The Claim: Sunscreens Containing UVA Filters Prevent Melanoma

First of all, the American public needs to know that the pharmaceutical companies selling sunscreens are using the false, deceptive and misleading claim that routine use of a sunscreen containing UVA filters prevents the development of Cutaneous Malignant Melanoma (CMM) to scare them into buying expensive UVA sunscreens. There is absolutely no valid scientific evidence proving that use of a sunscreen prevents the development of CMM.

The American public also needs to know that the real reason UVA filters are added to sunscreen products is to prevent the development of facultative pigmentation, better known as a tan. The reason that the sunscreen companies want consumers to use products with UVA filters is to prevent those consumers from developing a tan (which is Mother Nature’s normal and natural way to protect our skin) and, therefore, be completely dependent upon using sunscreens. Just think about it. If a person doesn’t develop a tan and is dependent on using a sunscreen, the sunscreen companies will sell more products.

The public also needs to know that sunscreens containing UVA filters prevent the longer wavelengths of light that stimulate the immune defense system from being absorbed by the body. Even though the fact that UVA filters prevent the development of facultative pigmentation (a tan) is counterproductive, the fact that sunscreens containing UVA filters will absorb the wavelengths of light that stimulate the body’s immune defense system is potentially even more damaging to the health and welfare of the American public.

Note: It is a sad commentary on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that, while it requires a “warning” be placed on tanning lotions, it has not addressed the health and safety issues involved with UVA filters in sunscreens. Moreover, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has taken absolutely no action to prevent the false, deceptive and misleading claims—like those that say sunscreens with UVA filters prevent melanoma—being made for the sunscreen products containing UVA filters. Therefore, a reasonable person can conclude that there is one set of standards for the indoor tanning industry and another for the sunscreen industry.

The inaction by FDA and FTC is why a landmark New York Times article titled “Doctors Balk at Cancer Ad, Citing Lack of Evidence” by Christie Aschwanden (July 10, 2007) is so important. This article criticized an American Cancer Society (ACS) advertisement featuring the picture of a young blonde woman with the caption “My sister accidentally killed herself. She died of skin cancer.” The ad was financed by the sunscreen maker Neutrogena, a division of pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson. The article noted that the woman in the picture was a model, not a skin cancer victim and that the advertisement’s message, i.e., those who die of skin cancer have themselves to blame (presumably because they do not use a sunscreen), has no scientific evidence to support it. Additionally, there is no scientific evidence to support the premise that routine sunscreen use can prevent the development of CMM, the most deadly form of skin cancer.

[Note: There is no valid scientific evidence linking UVR exposure to CMM and, in fact, there is new evidence showing that people who had more UVR exposure up to the time they were diagnosed with melanoma had a better survival rate than those who had less UVR exposure. Indeed, the most persuasive scientific evidence supports the premise that it is FM broadcast radiation—not UVR—that is responsible for the increase in CMM.] 

So how did ACS justify this advertisement? By having its spokesperson, J. Leonard Lichtenfeld, M.D., issue a statement saying: “We have taken some license in taking that message and using it the way we’ve used it because that’s the way to get the message to our target audience.”

This means that ACS either must have believed that the false, deceptive and misleading statements in the advertisement were acceptable because it promoted a worthy goal and/or it was willing to intentionally mislead the public because of its lucrative financial arrangement ($300,000 per year) with Neutrogena.

Dr. Lisa Schwartz, co-director of the Outcomes Group at the Veterans Affairs hospital in White River Junction, Vt., was quoted in the article as saying: “When people see an American Cancer Society public service announcement, they expect it to reflect the best evidence. We don’t want people who have a financial interest to be telling you the benefit of doing something.”

The bottom line is that sunscreens containing UVA filters should, in our opinion, be banned by the FDA because 1) there is no valid scientific evidence to support the premise that their routine use will prevent the development of any form of skin cancer; 2) preventing the development of facultative pigmentation (a tan) means that the individual always will be dependent upon using a sunscreen—which is great for the sunscreen industry but bad for the American public; and 3) the surface absorption—by the UVA filters—of the wavelengths of light that normally stimulate the body’s immune defense system makes a person more susceptible to disease.

In summary, there is no valid reason for including UVA filters in sunscreens and several important reasons why these additives should be banned. We also strongly recommend that the FTC immediately begin an investigation into the false, deceptive and misleading advertisements and claims being made by the big pharmaceutical companies marketing sunscreens with UVA filters.

If you agree with our recommendations, take time to write to your representatives in government and at the FDA and FTC to let them know how you feel about this issue. In addition, send a copy of this article to your local media outlets and ask them to weigh in on this important health issue. 

Patricia E. Reykdal owns and operates four tanning salons in Tucson, Ariz. Her husband, Donald L. Smith, is director of research of the Non-Ionizing Radiation Research Institute. Together, they have written more than 250 articles promoting sensible, moderate and responsible exposure to ultraviolet radiation. You can e-mail comments or questions to reyksmith@aol.com.