varuscelli
Professional
In searching through Talk Tennis, I can't see that this topic has been discussed in any great detail, so I'm going to see if anyone has comments on the UVA/UVB sunscreen protection issue.
After doing a bit of research into the current sunscreens available from different manufacturers, it seems pretty apparent that there is a lot of misleading information out there, especially in terms of sunscreens that provide adequate UVA protection (in addition to UVB protection) as specified by the FDA.
While many sunscreens are good for screening much of the damaging UVB, UVA has long been ignored or de-emphasized. Current medical research indicates that there is much greater need for additional sunscreen protection from UVA rays than has been available in the past. There are some very interesting articles out there concerning the dangers of inadequate UVA protection and just how many sunscreens do little or nothing in terms of true UVA screening.
Here's a link to some of the info I've been reading:
http://www.consumersearch.com/www/family/sunscreen/fullstory.html
The bad part is that many of the sunscreens on the market provide either no protection or only minimal protection from UVA rays, and that very few of those provide the levels of protection specified by the FDA to be labeled as having Broad Spectrum protection. And even fewer sunscreens that are tailored to sports provide the FDA recommended levels of protection for UVA.
I had been using Coppertone Sport sunscreen for a long time, but many of the Coppertone claims are misleading. For instance, if the bottle indicates "UVA/UVB" protection, but does not specifically state "Broad Spectrum," then the lotion itself very likely falls short of FDA standards for UVA protection. (Some of the Coppertone lotions are Broad Spectrum, but many are not, even though they show UVA on the label.) The FDA states that if the lotion does not contain avobenzone, titanium dioxide, or zinc oxide then it cannot be labeled as Broad Spectrum. The Coppertone folks (and others) get around that by not specifically stating Broad Spectrum on their labels, but at the same time putting the misleading "UVA/UVB" on the labels, as though the product is providing true UVA protection (when if fact, only minimal UVA protection may be what you are really getting). This can absolutely give the consumer a false sense of security when using those lotions.
For my personal use, I'm now looking at Neutrogena Active Breathable Sunblock with avobenzone.
(Ok, Ok, even Neutrogena is being sued in California -- as are many other manufacturers -- for using the word "Sunblock" rather than "Sunscreen," and even they are in violation of the 2002 FDA mandate that no sunscreen should be labeled as "waterproof" when in fact all of them that claim to be waterproof are technically only "water resistant." But at least the Neutrogena has the avobenzone that the FDA says should be used, and it is made for the active -- sports -- user.)
Any comments?
After doing a bit of research into the current sunscreens available from different manufacturers, it seems pretty apparent that there is a lot of misleading information out there, especially in terms of sunscreens that provide adequate UVA protection (in addition to UVB protection) as specified by the FDA.
While many sunscreens are good for screening much of the damaging UVB, UVA has long been ignored or de-emphasized. Current medical research indicates that there is much greater need for additional sunscreen protection from UVA rays than has been available in the past. There are some very interesting articles out there concerning the dangers of inadequate UVA protection and just how many sunscreens do little or nothing in terms of true UVA screening.
Here's a link to some of the info I've been reading:
http://www.consumersearch.com/www/family/sunscreen/fullstory.html
The bad part is that many of the sunscreens on the market provide either no protection or only minimal protection from UVA rays, and that very few of those provide the levels of protection specified by the FDA to be labeled as having Broad Spectrum protection. And even fewer sunscreens that are tailored to sports provide the FDA recommended levels of protection for UVA.
I had been using Coppertone Sport sunscreen for a long time, but many of the Coppertone claims are misleading. For instance, if the bottle indicates "UVA/UVB" protection, but does not specifically state "Broad Spectrum," then the lotion itself very likely falls short of FDA standards for UVA protection. (Some of the Coppertone lotions are Broad Spectrum, but many are not, even though they show UVA on the label.) The FDA states that if the lotion does not contain avobenzone, titanium dioxide, or zinc oxide then it cannot be labeled as Broad Spectrum. The Coppertone folks (and others) get around that by not specifically stating Broad Spectrum on their labels, but at the same time putting the misleading "UVA/UVB" on the labels, as though the product is providing true UVA protection (when if fact, only minimal UVA protection may be what you are really getting). This can absolutely give the consumer a false sense of security when using those lotions.
For my personal use, I'm now looking at Neutrogena Active Breathable Sunblock with avobenzone.
(Ok, Ok, even Neutrogena is being sued in California -- as are many other manufacturers -- for using the word "Sunblock" rather than "Sunscreen," and even they are in violation of the 2002 FDA mandate that no sunscreen should be labeled as "waterproof" when in fact all of them that claim to be waterproof are technically only "water resistant." But at least the Neutrogena has the avobenzone that the FDA says should be used, and it is made for the active -- sports -- user.)
Any comments?
