Do sunscreens cause cancer?

Being a parent is a harrowing task. In addition to worrying about the practical things - is my child eating enough, or learning to walk or speak fast enough - there are a whole host of less tangible concerns we modern parents are presented with:

Do my baby's bottles contain bisphenol A? Do his pacifiers contain phthalates? Are his veggies laced with pesticides? If all of the above is true, does it actually make the blindest bit of difference?

The latest worry I developed this evening, when a well-informed and extremely credible family member raised concerns about sunscreen. Like any concerned parent, I lather the stuff on Mini Militant - not least of which because his pale and interesting Anglo-Scots genes probably cancel out his leathery Italian-Jewish ones.

But recently, the media has jumped on concerns that some of the ingredients in sunscreen have been linked to increased risks of malignant melanoma in mice.

A scientific study has shown that if you lather mice in sunscreen and shove them under a sunlamp, an increased percentage of them develop a rarer, but more deadly form of skin cancer than the 'control' group.

Cue gasps of horrors and concern - and not without good reason. Malignant melanoma might be a much rarer form of skin cancer, but it's also much more deadly - responsible for 75% of skin cancer deaths.

But this is where the issue gets tricky - because the mice in that 'control' group I mentioned - the ones who were shoved under a sunlamp without lathering them in sunscreen first - continued to show a literally blistering higher percentage of squamous cell carcinoma and basal cell carcinoma than the mice who were wearing the SPF 15.

Which presents the most significant flaw in the 'sunscreens may cause cancer' argument - that not wearing sunscreen definitely causes cancer.

And here's were it gets really tricky - because the only solution to the sunscreen dilemma appears to be to stay out of the sunlight altogether - and that has been linked to the skyrocketing rates of Vitamin D deficiency in western society (which - no joke - has also been linked to increased rates of cancer.)

So just to recap:

1. Wearing sunscreen presents an increased risk of cancer.
2. Not wearing sunscreen presents an increased risk of cancer.
3. Not going out into the sunlight at all presents an increased risk of cancer.

As Shakespeare probably paraphrased: "Thou art screwest if thou dost, yet thou art screwest if thou dost not."

Ultimately, there's a lot more to the 'does sunscreen cause cancer issue' than the terrifying headlines would have you believe - and ultimately the solution is not to send your tender-fleshed children out into the broiling sun without some SPF 15 on.

Let's Get Cooking

Exposure to the sun's ultraviolet sunlight causes cancer - of that there is no doubt whatsoever.

But when it comes to the recent concerns about sunscreen, there's quite a lot of doubt indeed.

The issue basically boils down into three areas:

1. That some of the ingredients in sunscreen cause cancer.
2. That sunscreen is less of a protection against skin cancer than advertised.
3. That it increases your risk for cancer by increasing the risk of Vitamin D deficiency.

Let's actually examine those issues one-by-one.

Some of the ingredients in sunscreen cause cancer.

Oxybenzone, benzophenone, octocrylene, or octyl methoxycinnamate are all popular ingredients in sunscreen - and concerns have been raised that the way they're absorbed by the body - and then illuminated with the sun's UV radiation - increase the risk of malignant melanoma.

This theory partly came about from a Journal of National Cancer Research study called Effect of Sunscreens on UV Radiation-Induced Enhancement of Melanoma Growth in Mice by Doctors P. Wolf, C.K. Donawho and M.L. Kripke.

The only problem with this study is that it contradicts every other animal study - each of which showed the use of sunscreen reducing the risk for animals developing malignant melanomas after exposure to ultraviolet radiation.

Basically, one study doesn't cancel out a number of other ones (unless that one happens to be correct, but unless you're a oncologist or a dermatologist, I argue you're not qualified to make that call.)

Sunscreen is less of a protection against skin cancer than advertised.

While Wolf et. al. didn't reach a consensus with the majority of medical research on malignant melanomas, their study did match other reports that sunscreen-slathered test subjects did indeed experience some negative effects from long-term sun exposure.

"Mice to which sunscreens were applied never obtained a sunburn after UV exposure," wrote Dr. H.C. Wulf in his 1982 study Sunscreens for delay of ultraviolet induction of skin tumors. However, he also admitted: "Toxic reactions, such as eczematous-like skin reactions, dark coloring, and amyloidosis, were observed predominantly in the group treated with the sunscreen of highest SPF value."

This, he and his colleagues eventually concluded, was because many sunscreens protect against some of the effects of the sun's ultraviolet rays - but not all of them.

UV radiation is split into two types - A and B.

B is the stuff that causes squamous cell carcinoma and basal cell carcinoma - the two most common forms of skin cancer. It's also the stuff sunscreen protects you from.

UV-A radiation also has negative effects - like skin aging, discoloration and the increased risk of malignant melanoma - the more serious type of cancer everybody is worried about. The problem with many sunscreens is that they don't protect against UV-A radiation.

This becomes a problem because nature's way of telling you you've been out in the sun too long - sunburn and blistering - doesn't happen when you're wearing sunscreen. This results in sunscreen wearers exposing themselves to hours more UV-A radiation than they would if they weren't wearing any sunblock at all.

Ultimately, this is a very serious issue - and an important one to be aware of - but it's not so much that the chemical ingredients of sunblock cause cancer; but that sunscreen manufacturers lead us to believe we can spend much longer in the sun than we actually can, even if we think we have protected ourselves from burning with their products.

(Incidentally, a bunch of class action lawsuits claiming exactly that have recently been launched.)

Sunscreen increases your risk for cancer by increasing the risk of Vitamin D deficiency.

The human body has a few neat tricks up its sleeve - and one of them is converting nutrients into Vitamin D through a chemical reaction brought about by exposure to the sun's UV radiation. Basically, just like a flower, you need the sun for your body to grow properly.

The toils of modern life have presented us with all sorts of new medical problems to solve, but one of the most ridiculous is the explosion of cases of hypovitaminosis D - or Vitamin D deficiency. More and more people are going to their doctors complaining about symptoms like depression, weight-gain, blood sugar irregularities, poor liver function and even bone density loss - all eventually attributed to unusually low levels of Vitamin D in their body.

This is because they simply didn't get enough sun!

Long working hours, cramped offices and gloomy living spaces are one reason humans don't get the same exposure to the sun's light as they used to - but the emerging popularity of sunscreen is another factor. In the past few decades, the message to 'never go out without suncreen' has been so drummed into us that people slather themselves up to a ridiculous degree - and the problem with wearing all that sunscreen to 'protect' yourself from the sun is that it cancels out the entirely natural, entirely healthy and actually essential chemical reactions that UV radiation causes upon exposure to your skin.

The message is - go outside and get some damn sun!

Conclusion

You can take away what you will from the evidence I've presented. There's nothing stupid about being concerned with the safety or efficiency of sunscreen - especially as a parent - but ultimately the news reports shouldn't be what guides your decision to use suncream or not; merely the catalyst that gets you to do some research into the issue yourself.

And for me, this research confirmed that the 'sunscreen controversy' was just the latest health-scare du jour. Sadly, it won't be the last. That's not to say it didn't raise issues we should be aware of. My analysis is this:

• Firstly, if the ingredients of sunscreen do increase your risk of melanoma (and that's a big 'if') then you have to weigh that against the scientific certainty that not wearing sunscreen dramatically increases your risk of squamous cell carcinoma and basal cell carcinoma. One is more dangerous, sure - but the others are far more common.
• Secondly, while this hysteria about sunscreen shouldn't make you stop using the stuff, it definitely should make you a little more conscious of just how much protection sunscreen really gives you. All sunscreens protect against UV-B, but many don't protect against UV-A - so just because you're slathered in SPF 15, it doesn't mean you're truly safe. It's not the fault of the sunscreen, more the wearer. It would be like a cop wearing a bullet-proof jacket and then complaining when he gets stabbed. Sunscreen does the job it's designed to do wonderfully - but doesn't protect you against everything.
• And finally, blaming sunscreen for possibly causing cancer is a dubious proposition because it's been definitely proven to prevent cancer. This recent scare about sunscreen is part of an increasing trend to label every single aspect of modern existence as 'carcinogenic' (although arguably, it is.)

That last issue is the most important one. These days, you're told that everything causes cancer. You shouldn't microwave food, or use non-stick frying pans, or eat soy - all because a single study claimed that it might cause cancer.

And in all honesty, breathing might cause cancer. We suck in engine fumes, and pesticides, and the exhaust gases of our air conditioners and space heaters for days on end and our lungs are a like a sponge for all sorts of carcinogens we simply can't avoid (or don't want to avoid.)

We don't complain about these cancer-causing conveniences because we don't want to live without them - and perhaps that's the attitude we ought to take with sunscreen (amongst other things.)

After all - I've just argued that breathing is the leading cause of cancer - and you're not going to stop doing that any time soon, are you?

Does a little bit of Britain die with Jade Goody?

What does the life and death of Jade Goody say about the society that made her a celebrity?

If there’s one rule British society holds sacred, it’s ‘know your place.’

That’s why we’ve had such a bi-polar relationship with Jade Goody, a celebrity we unwittingly created in our own image.

When Jade first burst onto British television in '02, shedding clothes and ‘flashing her kebab,’ she was vilified for being fat, common, classless and ignorant – and Britain loved her for it.

Here was a barely literate, council estate brat who thought that ‘East Angular’ was a foreign country. She was the perfect reality TV celebrity – one that almost everybody in the country could feel superior to.

Poor old Jade represented the very worst of British society - and that enabled all of us to feel secure and smug enough to ‘grant’ Jade celebrity status – the only Big Brother contestant to have done so in the decade-long history of the show.

And for a woman with no discernible talents, Jade Goody certainly made a go of being famous.

Between Big Brothers, she was rarely out of the pages of OK! and heat magazine. At 24, she released her bestselling autobiography. A year later, her branded perfume ‘Shh…’ was outsold only by those of Victoria Beckham and Kylie Minogue.

Jade Goody’s celebrity status earned her an estimated £8 million and a place in heat magazine’s list of the 25 Most Influential People in the World. Not bad for a woman who couldn’t even pronounce ‘influential.’

But it’s at that point that things turned ugly.

Five years after her debut in the top-rated program, Jade Goody returned to the ‘celebrity’ edition of Big Brother with her mother and boyfriend – and in the words of publicist Max Clifford, ‘ruined a very lucrative career.’

Teaming up with fellow featherweight celebrities Jo O’Meara and Danielle Lloyd, Jade Goody launched a single-minded crusade of cruelty towards a fellow contestant; Bollywood beauty Shilpa Shetty.

“She makes my skin crawl,” Goody sneered, forgetting that she was being watched by millions of viewers. “I’ve seen how she goes in and out of people’s arseholes, that Shilpa fuckawiller, Shilpa Poppadom, whatever the fuck her name is…”

It wasn’t the implied racism that made Goody’s behavior so disgusting to us (although that was the excuse most politically correct tabloids hid behind.) It was the fact that Jade demonstrated the same sort of snobbery that had inspired us to elevate her to stardom in the first place.

After A-Team alumni Dirk Benedict, Shilpa Shetty was perhaps the only ‘true’ celebrity on so-called ‘Celebrity’ Big Brother. Effortlessly beautiful, genuinely talented and with a real career to call her own, Shilpa Shetty manifested everything that manufactured celebrities like Jade Goody and Danielle Lloyd found threatening – and, like any good Brit, they conspired to cut that threat down to size.

I was one of millions of viewers who saw her behavior and squirmed in my seat, remembering my own experiences being ‘picked on’ – as long ago as at school, and as recently as in the workplace.

But I also squirmed because Jade’s insecurity was a reflection of Britain’s insecurity. The way she acted on screen was an uncomfortable reminder of how British society tends to treat anybody who dares to ignore their ‘place’ in the pecking order.

If Jade represented the worst of British society, that ‘worst’ included a propensity for bullying, bigotry, insecurity and meanness. The fact that we’d made Jade Goody a celebrity in the first place now reflected very badly on us.

To Jade’s credit, she was utterly remorseful when she was evicted from the Big Brother house, admitting that she was ‘disgusted with herself’ when watching footage from the show. But could she ever find a way to make amends to us?

Judging from magazine polls, you’d think that she couldn’t. Goody was practically a pariah. They were even burning effigies of her in south Asia – an honor normally reserved exclusively for politicians and presidents.

But now Jade’s suddenly back in the spotlight; her cancer diagnosis is a tragic twist of fate that seems to have turned her career around. Ironically, ever since Jade heard the news, I’m sure that ‘career’ has been the last thing on her mind. As far as she’s concerned, she’s just a mum looking at a death sentence – coming to the realization that she’ll never see her two little boys grow up.

But as far as Britain’s concerned, Jade’s tragic circumstances have cut the upstart bully back down to size. Now we can feel secure enough to embrace her once again; and we have done, wholeheartedly.

The papers that originally created Jade’s celebrity status, before vilifying her for it, are running stories about her dignity and bravery. OK! magazine even paid six figures for exclusive pictures of her wedding to boyfriend Jack Tweed.

That Jade’s back in the spotlight during her tragic, final months says more about British society than it ever will about her.

Crop Shop

After three months of fundraising, the big day came on Tuesday. Tina marched off to Pablo Alvarez' salon on Bridge Street to get her lovely locks lopped for charity.

Tina had originally set out to raise £5,000 for cancer charity Brainstrust. If she achieved that, she promised the shave her head completely! Perhaps that worked out as reverse psychology (plenty of people offered her money to keep her hair) because Tina missed her target. However, she still raised a whopping £620 and managed to help raise Brainstrust's profile with her exploits.

Fortunately reporters from the Hampshire Chronicle were on sight to record Pablo's handiwork.

Thanks to everybody who donated money to Tina's fundraising! See the results here.