Sunscreen: What the New Evidence Actually Says — and Why I’m Not Giving Mine Up

I’ve worn sunscreen on my face for as long as I can remember.

And during the summer, if I’m outside for any length of time, I’m one of those people who actually reapplies it.

It’s a habit that’s been drummed into most of us interested in skincare for decades:

Wear sunscreen. Protect your skin. Prevent premature ageing.

Simple.

Except, as I’ve discovered while researching other areas of anti-ageing, skincare rarely remains simple once you start looking properly at the science.

Over the past few years, questions have been raised about some of the ingredients used in sunscreens — particularly whether certain chemical UV filters are absorbed into our bodies and what, if anything, that might mean for our health.

And I’ll admit, that got my attention.

I’m certainly not about to spend years protecting my face from sun damage only to ignore legitimate questions about something I’m applying to it every day.

But equally, I’m not throwing my sunscreen in the bin because of a frightening headline.

So what’s actually going on?

UVA, UVB and Why I’m Still Wearing Sunscreen

First, the bit that hasn’t suddenly changed.

Ultraviolet radiation damages our skin.

UVB is strongly associated with sunburn and plays an important role in skin cancer.

UVA penetrates more deeply into the skin and contributes significantly to photoageing — pigmentation, loss of elasticity and those wrinkles we tend to blame entirely on getting older.

If we’re interested in how our faces age, this matters.

Some of what we call “ageing” is actually photoageing: the cumulative effect of years of UV exposure.

So broad-spectrum sunscreen remains one of the least glamorous but most evidence-backed products in my skincare routine.

No fancy electrical current.

No flashing LED lights.

No £500 machine.

Just sunscreen.

Sometimes the boring stuff really does earn its place in the bathroom cabinet.

So Why Has Sunscreen Suddenly Become Controversial?

The concern isn’t that scientists have suddenly discovered sunscreen doesn’t protect us.

It does.

The questions are about some of the UV filters used to achieve that protection.

Sunscreens can use mineral filters such as zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, or organic filters — commonly referred to as chemical filters — such as avobenzone, octocrylene, octinoxate, homosalate and oxybenzone.

And this is where things become interesting.

FDA studies demonstrated that several organic sunscreen filters can be absorbed through the skin and detected in the bloodstream.

That sounds alarming.

But there’s an extremely important second half to that sentence.

Detecting something in your bloodstream isn’t the same as proving that it’s harming you.

The concentrations found in those studies exceeded the FDA threshold at which additional safety testing is requested. That threshold isn’t a line separating safe from dangerous.

It’s essentially a line saying:

We need more information about this.

And that’s a considerably less frightening statement.

What About Hormones?

This is probably where I started paying closer attention.

Some organic UV filters have been investigated for possible effects on our endocrine system — the network of hormones controlling numerous processes throughout the body.

For a website primarily written for women approaching, going through or beyond menopause, anything involving hormones understandably catches my eye.

One of the ingredients receiving scrutiny is octinoxate, also known as EHMC.

European scientific advisers concluded that the available evidence shows it has endocrine activity, including oestrogenic and weak anti-androgenic activity.

Before we collectively panic, however, there’s another important part.

After assessing the exposure and safety data, the same European committee concluded that octinoxate remains safe for use in sunscreen at permitted concentrations of up to 10%.

Homosalate has also been investigated because of possible endocrine effects. Earlier European assessments found some indications of endocrine activity but described the evidence as inconclusive.

So once again we’re faced with something that doesn’t fit neatly into:

GOOD INGREDIENT / BAD INGREDIENT.

And unfortunately, those are usually the two categories social media prefers.

What About Oxybenzone?

Oxybenzone — sometimes listed as benzophenone-3 — has probably attracted more controversy than almost any other sunscreen ingredient.

Research has investigated possible associations with reproductive hormones, pregnancy, development and puberty.

A recent review looking at human and epidemiological research found associations between exposure to some benzophenone UV filters and a range of hormonal and reproductive outcomes.

That’s worth investigating.

But association isn’t the same as proof of causation.

People can be exposed to these chemicals from different products, studies measure exposure in different ways, and laboratory or observational findings don’t automatically tell us that normal sunscreen use is causing disease in humans.

So I’m interested.

I’m paying attention.

But I’m not going to turn “scientists think this deserves further research” into “your sunscreen is poisoning you.”

Those aren’t the same statement.

Mineral Sunscreen: Is That the Answer?

This is where I’ve started changing my own buying habits slightly.

Mineral sunscreens use zinc oxide, titanium dioxide or both.

You’ll often hear that mineral sunscreen works purely by sitting on top of your skin and bouncing sunlight away while chemical sunscreen absorbs UV.

That’s actually an oversimplification.

Both types ultimately create a protective layer that deals with incoming UV radiation, and mineral filters also absorb a significant amount of UV as well as scattering or reflecting some of it.

So why am I increasingly interested in mineral formulas?

Because if I can get excellent broad-spectrum protection from a formulation I’m comfortable using, while reducing my exposure to ingredients about which there are still unanswered questions, that seems a perfectly reasonable choice.

There’s just one slight problem.

I actually have to want to wear the stuff.

Anyone who has tried some mineral sunscreens will know exactly what I mean.

White cast.

Thick texture.

Make-up sitting strangely over the top.

And occasionally the rather fetching appearance of having dipped your face in emulsion paint.

Thankfully, formulations are getting much better.

And that’s important because the theoretically “perfect” sunscreen isn’t much use if you hate wearing it and leave it sitting in the bathroom.

There’s Another Problem With the Word “Mineral”

This is where marketing gets involved again.

Seeing MINERAL written in enormous letters across the front of a bottle doesn’t necessarily tell you everything about the formulation.

Products can contain combinations of mineral and organic filters, often described as hybrid sunscreens.

So rather than relying entirely on whatever reassuring words have been printed on the front, I want to know what UV filters are actually in it.

That’s becoming a recurring lesson while writing My Future Face:

Turn the bottle around.

The interesting information is very often on the back.

So What Am I Actually Doing?

I’m certainly not giving up sunscreen.

For me, that would make absolutely no sense.

The evidence that UV exposure contributes to skin cancer and premature skin ageing is far stronger than the evidence that normal use of approved sunscreen ingredients is causing harm.

I’m still wearing broad-spectrum sunscreen.

I’m still reapplying when appropriate.

I’m still using shade, sunglasses and the other sensible things we’re supposed to do.

But I am becoming more interested in the formulation I’m buying.

Where I find a mineral sunscreen that gives me good broad-spectrum protection, works with my skin and doesn’t leave me looking like Casper the Friendly Ghost, I’m increasingly inclined to choose it.

Not because I’ve decided chemical sunscreens are dangerous.

I haven’t.

It’s because there’s enough uncertainty around certain filters for me to think being selective is reasonable — provided I don’t compromise the thing that matters most:

actually protecting my skin from the sun.

The Bottom Line

Researching this hasn’t persuaded me to stop wearing sunscreen.

If anything, it’s reinforced why I wear it.

But it has reminded me that skincare isn’t static. Ingredients are studied, evidence changes and regulators reassess products as new information becomes available.

That’s a good thing.

The mistake would be taking legitimate scientific uncertainty and turning it into fear.

So my approach is fairly simple:

Wear the sunscreen.

Choose a broad-spectrum product with good UVA protection and an appropriate SPF.

Choose a formulation you’ll actually use enough of.

Reapply when you need to.

And if you’d rather use a mineral sunscreen while the research into some organic UV filters continues, that’s a perfectly reasonable choice too.

Because when it comes to ageing well, I want to question the products I’m using.

I just don’t want to become so frightened of what’s in the bottle that I forget what the bottle is protecting me from.