A leading Australian dermatologist has weighed in on the validity of Brisbane mum Connie-Lee Swadling’s viral Facebook post on choosing the right sunscreen.
The post, which was shared more than 14,000 times, has since been deleted, but Connie-Lee posted it after being given advice from her dermatologist that she felt compelled to share.
The dermatologist advised her to ignore the SPF rating on popular sunscreens and instead study the ingredients.
“I’ve recently had a mole checked, everything is fine but he asked what sunscreen I used,” Connie-Lee wrote.
“I replied with the banana boat spf 50+ spray on for myself and banana boat sensitive spf 50+ roll on for my kids. He replied with shaking his head (sic)!”
Her dermatologist then told her to "ignore the 30, 40, 50 + on the front" because it's not the most important factor in determining the effectiveness of sun protection.
"My mouth dropped as this is what we are all taught to look for!" she shared.
"He then proceeded to notify me of the ingredients on the back and said for it to actually protect your skin it needs to have titanium and zinc in it (both of which can not turn into spray form so they never leave the can to protect your skin when applying the spray sunscreen.)"
But Associate Professor Rosemary Nixon, from the Australasian College of Dermatologists, told Mamamia that the most effective products on the market have a combination of both physical and chemical sunscreens.
"Physical sunscreen sits on the outside of the skin and it reflects and blocks the UV from getting into the skin. It acts as a barrier layer, and that’s why it’s always going to be more effective against a more broad spectrum of UVs," she said.
"Chemical sunscreens absorb UVs. That’s why you’ll often see a number of chemicals written down [in the ingredients list]. Virtually all sunscreens will have a combination of [physical and chemical] sunscreens."
Nixon advised against ignoring a product's SPF rating.
"We have a whole industry that has worked out the appropriate SPF [ratings] and there are stipulations that have been worked out by numerous committees," she said.
"The higher SPF rating means the product has been rated to the current standards, and they are based on both UVA and UVB protection. An SPF product will undoubtedly have a component of both physical and chemical sunscreen."
She advised that it's best to avoid using chemical sunscreens on children under 12 months.
"For children under 12 months, the recommendation has always been to have a physical sunscreen rather than a combination of chemicals," she said.
CEO of Cancer Council Australia, Professor Sanchia Aranda, said no matter what sunscreen consumers use, application is key to getting the best sun protection.
"Apply sunscreen liberally - at least a teaspoon for each limb, front and back of the body, and half a teaspoon for the face, neck and ears," she told Mamamia.
"Most people apply less than half this amount, which means they get far less protection than the SPF as stated on the bottle.
"Sunscreens need to be applied liberally to achieve the SPF protection claimed on the label."
Professor Aranda also said that sunscreen should always be used in conjunction with other sun protection measures.
"Don’t forget to Slip, Slop, Slap, Seek (shade) and Slide (on sunglasses). Physical protection such as shade, clothing and broad brimmed hats are the best sun protection measures for all children, particularly young infants," she said.
"Sunscreen should be the last line of defence and used only on smaller parts of exposed skin after it has been patch tested."
Top Comments
Back in the day we only had 15+ sunscreen, that was the highest. So I used to use that because I have extremely pale British skin. As long as I had that on I never got burnt, just stayed the same shade of Lilly White that I usually am. If of course I didn't use it I would get burnt, though this was extremely rare for me as I've been extremely diligent about putting on sunscreen since I was young.
However since they have these extremely high SPF ratings, in theory it's probably designed for skin like mine, but it still use 15+ as it always worked. If my extremely pale skin is protected at 15+ then I wonder what skin type the higher SPFs were designed for, as they seem like overkill to me.
15+ means exactly that. It is more than 15, so the cream you have always used could infect be 40, or 50 or even higher. That was just the highest rating manufacturers could put on years ago.
As a theatre RN who's worked for years with a plastic and reconstructive surgeon who specialises in skin cancers, this article has some accurate information (most effective sunscreens have zinc and titanium) and some grossly incorrect information. It is erroneous and negligent for the dermatologist to state SPF doesn't matter. As it does. Immensely. The surgeon I work with had independent testing of sunscreens and the best, with no "payback" from any company, is Ego SunSense Daily Face and Ego SunSense Sport (the independent tests showed over 70+ SPF). Both contain zinc and titanium dioxide. Also, please be aware, doctors in "skin clinics" [AKA GPs] & dermatologists haven't had the same extensive years of training that plastic surgeons undertake, regarding identification and surgical excision of skin lesions/cancers. For skin checks and removal of skin cancers, do yourself a favour & research which plastic surgeons ( not cosmetic doctors - don't get me started on this group - usually GPs who did a weekend workshop and decided to get into the lucrative cosmetic "surgery" business. They are not a surgeon. Buyer beware) specialise in skin cancers, and see them.
SHL
As a dermatologist specialising in skin cancer management I would like to comment on your post. Firstly, the only real error in the article was the comment that Dr Nixon suggested zinc and titanium were chemical sun screens when they are in fact the two physical sun screens used. I'm quite sure this was an inaccurate reporting of her comments. Largely the rest of the attention was correctly reported.
Where your comments need correction is in the suggestion that plastic surgeons are more qualified than dermatologists in the recognition and treatment of skin cancer. Dermatologists have a rigorous four year training program and several of us go on to Mohs surgical fellowships. I work in conjuction with a number of plastic and oculoplastic surgeons, who recognise we have equal and complimentary skills sets that benefit all the patients we see. To suggest that dermatologists are less trained and less capable of identifying skin cancer suggests your knowledge and understanding of the specialty is limited.
I would have thought somebody with so much experience would be able to understand the roles of various types of doctors. Can we really expect Plastic Surgeons to do skin checks on every person? Is that what they want to do, skin checks all day? A few excisions of SCCs from people's arms each day? GPs play an important part and have done extensive study. To denigrate their skills is invalid. The article did not even bring up cosmetic medicine and you're here ranting. And your suggestion that Dermatologists are not qualified in detecting and managing skin cancers is actually hilarious 😂😂
Kath
Given that you are a nurse who has worked in the area of skin cancer removal, I find it bizarre that you are ill informed of the skill & role of dermatologists, who undergo a lengthy & rigorous training program, as do all Australian recognised specialists who have completed fellowship exams.
Also, I fear you may have confused the public even further by discouraging them to seek treatment from this professional group.
Following my own removal of melanoma stage 2, (very large wide excision & rotated flap repair) when 31 weeks pregnant, my plastic surgeon emphasised 'you are banned from skin cancer clinics. Find a dermatologist you like & stick to him for life.' I did & nearly 6 years down the track I am grateful for the input & expertise of both men & my GP, who all speak respectfully of each other (& all the extra obstetric / paeds / midwifery involvement given the full context of the situation at the time.)
The point being, with so much confusion & scaremongering written by journalists, I expect health professionals to report their 'own business' with a little more care, accuracy & diligence, for the sake of the public as much as collegiality.
As a registered nurse my self I know only to well that the public tend to believe the first thing they hear. Whilst I understand your sentiment toward cosmetic surgeons & 'skin clinics' I hope that those who read your post are able to somehow realise that dermatologists are professionals they can & SHOULD trust with their skin!
As a melanoma survivor, I can also say with certainty, how reassuring it is to have an ongoing therapeutic relationship with a skilled & thorough dermatologist who will monitor, treat & advise me for life (I chose a young one😉).
Just for the record, he has excised a non melanoma skin cancer from me, and the aesthetic outcome is supreme! But yes any large excisions & fancy repairs & it's back to plastics for me!
Please get better informed before advising the public.