that in cases of treated menopause, just the same. Your hypothalamus neither knows nor cares whether your estrogen came from your ovaries or the pharmacy, and will treat it just the same.
That said, just because the hypothalamus regulates hormone metabolism doesn’t mean that you can just give it any amount because the hypothalamus will regulate it; it can still get overwhelmed if you do give it far too much to work with. See for example: What Happens If Your Estrogen Gets Too High? ← but this is much, much rarer than having too little
What if I began HRT pre-menopause?
Including: if pre-menopause you had hormonal birth control, and now have shifted your HRT up a gear into full menopausal HRT (the doses for this are typically orders of magnitude higher than the doses for birth control).
In this case, yes, regretfully (because it’s not fun), there is a case for hormone cycling, just as there was during birth control. The reason for this is less because it’s important to get the symptoms, and more because it’s best to not impede the body’s natural process of menstruation, as stopping it while it still has eggs to send forth can increase the risks of various things going wrong (including PCOS and endometriosis).
You can read more about that, here: Contraception meets HRT: seeking optimal management of the perimenopause
However, once you find you have stopped menstruation (i.e. even if other period symptoms persist, there is no more monthly bleeding), there should be no reason not to just take your HRT daily.
Last thing: good HRT management involves regular testing of your hormone levels. You should have a blood test done before any change to your HRT regime, and 1–3 months after the change to it, to check the difference. And if you’re not making any changes to your HRT regime (i.e. you have been taking the same dose with acceptable blood levels for many months and are just staying on this now), then you should still get a blood test every 6 months or so, just to be sure that nothing’s going off-piste and everything’s still working the same.
Want to learn more?
You might like this excellent book that we reviewed a while back:
The Menopause Manifesto – by Dr. Jen Gunter
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:
-
Addiction Myths That Are Hard To Quit
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.
Which Addiction-Quitting Methods Work Best?
In Tuesday’s newsletter we asked you what, in your opinion, is the best way to cure an addiction. We got the above-depicted, below-described, interesting distribution of responses:
- About 29% said: “Addiction cannot be cured; once an addict, always an addict”
- About 26% said “Cold turkey (stop 100% and don’t look back)”
- About 17% said “Gradually reduce usage over an extended period of time”
- About 11% said “A healthier, but somewhat like-for-like, substitution”
- About 9% said “Therapy (whether mainstream, like CBT, or alternative, like hypnosis)”
- About 6% said “Peer support programs and/or community efforts (e.g. church etc)”
- About 3% said “Another method (mention it in the comment field)” and then did not mention it in the comment field
So what does the science say?
Addiction cannot be cured; once an addict, always an addict: True or False?
False, which some of the people who voted for it seemed to know, as some went on to add in the comment field what they thought was the best way to overcome the addiction.
The widespread belief that “once an addict, always an addict” is a “popular truism” in the same sense as “once a cheater, always a cheater”. It’s an observation of behavioral probability phrased as a strong generalization, but it’s not actually any kind of special unbreakable law of the universe.
And, certainly the notion that one cannot be cured keeps membership in many 12-step programs and similar going—because if you’re never cured, then you need to stick around.
However…
❝What is the definition of addiction?
Addiction is a treatable, chronic medical disease involving complex interactions among brain circuits, genetics, the environment, and an individual’s life experiences. People with addiction use substances or engage in behaviors that become compulsive and often continue despite harmful consequences.
Prevention efforts and treatment approaches for addiction are generally as successful as those for other chronic diseases.❞
~ American Society of Addiction Medicine
Or if we want peer-reviewed source science, rather than appeal to mere authority as above, then:
❝What is drug addiction?
Addiction is defined as a chronic, relapsing disorder characterized by compulsive drug seeking and use despite adverse consequences. It is considered a brain disorder, because it involves functional changes to brain circuits involved in reward, stress, and self-control. Those changes may last a long time after a person has stopped taking drugs.
Addiction is a lot like other diseases, such as heart disease. Both disrupt the normal, healthy functioning of an organ in the body, both have serious harmful effects, and both are, in many cases, preventable and treatable.❞
~ Nora D. Volkow (Director, National Institute of Drug Abuse)
Read more: Drugs, Brains, and Behavior: The Science of Addiction
In short: part of the definition of addiction is the continued use; if the effects of the substance are no longer active in your physiology, and you are no longer using, then you are not addicted.
Just because you would probably become addicted again if you used again does not make you addicted when neither the substance nor its after-effects are remaining in your body. Otherwise, we could define all people as addicted to all things based on “well if they use in the future they will probably become addicted”.
This means: the effects of addiction can and often will last for long after cessation of use, but ultimately, addiction can be treated and cured.
(yes, you should still abstain from the thing to which you were formerly addicted though, or you indeed most probably will become addicted again)
Cold turkey is best: True or False?
True if and only if certain conditions are met, and then only for certain addictions. For all other situations… False.
To decide whether cold turkey is a safe approach (before even considering “effective”), the first thing to check is how dangerous the withdrawal symptoms are. In some cases (e.g. alcohol, cocaine, heroin, and others), the withdrawal symptoms can kill.
That doesn’t mean they will kill, so knowing (or being!) someone who quit this way does not refute this science by counterexample. The mortality rates that we saw while researching varied from 8% to 37%, so most people did not die, but do you really want (yourself or a loved one) to play those odds unnecessarily?
See also: Detoxification and Substance Abuse Treatment
Even in those cases where it is considered completely safe for most people to quit cold turkey, such as smoking, it is only effective when the quitter has appropriate reliable medical support, e.g.
- Without support: 3–5% success rate
- With support: 22% success rate
And yes, that 22% was for the “abrupt cessation” group; the “gradual cessation” group had a success rate of 15.5%. On which note…
Gradual reduction is the best approach: True or False?
False based on the above data, in the case of addictions where abrupt cessation is safe. True in other cases where abrupt cessation is not safe.
Because if you quit abruptly and then die from the withdrawal symptoms, then well, technically you did stay off the substance for the rest of your life, but we can’t really claim that as a success!
A healthier, but somewhat like-for-like substitution is best: True or False?
True where such is possible!
This is why, for example, medical institutions recommend the use of buprenorphine (e.g. Naloxone) in the case of opioid addiction. It’s a partial opioid receptor agonist, meaning it does some of the job of opioids, while being less dangerous:
It’s also why vaping—despite itself being a health hazard—is recommended as a method of quitting smoking:
Similarly, “zero alcohol drinks that seem like alcohol” are a popular way to stop drinking alcohol, alongside other methods:
This is also why it’s recommended that if you have multiple addictions, to quit one thing at a time, unless for example multiple doctors are telling you otherwise for some specific-to-your-situation reason.
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:
