We need to remember to slip on sun-protective clothing, slop on sunscreen, slap on a hat, and seek shade as the summer progresses.
We all know that we need to wear sunscreen to protect our skin from the harmful effects of UV radiation.
The SPF rating is something we see on our sunscreen bottles. Is it always what it says it is and how is it tested?
The exception is that some sunscreens don't match up to their claims.
According to current SPF testing methods, these products are tightly regulated to make sure they are safe and meet their SPF rating.
Problems arise when it comes to the testing of sunscreens. Testing on humans determines the SPF value on sunscreen bottles.
We need to change this if we want to test how effective our sunscreens are.
Once a sunscreen is developed by a manufacturer it needs to go through testing to make sure it only contains approved ingredients and that it does what it says it does.
According to the Australian Standard, all sunscreen products in Australia are tested. The problem with how this testing is done is that it doesn't provide assurance of safety and quality for the consumer.
The UV protection level of a sunscreen is currently tested on humans. Volunteers are exposed to artificial solar UV radiation while wearing sunscreen.
Performance is determined by how long it takes for redness to occur. The SPF rating is assigned based on how sunburned this is.
Is it really a problem if they only use approved ingredients?
It's sadly true. Humans are exposed to harmful UV radiation, which can cause skin and eye damage, as well as being the leading cause of skin cancer, when they are tested. This is unethical and unjust.
Testing sunscreen on humans has other issues. The use of erythema to determine sunscreen effectiveness is subjective, and may differ from person to person, even for the same skin type. It's questionable if the testing methods are reliable.
A minimum of 10 people are required in Australia for testing to be done. It's great to expose as few people as possible to harmful UV radiation to determine a product's SPF rating, but not so great when it comes to inclusiveness.
It's not representative to test a small group of people. It doesn't include all skin types, which makes it hard for different laboratories to test the same product.
Testing is very expensive. It adds to the already high cost of buying sunscreens and could limit the development of better products.
There is an urgent need for non-human testing methods of a sunscreens effectiveness to be developed.
Efforts have been made to develop non- human testing methods. The materials used to mimic human skin, difficulties in applying the sunscreen, and ensuring that results are the same as what we see with human testing are some of the things that are included.
Scientists from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency and the Cancer Council Victoria are working on a solution to this issue.
They have developed a prototype sensor that can change color. The sensor could be used for human-free sunscreen testing.
In the future, sunscreen manufacturers will be able to make and test new and better sunscreens without being limited by the time and costs involved with human testing.
Next time you buy a bottle of sunscreen, be aware that work is underway on getting that rating classified in a more ethical way.
Sarah Loughran is the Director Radiation Research and Advice (ARPANSA), and Sylvia Urban is the Professor in Chemistry, School of Science.
Under a Creative Commons license, this article is re-posted. The original article is worth a read.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
