该份报告涵盖了785个知名化妆品品牌，结果发现，目前市场上常见的防晒指数（SPF）为15或更高的防晒霜中，有84%不能为皮肤提供足够的有害射线保护，或者含有对皮肤有害的成分。甚至有些防晒霜挂了防晒霜的名号，但一遇阳光自己先“化”了，所以皮肤专家建议防晒霜要经过化学稳定处理。

环境工作组研究人员同时还强调，价格不是影响排名的因素。一些排名靠后的品牌能卖到100美元，而排位第一的贝吉獾30倍防晒霜却只要12美元。

对于如何看待自身产品上了黑名单公司，这些产品是否在中国有销售，欧莱雅中国公司相关负责人周先生以及露得清所属的强生中国公司相关负责人何小姐昨天都没有接听记者的电话。

Sunscreen Users Could Get Burned, Assert Critics

By Neil Osterweil, Senior Associate Editor, MedPage Today
June 21, 2007

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Dermatology/SkinCancer/tb/5982

WASHINGTON, June 21 -- Most of the sunscreen on the U.S. market either fall short of their claims or contain unsafe ingredients, according to an environmental watchdog group here.

In an analysis of 785 different sunscreen products, the Environmental Working Group found that 84% of those with a sun-protection factor (SPF) of 15 or higher did not give users the protection they boasted.

"Only 16% of the products on the market are both safe and effective, blocking both ultraviolet A and ultraviolet B radiation, remaining stable in sunlight, and containing few if any ingredients with significant known or suspected health hazards," the group wrote in a report.

More than half of the products contained unstable ingredients that can break down under sunlight, leaving the user unwittingly exposed, and many products make unsupported claims about efficacy or stability, the report's authors asserted.

The group posted its findings on a Web site, including products that it found to be acceptable and unacceptable sunscreen.

"EWG has conducted this research because the FDA has failed to do so," said Jane Houlihan, vice-president for research at the Environmental Working Group. "With over one million cases of skin cancer reported each year people should have the most reliable information available about which sunscreens will provide the best protection for themselves and their families."

However, the group offered no assurances that use of the products it found acceptable would reduce the rate of non-melanoma skin cancer or malignant melanoma, compared with products it found unacceptable. The group did no such studies, said a spokesperson.

A cosmetic industry spokesman was critical of the report, pointing out that the group did not actually test any product.

"What they're saying is not backed by any fact or study or anything else that would allow the types of conclusions that they're presenting to actually be reached," said John Bailey, Ph.D., chief scientist for the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, in an interview.

"You can take virtually every point that they make and point to the efforts that the manufacturers take to make sure that the products are safe and effective, [as well as] FDA's oversight and the state of the science, and counter it with something that's more factual than what they're doing."

Robert S. Stern, M.D., chairman of dermatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and a supporter of sunscreen in general, questioned whether the group had sufficient data to judge the relative merits and safety of myriad products.

"Whatever their methodology, the amount of data that goes into determining SPF and the degree to which UVA protection is important and how important it is are still things that are not very well known," said Dr. Stern.

The Environmental Working Group is a Washington-based not-for-profit watchdog group that focuses on issues such as food safety, consumer products, and chemicals in the environment. The group is described by Consumers Union as a research and advocacy organization, and is cited in Consumer Reports for its research into organic foods and food safety.

The group is a lightning rod for conservative groups, such as the Capital Research Center, which ranks it as the fifth "worst environmental group," accusing it as a "peddler of fear" and "junk science specialist."

In its study, the group used a proprietary methodology to review nearly 400 documents, including scientific studies, industry models of sunscreen efficacy, and toxicity and regulatory data from government, academic, and industry databases to come up with practical recommendations for consumers.

Their key findings included:

• Many sunscreen ingredients break down under sunlight, allowing exposure of skin to UV radiation.
• Nearly half of all products make claims for their product -- such as "waterproof," "all-day protection," or "blocks all harmful rays" -- that are not backed by evidence
• Several of the top-rated sunscreens contain zinc oxide and/or titanium dioxide in micronized or nano-particle form. Although these ingredients are generally thought to be safe and effective, untested micro-particle formulations of other chemicals are contained in some products and could be harmful if absorbed through the skin.
• Among high SPF sunscreens defined as those with an SPF of at least 30, 13% protect only against the burning rays of UVB, and not against light in the UVA spectrum, which is associated with accelerated skin aging and skin cancer.

David L. Mitchell, Ph.D., a photobiologist in the department of carcinogenesis at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, agreed in an interview that there is growing evidence for the need to effectively block UVA as well as UVB.

"UVA may be carcinogenic, and it's becoming more and more evident that the molecular ingredients are there for it to be carcinogenic, and it certainly causes aging of the skin," Dr Mitchell said. "There is some evidence for immunosuppression, and there have been papers published to show that it causes basal-cell carcinomas in humans and squamous-cell carcinomas in mouse models. The real question has been melanoma."

Dr. Mitchell also agreed with the environmental group's contention that European research and development of sunscreens are superior to that of the United States, noting that the French cosmetic firm L'Oreal developed a UVA blocking sunscreen called Mexoryl, but "it took the FDA I don't know how many years to approve it in this country, and it's a good UVA block."

Dr. Stern recommended choosing a sunscreen with a sufficiently high SPF (usually 15 or greater) and a vehicle -- cream, lotion, gel, or spray -- with which the patient is most comfortable.

"A sunscreen that stays in the bottle has an SPF of zero," he said.

The Environmental Working Groups rankings of sunscreens are posted on their website, at http://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/.

Sunscreen Summary — What Works and What's Safe

http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/special/sunscreens/summary.php

In a new investigation of 783 name-brand sunscreens, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) found widespread evidence that many products on the market are not safe and effective, including one of every eight high-SPF sunscreens that does not protect from UVA radiation. We have also identified 128 products that offer very good sun protection with ingredients that present minimal health risks to users.

More Americans than ever are using sunscreen to protect from sunburn and guard against skin cancer. Top choices include products with high SPF ratings, and that are waterproof or that advertise "broad spectrum" protection. Most people trust that the claims on the bottle will ensure that the product truly protects their health and their families'. Nothing could be less certain.

• Our comprehensive scientific review indicates that 84% of 783 sunscreen products offer inadequate protection from the sun, or contain ingredients with significant safety concerns. Only 16% of the products on the market are both safe and effective, blocking both UVA and UVB radiation, remaining stable in sunlight, and containing few if any ingredients with significant known or suspected health hazards. Our assessment is based on a review of nearly 400 scientific studies, industry models of sunscreen efficacy, and toxicity and regulatory information housed in nearly 60 government, academic, and industry databases.
• Many products lack UVA protection. Fully 13% of high SPF sunscreens (SPF of at least 30) protect only from sunburn (UVB radiation), and do not contain ingredients known to protect from UVA radiation, the sun rays linked to skin damage and aging, immune system problems, and potentially skin cancer. FDA does not require that sunscreens guard against UVA radiation.
• Sunscreens break down in the sun. Parodoxically, many sunscreen ingredients break down in the sun, in a matter of minutes or hours, and then let UV radiation through to the skin. Our analyses show that 54% of products on the market contain ingredients that may be unstable alone or in combination, raising questions about whether these products last as long as the label says. FDA has not proposed requirements for sunscreen stability.

  COMMON MISLEADING CLAIMS

  • All day protection
  • Waterproof
  • Chemical-free
  • Read full list
• Questionable product claims are widespread. At least 48% of products on the market bear claims that are considered "unacceptable" or misleading under FDA's draft sunscreen safety standards. Our analysis of marketing claims on hundreds of sunscreen bottles shows that false and misleading marketing claims are common. Claims like "all day protection," "mild as water," and "blocks all harmful rays" are not true, yet are found on bottles. Until FDA sets an effective date for these standards, industry is free to use hyped claims. Companies' decisions to inflate claims has spawned recent class action lawsuits in California.
• Many sunscreens contain nano-scale ingredients that raise potential concerns. Micronized and nano-scale zinc oxide and titanium dioxide in sunscreen provide strong UVA protection, and are contained in many of our top-rated products. Repeated studies have found that these ingredients do not penetrate healthy skin, indicating that consumers' exposures would be minimal. Studies on other nano-scale materials have raised concerns about their unique, toxic properties. FDA has failed to approve effective UVA filters available in Europe that, if approved here, could replace nano-scale ingredients.
• The U.S. lags behind other countries when it comes to products that work and are safe. FDA has approved just 17 sunscreen chemicals for use in the U.S. At least twenty-nine are approved for use in the E.U. FDA has approved only four chemicals effective in the UVA range for use in the U.S., and has failed to approve new, more effective UVA filters available in the E.U. and Asia.
• Some sunscreens absorb into the blood and raise safety concerns. Our review of the technical literature shows that some sunscreen ingredients absorb into the blood, and some are linked to toxic effects. Some release skin-damaging free radicals in sunlight, some act like estrogen and could disrupt hormone systems, several are strongly linked to allergic reactions, and still others may build up in the body or the environment. FDA has not established rigorous safety standards for sunscreen ingredients.

After 29 years of debate, the government has failed to set mandatory sunscreen safety standards. Companies are free to make their own decisions on everything from advertising claims to product quality. In lieu of setting final standards, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advises people to stay out of the sun from 10 am to 4 pm. FDA now stands in direct violation a Congressional mandate requiring the agency to finalize sunscreen safety standards by May 2006, flouting not only Congress but also consumers, who are reliant on sunscreen to protect their health.

.....