Talk:Sunscreen

EU vs. EC in Tables of Approved and Allowable Ingredients

The tables use "EC" without defining the term, and in some cells use "EU". There are a variety of sets of countries in Europe that are formed from the various treaties. For example Russia is part of treaties setting up a coordinated legal system in Europe, though it is not part of the European Union and is not a Eurozone country. I think term used needs to be consistent both internal to the wiki page, but also consistent with the international terms used to define the various sets of countries in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.248.129.125 (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. For now, the tables are edited to say "EU" consistently, matching the text of the article and the cited Regulation No. 1223/2009. If anyone is confident that we should say "EC" in some places, please go ahead and make whichever corrections are needed, and/or post further comments here. —Patrug (talk) 10:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for more information in the approved sunscreens table

It would be great if we had some more properties of each of the sunscreens in the table of FDA approved compounds. I'd particularly like to see which parts of the UV spectrum each compound blocks. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.72.141.179 (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Belated thanks for your suggestion. The table now has extra columns indicating UVA & UVB protection. —Patrug (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Star Rating System

It appears that someone working to promote a company has filled this article with self promotion (Boots UK). I have removed irrelevant company spiel about legal terms and conditions of licencing the star rating system (incomplete nonsense, every company has their own and Boots hasn't invented a national standard) and I've tagged to request citations for unverified claims. Overall though, I question the relevance of the whole two paragraphs about "Boots UK" and their in-house star rating system since it is misleading, only marginally relevant and doesn't increase the understanding of this topic for the average user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.72.66 (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I further tweaked the wording and added a published reference that supports the relevance of the rating system. Hope this helps. —Patrug (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sunscreen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tga.gov.au///npmeds/sunscreen-zotd.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dsm.com/en_US/html/dnpus/pe_parsol_340.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Removed nanopartical concerns

A 23 July 2014 revision added references to the health concerns about nanoparticles in sunscreen, and removed the mention that zinc oxide and titanium dioxide described as possible health concerns are nanoparticles. As I've spent the past 20 minutes researching old revisions to see when Wikipedia dropped the *entire* discussion of possible nanoparticle toxicity, I would say this *could be* confusing.

Further, the information as presented is misleading: zinc oxide and titanium dioxide as macroparticles are known harmless; the health concerns centered entirely around whether nano-sized particles of these same compounds would migrate through skin cell membranes and cause DNA damage, and information broadly claiming that these compounds do not cause such damage doesn't appear to specify. In other words: a reader may interpret this as not addressing nanoparticles and conclude no information is presented (thus nanoparticles are possibly dangerous and Wikipedia doesn't carry any information about said danger), or as addressing nanoparticles and conclude they are presented as non-dangerous (thus Wikipedia implies such information).

I would ask future editors to locate such information and provide the modern scientific standpoint on the issue as a complete statement. --John Moser (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Good suggestion, thanks. I updated the "Potential risks" section of the article with a (somewhat) clearer quote from the TGA reference. —Patrug (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

SPF math

"The actual combined SPF is always lower than the square of the single-layer SPF."

This isn't precisely true. It's always less than or equal to it. For example, it is equal if MPF is a constant with wavelength. For practical materials, the statement might be true, but whoever wrote this is claiming that it follows from the equation. It does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B008:B3DF:5811:D3DD:2371:8CF7 (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

In practice, MPF is never constant with wavelength – and if the two layers are chemically different, then the combined SPF can actually be higher than the square of the single-layer SPF. Nevertheless, I think your revised wording is reasonable, and I added a reference link. —Patrug (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I removed this:

> The above means that the SPF is not simply the inverse of the transmittance in the UVB region. If that were true, then applying two layers of SPF 5 sunscreen would always be equivalent to SPF 25 (5 times 5).

Where "above" refers to the equation (ratio of two integrals over wavelength). These sentences were conflating the (1) the fact that the MPF varies by wavelength, and so is not simply the inverse of the SPF with (2) the fact that additional layers are sub-multiplicative (that two SPF 5 layers is less protection than SPF 25).

These facts, though true enough when narrowly construed, are both different than the motivation for restricting high SPF claims, which are more related to the need for frequent re-application regardless of SPF and the difficulty of assuring even coverage. Jess_Riedel (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Lycopene and other natural sunblocks

What isn't mentioned in the article is lycopene and some other ingredients found in natural sunblocks (like coconut oil, shea butter).

Also, the data surrounding toxicology of different ingredients is thin in this article. I've found that retinyl palmitate and oxybenzone are viewed as unsafe by some (see http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/18/avoid-the-toxic-sunscreen-try-coconut-oil-instead/ and https://www.ewg.org/skindeep/ingredient/705545/RETINYL_PALMITATE_(VITAMIN_A_PALMITATE)/ ) as well as zinc and titanium nanoparticles also often found in the sunscreens (see http://naturalsociety.com/ditch-toxic-sunscreen-use-coconut-oil-instead/ ). Some sources even say that skin cancer risk is increased when using (non natural) sunblocks, compared to not using it at all, while remaining in the sun. Other sources then again dispute some of these findings, see https://www.aad.org/media/news-releases/analysis-finds-sunscreens-containing-retinyl-palmitate-do-not-cause-skin-cancer The sources aren't the best quality, and some of the toxicity of used ingredients might be exagerated, but the fact that natural sunblock ingredients aren't even mentioned in this article, or that the claimed risks (and the disputes) aren't mentioned neither means that this article needs a lot of improvement. KVDP (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@KVDP:: Thanks for your thoughts, many of which were heavily discussed for this article in 2008–2012 (see Talk:Sunscreen/Archive 2). The article's sections on Health effects (Benefits, Potential risks) now summarize the current state of understanding from WP:Reliable medical sources, which is the key Wikipedia guideline highlighted at the top of this Talk page. Our statement that "sunscreen use can help prevent skin cancer" was written by an expert physician and is footnoted to four recent medical publications (2011–2014) that reviewed all the previous research and satisfied the reliability criteria. The reduced cancer risk is no longer a major dispute in the medical profession, but I just added "After years of intense study and debate" to our article to show that we haven't ignored it.

The table of Active ingredients shows that 5–10% oxybenzone is currently deemed safe & effective by researchers & regulators around the world, while retinyl palmitate (an approved cosmetic) is not approved as an active ingredient in sunscreen. Our article prominently mentions zinc & titanium nanoparticles as Potential risks, even though "the current weight of evidence suggests" no adverse effects for users.

Coconut oil and shea butter can certainly be effective skin moisturizers, but I don't know of any WP:Reliable medical sources showing they (or lycopene) are effective for sunscreen. Until we have such sources, it's hard to justify adding these substances to the article.

Hope this helps a bit. —Patrug (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

We state the conclusions of the best avaliable sources as fact. This source[1] is not useful to support anything as it is so low quality. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc. Summarizing one of our Skin Cancer Foundation refs, I added a phrase to the History section ("overcoming later concerns"), as an appropriately balanced allusion to the historical sunscreen-melanoma-UVA debate that's still fairly prominent despite the newer studies. I think a minimal acknowledgment of decades of historical concerns will strengthen our credibility with readers, not weaken it. According to WP:MEDMOS#Sections, the History section is the right place for things like "early discoveries, historical figures, and outdated treatments" – hope you're ok with that. —Patrug (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments about history of article development since 2014

I was looking over this article thinking of making changes. As I looked, I checked the article history to see how stable the article as been, whether there were any unresolved controversies, and what major changes anyone has made recently. Here are some notes about the article's history:

• In December 2016 OlamideA added some information about nanoparticles and Patrug along with others reviewed that and other parts of the article
• In August 2016 Patrug added restored information about FDA label guidelines and other things
• Beland in May 2016 commented about SPF over 50 which is recurring controversy that comes up about health benefits for higher SPF. There is no reference here and it seems like there is demand for clarity on this point
• Philologick in April 2016 shared popular press discusses sunscreen harming fertility and Doc James removed it. Per WP:MEDRS Wikipedia does not publish health claims from popular press and instead prefers academic papers. I checked PubMed to see if there were obvious science papers discussing this and I found
  • Maipas, S; Nicolopoulou-Stamati, P (2015). "Sun lotion chemicals as endocrine disruptors". Hormones (Athens, Greece). 14 (1): 32–46. PMID 25885102.

There might be something to mention here but I do not think this is established as a major concern and the popular press saying "common sunscreen ingredients mess with sperm" is too vague for wiki

• A pharmacy chain in the UK has its own sunscreen rating system and an IP editor removed this content in January 2016. I think Wikipedia should be cautious in using meaningful ratings systems if there are multiple systems in circulation with some being proprietary and for marketing.
• In September 2015 some IP editor added an unsourced statement to the lead about tanning powder in sunscreen, whatever that is. I just removed this April 2017. I see no evidence that this additive is a common part of sunscreen. All the information in this article about ingredients could be checked.
• In September 2015 there was a back-and-forth dispute about removing content about risks. The user who wanted this gone was an IP editor who did not leave notes about the reason for their opposition to this content.
• In May 2015 Rodolfo Baraldini noted that zinc oxide is not approved for sun protection in Europe. Currently the Wikipedia article says that it is approved in Europe, and also says that it has some kind of environmental danger, and also says that it is a common component. Perhaps the Wikipedia article could be checked for consistency. I cannot quickly see if everything is in order.
• In summer 2014 several editors contributed to a substantial re-write of the article. Doc James and Patrug were major contributors then and since.

Based on these observations, my opinion is that this article has been developing over time in the usual wiki way. I did not see any quality information which had been mistakenly removed since 2014 and I feel like multiple users watch this article. Looking at the history makes me more comfortable to jump in and make changes. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Sure, jump in. As you noticed, the references are a ragged assortment of high-quality medical citations and lower-quality popular media, reflecting the article's large & diverse readership and commercial interest. (During peak season, there are 1,000+ page views per day.) So, if you're uncertain about anything, or considering major changes, feel free to break them down into bite-size pieces, notify previous editors, and discuss first on the Talk page, as you've just done ;-) Patrug (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

That was a very thorough review! I added a reference for the claim that the FDA had not adopted the SPF 50 rule. Thanks for pointing out that was unsupported. -- Beland (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

On the zinc oxide question, there are complications from different regulations for "health" versus "cosmetic" use, and for nano versus traditional particle size, in addition to all the usual variations across different countries and years. I think the current version of our article is accurate on this, but there might still be room to explain a complicated situation more clearly. —Patrug (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Sources for global perspective

• Osterwalder, Uli; Sohn, Myriam; Herzog, Bernd (April 2014). "Global state of sunscreens". Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine. 30 (2–3): 62–80. doi:10.1111/phpp.12112.

This source has lots of interesting information including a description of typical sunscreen components, discussion of regional variation, and some beginner explanations of the physics of how sunscreen works.

• Schalka, S; Reis, VM (2011). "Sun protection factor: meaning and controversies" (PDF). Anais brasileiros de dermatologia. 86 (3): 507–15. PMID 21738968.

This source includes the history of the introduction of various sunscreen components.

• Osterwalder, U.; Herzog, B. (November 2009). "Sun protection factors: world wide confusion". British Journal of Dermatology. 161: 13–24. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2009.09506.x.

This one establishes that the industry confuses consumers with weird marketing.

• Cole, C (April 2014). "Sunscreens--what is the ideal testing model?". Photodermatology, photoimmunology & photomedicine. 30 (2–3): 81–7. PMID 24313596.

This includes a history of sunscreen testing models.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I am seeing sources cite this text.

• Shaath, Nadim, ed. (2005). Sunscreens : regulations and commercial development (3 ed.). Boca Raton, Fl.: Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0824757946.

This book is about 1000 pages with each of 48 chapters written by a different expert. Perhaps 50-100% of the chapters address a topic which ought to be covered in this Wikipedia article. As I look at this I think this might be the best available source material for developing this article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Measurements of sunscreen efficacy for UVA

I am trying to make sense of the content in this article about regional variations in measuring sunscreen efficacy for UVA. Here is the stable version of the article which has existed for a long time, and which has been stable for 2014-2017 at least.

• Old revision of Sunscreen April 2017

Here is that section cut out to make it easier to see -

cut content

Persistent pigment darkening The persistent pigment darkening (PPD) method is a method of measuring UVA protection, similar to the SPF method of measuring sunburn protection. Originally developed in Japan, it is the preferred method used by manufacturers such as L'Oréal. Instead of measuring erythema or reddening of the skin, the PPD method uses UVA radiation to cause a persistent darkening or tanning of the skin. Theoretically, a sunscreen with a PPD rating of 10 should allow a person 10 times as much UVA exposure as would be without protection. The PPD method is an in vivo test like SPF. In addition, Colipa has introduced a method that, it is claimed, can measure this in vitro and provide parity with the PPD method. SPF equivalence The UVA seal used in the EU A tube of SPF 15 sun lotion As part of revised guidelines for sunscreens in the EU, there is a requirement to provide the consumer with a minimum level of UVA protection in relation to the SPF. This should be a "UVA PF" of at least 1/3 of the SPF to carry the UVA seal. A set of final US FDA rules effective from summer 2012 defines the phrase "broad spectrum" as providing UVA protection proportional to the UVB protection, using a standardized testing method. Star rating system In the UK and Ireland, the Boots star rating system is a proprietary in vitro method used to describe the ratio of UVA to UVB protection offered by sunscreen creams and sprays. Based on original work by Brian Diffey at Newcastle University, the Boots Company in Nottingham, UK, developed a method that has been widely adopted by companies marketing these products in the UK. One-star products provide the lowest ratio of UVA protection, five-star products the highest. The method was recently revised in light of the Colipa UVA PF test and the revised EU recommendations regarding UVA PF. The method still uses a spectrophotometer to measure absorption of UVA versus UVB; the difference stems from a requirement to pre-irradiate samples (where this was not previously required) to give a better indication of UVA protection and photostability when the product is used. With the current methodology, the lowest rating is three stars, the highest being five stars. In August 2007, the FDA put out for consultation the proposal that a version of this protocol be used to inform users of American product of the protection that it gives against UVA; but this was not adopted, for fear it would be too confusing. PA system Asian brands, particularly Japanese ones, tend to use The Protection Grade of UVA (PA) system to measure the UVA protection that a sunscreen provides. The PA system is based on the PPD reaction and is now widely adopted on the labels of sunscreens. According to the Japan Cosmetic Industry Association, PA+ corresponds to a UVA protection factor between two and four, PA++ between four and eight, and PA+++ more than eight. This system was revised in 2013 to include PA++++ which corresponds to a PPD rating of sixteen or above. References

I think this section is problematic for the following reasons:

1. This section goes into greater detail about regional variations in sunscreen measurement systems than existing publications discussing the topic. Comparisons of regional measurements is an odd and academic thing to discuss because neither consumers nor industry professionals are likely to care about the difference. Consumers only want a product which works and industry professionals only care about their own marketing region. If a comparison were made then it would be for research. Among all the weight of the literature in circulation, comparing efficacy systems seems to not be a priority, yet in this Wikipedia article an overview of the different systems is currently getting a lot of weight.
2. This is low quality content due to poor citations. One citation is to a United States government guide for consumers, which I would consider to be low quality for this purpose, and the other sources are even less robust including a pop science radio show, a dead link to paywall for an academic paper, a dead link to an industry consortium website, and the Daily Mail. This section also contains discussion of the European Union, the United Kingdom specifically and Japan. I think some of the Australia information elsewhere refers to UVA. For all mentions of these countries there are missing citations.

It is hard for me to sort my thoughts about so much information but I think this content is not well placed in the article. I would have cut this information outright except that I do want something about UVA in the article and I cannot find a source I like which says anything I can easily understand about UVA limits or trends. In the United States the FDA said in 2011 that UVA protection should be proportionate to UVB protection for broad spectrum sunscreens, but I have no reason to believe that anything similar happens elsewhere or even in the United States. This might be outdated information.

If anyone has ideas for simplifying this UVA section then I would like suggestions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Since UVA sunscreen measurement doesn't yet have an international standard comparable to SPF, perhaps instead of a long section with ~8 paragraphs, it should be condensed closer to being a paragraph with ~8 cleanly-cited sentences merely outlining the different major systems. (Even now, the article is mostly just trying to describe them, not compare them.) At the same time, lack of global standardization doesn't mean a lack of global importance. We shouldn't go too far in minimizing the topic, since broad-spectrum UVA/UVB protection is indeed important, mentioned in several sections of the article, messy from a global perspective (I like your "world wide confusion" reference above), and a source of major historical controversies whose remnants appear in the sections on Potential risks, Active ingredients, History, and Research. For the years around 2008 (not covered by your Comments above), arguments about sunscreen and UVA-related cancers largely dominated the article's Edit history and Talk archives. Let's keep at least enough info to answer basic questions from consumers who might be curious about a sunscreen label or news story. —Patrug (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Patrug Thanks for the feedback. I looked over the "world wide confusion" article, and it does list the UVA measurement standards currently described in the article. It compares them also. I will look it over and see what I can do. I do not want to talk about specific systems, but I think noting that there is no one system and listing various systems is appropriate. I also would like to cut this to around a paragraph here mostly on the basis of lack of sources. I would not oppose anyone starting a new article just for sunscreen efficacy measuring, because it seems that there is a lot published on that topic.

I looked in the archives to see if I could surface any forgotten good sources. The talk archives repeatedly have discussions about UVA arising since the beginning, but I never saw sources that I liked. I am still going with this, thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Sunscreen and prevention of skin aging: a randomized trial

I removed this from the lead. Patrug re-added it. Let's talk.

Diligent use of sunscreen can also slow or temporarily prevent the development of wrinkles and sagging skin.

References

As a clinical trial this fails WP:MEDRS so typically we would not make a medical claim, like "use this product for this health reason...". I checked PubMed to see if there was a more robust study because it is a plausible claim, but I did not find anything else. I think this particular paper is talking about white people and not everyone, so if we keep it somehow then we have to clarify this.

I say remove the claim and study from entire article - thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge of Potential health risks of sunscreen

Potential health risks of sunscreen was merged here in July 2015. Here is a version of that article with a lot of content.

• Old revision of Potential health risks of sunscreen

The merge happened without much discussion. I agree with the merge because so much content in that version of the article was poorly sourced. Still, I was reviewing notes and did not see this discussed in the talk page, so I thought to post it here.

That article's existence is supporting evidence that there is reader demand for information on this topic. It would be challenging to identify what information is good and lasting and what is lower quality and sensational. I wish that I could identify a single paper which gave an overview of this but looking through the sources cited here, there, and on-PubMed, this looks like a hard issue to address with no obvious sources covering the issue in a general way. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Removed external links

I removed all the current external links because I think each of them is less preferable than sharing nothing. I have them copied here. I crossed out the ones that are dead links.

• FDA rulemaking history for sunscreens
  • FDA monograph on sunscreen (1999)
• [http://www.ewg.org/cosmetics/report/sunscreen09 Environmental Working Group: July 2009 Sunscreen Safety Guide and Report]
• Information on what sunscreens are and how they work from The Skin Cancer Foundation
• Sun Safety for Babies and Children University of Florida, IFAS Extension Department of Family, Youth and Community Sciences
• Article on UV absorbers not yet approved by the FDA
• Radiation protectants and their CAS registry number
• European Cosmetics ingredient database (CosIng)
• How does sunscreen work? Simple explanation from physics.org

I do not think there is anything to salvage here.

I would like a new external links section with some general interest links. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Reapply after 20 minutes

I just cut this text from the article.

---

A sunscreen study from 2001 suggests that the best protection is achieved by dividing the SPF number in half and reapplying that many minutes after sun exposure begins. For example, if the SPF is 30, sunscreen should be reapplied once after 15 minutes of exposure. Further reapplication is only necessary after activities such as swimming, sweating, or rubbing/wiping.

References

---

Hankwang originally inserted this citation in July 2006. When this user added it, the statement actually matched the source cited. In December 2012, an IP editor changed it to its current hoax form. The hoax does not come to a misleading end result. The source says to reapply sunscreen 20 minutes after initial application, but this hoax text makes the silly claim that one should do this based on an SPF calculation.

I think that probably even the original text should not be in the article. In the original paper, the author argues that consumers do not know how to wear sunscreen, so if they can be convinced to put it on twice, then that more closely approximates the desired end result. This paper is about a social intervention more than a description of how the product is supposed to be used. Also, this is not a widely tested or endorsed social intervention, but rather an idea from one paper.

Still - the paper could be used to explain the correct dosage, which is a lot more than most people expect. Also this paper is cited and discussed elsewhere, including by dermatologists who confirm that it is difficult to get people to wear enough sunscreen. I am posting here in case anyone has other thoughts. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for diving into this; I suppose that you're right. I'd still be interested to know what the proper way of re-applying sunscreen would be if one follows the standard dosage (ml per square meter of skin). But I can't be bothered at the moment to hunt for reliable data. Han-Kwang (t) 08:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sunscreen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080921135529/http://www.fda.gov/CDER/drug/infopage/sunscreen/qa.htm to http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/sunscreen/qa.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://skincarewarrior.in/best-sunscreens/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sunscreen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140601125802/http://www.dermatology.ucsf.edu/skincancer/General/prevention/Sunscreen.aspx to http://www.dermatology.ucsf.edu/skincancer/General/prevention/Sunscreen.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091119074507/http://www.arpansa.gov.au/uvrg/rginfo_p13.cfm to http://www.arpansa.gov.au/uvrg/rginfo_p13.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140826114843/https://www.cosmeticseurope.eu/using-cosmetics-colipa-the-european-cosmetic-cosmetics-association/sun-products/the-european-commission-recommendation-on-the-efficacy-of-sunscreen-products.html to https://www.cosmeticseurope.eu/using-cosmetics-colipa-the-european-cosmetic-cosmetics-association/sun-products/the-european-commission-recommendation-on-the-efficacy-of-sunscreen-products.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sunscreen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080522113412/http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=3007 to http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=3007
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410204247/http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/ped_7_1_What_You_Need_To_Know_About_Skin_Cancer.asp to http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/ped_7_1_What_You_Need_To_Know_About_Skin_Cancer.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

pets and sunscreen

zinc oxide in some otc sunscreen products can cause toxicity in dogs: shouldn't there be info on this here 84.67.8.95 (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that claim? HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Wikipedia for the Medical Editor

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 January 2023 and 25 February 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Schatrath2 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: SnacksAtParties.

— Assignment last updated by SnacksAtParties (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Regulation and structure

Hi all,

I added to the regulation section by adding information on several other countries. Additionally, I rearranged the history section to come before the content. Schatrath2 (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Revert edit

I partially reverted the edits done on August 2nd because they were wrong or misleading. First of all, all UV filters are chemicals: scientifically speaking, most of them are organic molecules, while two are inorganic compounds. The classification of "mineral" vs "chemical" is therefore not the most accurate one and is mainly marketing related. The so-called "mineral sunscreens" are anyway full of other types of chemical ingredients. Then, it is not true that inorganic sunscreens work mainly by reflecting UV light, as explained for example here. All the rest seems just an attempt to say that organic molecules are bad and mineral filters good, which is probably the main focus of the user. Other points: FDA is not the only regulatory agency in the world, opinions of other agencies should also be present; the fact that only two UV filters are GRACE doesn't mean that all other are toxic, I tried to make it clearer; zinc oxide is actually hazardous to the aquatic environment, but everybody seems to forget it. LostMyAccount (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

You have made some good points there. We certainly need to include more than just the US (FDA) perspective. But the language for these kinds of articles is a fraught area. From a scientific perspective, ALL substances in sunscreen are chemicals. You and I are made of chemicals. The words organic and inorganic are used in the more scientific way in the article, but I'm not sure the difference would be clear to a lay reader, who mostly knows those words from the marketing of food. It would be nice if we could make a firm decision to either go completely with popular, idiomatic use of language, or with fully correct, scientific terminology. HiLo48 (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, this is an encyclopedia, so scientific terms should be preferred. To know what an inorganic compound is, it is enough to follow the wikilink ;) Anyway, I am going to revert the last edit of @DemocratGreen and partially edit the intro: a sunscreen product is a mixture of UV filters and other ingredients, and this point is currently missing in the page. LostMyAccount (talk) 07:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, I removed one paragraph as it didn't add any info. I made it clear in the intro that "sunblock" and "sunscreen" can be used as synonyms but that the former cannot be used in labels. LostMyAccount (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@LostMyAccount and @HiLo48,

Thank you for your invaluable input and insights. I appreciate the time and effort you've put into refining the content. Based on the discussion, I'd like to propose the following recommendations:

1. Terminology - "Mineral" vs. "Petrochemical" (in contrast to "organic compounds" and "inorganic compounds"): Scientific accuracy is paramount. Fundamentally, every substance is inherently chemical. To differentiate, scientific literature often uses the term "petrochemical" for compounds derived from petroleum and related fossil fuels, a term frequently encountered in sunscreen studies. This terminology not only underscores their carbon-based origins but also alludes to potential environmental implications. Conversely, the term "mineral" provides clarity, inherently suggesting an inorganic mineral composition. Adopting such terminology ensures clarity and is tailored to both scientific and general audiences.
2. UV Light Interaction: There's a prevalent conception that mineral sunscreens, notably those with zinc oxide, largely serve as UV reflectors. Despite being mostly the case there is inevitable absorption. However, given zinc oxide's crystalline structure, it has a natural propensity to disperse light. To accommodate both general and expert readers, I propose a dedicated segment that delves into the intricacies of UV absorption, ensuring overarching content maintains its accessibility.
3. Organic vs. Mineral Terminology: The label "organic" has gained traction, largely attributed to the ascendancy of organic farming and the growing interest towards organic ingredients and organic cosmetics. When broaching the topic of sunscreens, "mineral" emerges as a more user-friendly term compared to "inorganic." It aligns with the average consumer's association of "mineral" with elements like zinc oxide, while scientists easily correlate it with its inorganic nature. Using "mineral" seamlessly bridges the gap between layman and specialist understanding.
4. Global Regulatory Insight: While diversifying our references is crucial, the FDA's stature as a pivotal authority can't be understated. Given its role as a yardstick for numerous jurisdictions, its input warrants a prime spot, especially in introductory sections. Yet, it's imperative that other global regulatory insights are interspersed throughout the content, providing a holistic viewpoint.
5. GRASE Classification: Highlighting that merely two UV filters fall under the GRASE category by the FDA is noteworthy. Though it doesn't explicitly tag the rest as harmful, it reflects the FDA's latest stance. It's imperative Wikipedia conveys accurate, up-to-date information, sidestepping any potential liabilities.

Your feedback has been instrumental in shaping this perspective, and I look forward to continuing this collaborative effort to refine the content. DemocratGreen (talk) 04:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

So basically you reverted all my edit without answering any of my points, let's try to go though them.

1. The approved UV filters are either organic or inorganic molecules, a sunscreen product can be (if we follow a marketing terminology) "mineral", "chemical", or "hybrid". "My" version of the page contains this type of information, "yours" does not. Unrelated to the page, I would invite to you to reflect on the fact that mineral sunscreen products use the "mineral" terminology even if they can be full of "petrochemical" ingredients, just check the ingredient list
2. There's a prevalent conception that mineral sunscreens, notably those with zinc oxide, largely serve as UV reflector -> this is wrong, the reflection is only about 5%
3. See point 1
4. Nobody is understating FDA authority, but the page has a section named "Regulation" just for that use. As a side note, FDA is being criticized for being too slow in updating its UV filter regulations (just one example)
5. GRASE terminology (part of this answer is also valid for point 4): it is important to write about the safety concerns that some UV filters have raised in the last years, this is why the section "Safety concerns" was present. Again, "your" version contains inaccurate information (on purpose?): FDA created three GRASE category with ZnO and TiO2 being GRASE, two filters being not-GRASE for safety reasons and the others being not-GRASE for lack of data. Why are you removing this information?

I would also ask you to explain why you reverted my edit on "Sunblock" and on Palau legislation, plus removing templates at the beginning of the page.

I am sorry to write this, but I really don't understand if you are acting on good faith or if you want to push your view that organic molecules are bad and zinc oxide is good (seeing that you also tried to create a page about Advance ZincTek). Many of your edits (including this one which only contains false info) make me believe the latter.

Please, let's discuss on the points above, otherwise I see no reason to not to revert your edits again. Other users insights (@HiLo48 maybe?) are welcome :) LostMyAccount (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I made my comments above. Further, minerals ARE chemicals. And he FDA provides regulation for only 4% of the world's population. Certainly not for my country, which is perhaps the one where sunscreen is most important.. This is a global encyclopaedia. We must write more globally. HiLo48 (talk)

@DemocratGreen:: I see you like to make your edits without answering to open questions. Again, this edit is incredibly POV for different reasons: 1) "petrochemical" is a non-scientific nomenclature mainly used by groups pushing for inorganic UV filters which want to pass the message "Organic filters=petrochemical=bad"; 2) Albeit it is true that some UV filters degrade over time giving byproducts (as written somewhere else in the page), this is not true for every organic molecule (I'm referring to sentences "releasing heat and different petrochemical byproducts" and "However, this chemical reaction also produces petrochemical byproducts."); 3) Some organic UV filters also reflect light since they are particulate, you are removing information; 4) It's not true that all organic UV filters are photounstable and reapplication after 2 hours is also recommended when using mineral products for the simple reason that cosmetic products are washed away from skin by water and sweat. As I wrote before, all your edits look really bias towards ZnO LostMyAccount (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

To your initial points, @LostMyAccount:

Your feedback has been instrumental. I'd also like to clarify a few misunderstandings:

• My edits focus on ZnO because that's my area of expertise, and it's a stance aligned with FDA regulations and environmental concerns.
• The FDA's perceived slowness in updating UV filter regulations isn't attributed to its inefficiency but rather manufacturers' lack of safety data provision. Different regions have varying data submission requirements.
• As for "petrochemical" terminology, I've explained its prevalence in cosmetic and scientific literature. I believe it's scientifically accurate.
• The creation of a "Regulation" section was spurred by curiosity in this space, I did not create it as you stipulated.
• On the GRASE topic, there are actives permitted for sale, some GRASE and others not. Your claim of a third GRASE category is technically inaccurate.
• The correlation between the FDA's jurisdiction and the world's population isn't directly linked. Many countries adopt FDA standards, given its rigorous approach, which naturally makes its approvals sought after.

In addition, I would like to make some comments with regards to the active ingredients section:

The common belief about mineral sunscreens largely serving as UV reflectors due to their crystalline structure is not misplaced. However, you're right in highlighting that recent studies have shown it's more about absorption than mere reflection.

It's essential to note the distinction between the mechanisms of mineral sunscreens and petrochemical UV filters. While mineral sunscreens may have a higher degree of absorption than previously thought, petrochemical UV filters do not operate on a simple absorption principle. Instead, they undergo a reaction when exposed to UV rays, producing byproducts in the process. This distinction is significant and should indeed be reflected in the section discussing active ingredients.

Furthermore, I concur with your observation about the incoherence in the active ingredients section. Discussing inactive ingredients and hybrid sunscreens in the context of active ingredients is misleading. "Hybrid sunscreens," which pertain to the combination of active ingredients, should be part of a separate section that delves into the intricacies of combining different actives rather than being bundled under active ingredients.

Tinosorb M concerns

I appreciate your ongoing engagement on this matter. I must be forthright in my observations regarding the 'Active Ingredients' section. The disproportionate attention given to Tinosorb M is inappropriate, especially when it's essentially a proprietary formulation with a promotional brand name and not an individual active ingredient.

It's pivotal that our content remains impartial and doesn't inadvertently endorse or promote specific brands or proprietary formulations. Given the universal importance and established history of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide in sunscreen literature, it's bewildering to find Tinosorb being given undue prominence over them.

Your edits in the section deviated from a neutral, globally-relevant perspective, especially given Tinosorb's status in the US. It's paramount that we rectify this oversight promptly.

Concerning the terminology, I stand by the importance of clarity and accuracy. While I respect diverse perspectives, it's imperative that our content remains anchored in established norms without any undue bias.

@LostMyAccount:

In addition to my earlier points, I'd like to draw your attention to the Wikipedia guidelines on Commercial Editing. Wikipedia is fundamentally a non-commercial platform. The guideline is clear that editing with a financial conflict of interest is controversial and risky. The preference is for disclosures of conflicts of interest and to make edit suggestions on the talk pages or through templates.

Our primary objective here should be the integrity and accuracy of the content. When there's a risk that our content becomes skewed due to undue prominence to a proprietary formula like Tinosorb M, especially in a section dedicated to active ingredients, it compromises Wikipedia's principles.

While your contributions might not be directly financially motivated, it's important to recognise that the overwhelming focus on a specific brand can give an impression of bias, which might inadvertently seem like commercial editing. We should strive to maintain neutrality, emphasising on widely accepted and established actives like zinc oxide and titanium dioxide.

Furthermore, an editor with a potential conflict of interest should ideally refrain from editing related articles directly, as per Wikipedia's guidelines. If there are persistent edits that seem promotional, it may raise concerns about the neutrality and intent behind such edits.

It's in our shared interest to ensure that the content remains unbiased, scientifically accurate, and adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. DemocratGreen (talk) 08:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

As a scientist, my head aches reading reading all the inaccuracies that I see here. Starting from the last point, don't worry about conflict of interests, I have none. I'm just a chemist that happens to know something about sunscreen formulation and hates to see science misused for marketing purposes. If you don't like Tinosorb M you can replace it with the INCI name, but more on this later.

The FDA's perceived slowness in updating UV filter regulations isn't attributed to its inefficiency but rather manufacturers' lack of safety data provision. -> Ok, but I don't see anywhere in my edit the critic that FDA is inefficient, I just stated the fact that since 1999 no new UV filter has been approved in the US. FDA approach has been criticized ([2], [3], [4] just the top Google results) and this might find space in a new section, but at the moment I don't see the point of your point

As for "petrochemical" terminology, I've explained its prevalence in cosmetic and scientific literature. -> there is no such a prevalence in scientific literature, the term is mainly used by companies selling "natural" or "mineral" cosmetic products to trigger emotions against competitors which uses "bad" "chemical" ingredients somehow related to petroleum. I believe it's scientifically accurate. -> sorry, but it's not.

The creation of a "Regulation" section was spurred by curiosity in this space, I did not create it as you stipulated. -> I didn't say you created it, I said that you removed information from there which I had added. And I suggested you to put information about FDA specific regulations in the "Regulation" section since they are region specific and not worldwide.

On the GRASE topic, there are actives permitted for sale, some GRASE and others not. Your claim of a third GRASE category is technically inaccurate. -> not true, approved UV filters in the US has been categorized in 3 categories. Some references for you: [5], [6], [7]

The correlation between the FDA's jurisdiction and the world's population isn't directly linked. Many countries adopt FDA standards, given its rigorous approach, which naturally makes its approvals sought after. -> Which countries apply FDA regulations apart for US? I know that EU, China, Australia, and Japan have their own standards.

Instead, they undergo a reaction when exposed to UV rays, producing byproducts in the process. -> What is a reaction for you? All UV filters upon absorption of UV light go in an excited state and return back to ground state by releasing energy as heat; this is not a reaction, this is a process or an energy transfer. Few UV filters are known to fall apart when irradiated for too long giving by products. These by products might or might not be harmful for humans or environment; this info should find place in the "Environmental effects" section or in the page of the single UV filter. For your info, filters that can give dangerous by products are manly "old" ones already banned or not used anymore.

Furthermore, I concur with your observation about the incoherence in the active ingredients section. Discussing inactive ingredients and hybrid sunscreens in the context of active ingredients is misleading. "Hybrid sunscreens," which pertain to the combination of active ingredients, should be part of a separate section that delves into the intricacies of combining different actives rather than being bundled under active ingredients. -> I'm confused by what you write here. This article is about sunscreens, i.e. the cosmetic products containing a mixture of ingredients including UV filters. Sunscreens can be classified according to the used active ingredients as chemical, mineral, or hybrid. This information is currently missing in the page because you continuously reverted my edit.

Tinosorb M -> The name was present there well before my edits, so no need to accuse me of promoting it. Issue can be easily fixes, going to do it right now LostMyAccount (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. I genuinely appreciate the opportunity to collaborate and enhance the accuracy of the article.

1. GRASE Category: I acknowledge your point regarding the third category of GRASE [8]. It's important we ensure that this is correctly represented.
2. Collaboration: I value your background in chemistry, particularly when delving into the mechanism of action of sunscreens. My expertise in cosmetic and sunscreen formulation can complement this, offering a comprehensive perspective.
3. FDA's Role: Regarding the FDA's perceived delay in approving new filters, it's important to note that the responsibility lies with UV filter manufacturers to provide necessary safety data. The EU operates differently. If we address this, we might consider directing the discussion towards chemical manufacturers like BASF.
4. FDA's Influence: From various perspectives—consumer, manufacturing, and regulatory—the FDA's approval carries weight. As examples:
   • The TGA's studies on benzene and benzophenone contamination followed FDA reports [9]. (Extracts provided at the end)
   • The US boasts the largest sunscreen market globally.
   • Manufacturers highly regard the FDA's GMP.
5. UV Filters and Degradation: It would be interesting, given your background, to explore recent studies on UV filters' degradation and their concerning byproducts. The growing concern over benzene, especially with its links to leukemia, is noteworthy. Your expertise could be invaluable in shedding light on this issue.
6. Terminology - Petrochemical: While 'petrochemical' might be used in regulatory and cosmetic contexts, 'chemical' and 'mineral' seem to dominate consumer vocabulary for sunscreen types. Relevant regulatory from the Hawaii's senate testimonies and hearings documents can support this [10][11]. Furthermore, Google Trends suggests that most searches for "organic sunscreen" relate to certified organic brands. However, for the chemistry-focused sections, we should employ the 'organic/inorganic' terminology, detailing its scientific accuracy.
7. Hybrid Sunscreens: I understand and agree with your explanation about hybrid sunscreens. While 'active ingredient' pertains to the specific component offering UV protection, 'hybrid' refers to a combination, making it a type of sunscreen rather than an individual ingredient. Your perspective on this can enrich the article, and I apologise if my previous edits seemed abrupt.
8. Environmental Effects: I appreciate your feedback on the edits made to the environmental section. It's crucial we present this information in an unbiased and informed manner.

DemocratGreen (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, I'm curious if you take issue with the definitions of "particulate" or "suspended solid"? Titanium and zinc oxide are produced as powders for both cosmetic and food products. Do you have a more precise chemical definition that highlights their powdery properties, as opposed to implying they are a liquid? I'm considering simply referencing the zinc oxide and titanium dioxide pages within the mineral section and also making a mention of the inorganic compounds page. I'd appreciate your insights. DemocratGreen (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@DemocratGreen: It is clear that you really want this sentence to be in the introduction section, but you haven't provided a solid reason for it; the fact that FDA opinion is also present in the COVID-19 vaccine page introduction is not really relevant here (and I would remove it from there, too). As I (and at least another user) wrote before, FDA has only jurisdiction on the US, while Wikipedia is global. Besides, FDA can express its GRASE/not-GRASE opinion only on 17 molecules (the ones that are approved in the US), while the UV filter portfolio is much large in rest of the world. Finally, the exact same information is reported other two times in the page LostMyAccount (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has stringent guidelines about the content that can be published on its platform, ensuring that the information is neutral, reliable, and verifiable. Referencing the FDA's opinion in a section about a drug, such as an over-the-counter (OTC) sunscreen, adheres to these guidelines for several reasons:

1. Neutral Point of View (NPOV): Wikipedia's core content policy is that articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and without bias all the significant views published by reliable sources. The FDA, being a federal agency, offers neutral, scientifically-backed assessments of drugs. By mentioning the FDA's opinion, the content upholds this principle.
2. Verifiability: Wikipedia operates on the principle that other editors must be able to check that information added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. The FDA is a renowned and authoritative source on matters related to drugs and their safety. Their findings and statements are documented and publicly accessible, making them easily verifiable.
3. No Original Research: Wikipedia's policy prohibits the publication of original ideas, conclusions, or arguments. Referencing an FDA opinion avoids original research as it is citing a primary authoritative body that has already conducted the necessary research and reached conclusions.
4. Reliability: Wikipedia's guidelines prioritize secondary sources over primary sources. However, in the context of drugs, FDA documents and publications are considered both primary (because they are direct from the source) and reliable due to the rigorous scientific scrutiny and review process they undergo. Therefore, referencing the FDA's opinion adheres to Wikipedia's sourcing requirements for reliability.
5. Consensus: Wikipedia works on a consensus model, and consensus decisions tend to rely heavily on the application of common sense, discussion, and the weighing of content policies. The inclusion of reputable sources like the FDA is more likely to gain consensus among editors because of its recognized authority in the field of drug evaluation. Historical edits show that the FDA inclusion in the introduction was continually shown until your recent edits.

DemocratGreen (talk) 06:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, you are not answering my points. FDA regulates UV filters in the US and in the US only. In the US there are less than 20 approved UV filters, in the rest of the world around 30. Now, in the intro of the page you want to put an information (GRASE vs not GRASE) which is US specific, while Wikipedia should have a global vision, as I and somebody else above already pointed out. This information is also already present in the page in a more appropriate section, so I don't understand your reverts against what seems to be the consensus in this talk page LostMyAccount (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

VKM risk-benefit assessment

I just found a report by the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment with a ton of high quality information that may be interesting for this article and others about sunscreen. Fernando Trebien (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Promotional UV Filters (Brand Names)

I will be removing promotional brand names of UV filters. DemocratGreen (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)