Some sunscreens 'fall short of claims'

A study by consumer magazine Which? found that some popular sunscreens provide less protection from the sun's harmful rays than is claimed.

In fact, tests conducted for the magazine showed that some sunscreens fell short of their stated level of UV protection.

However, Boffa Hospital Dermatology Department head Lawrence Scerri warned that while the findings did not surprise him they should not put people off using sunscreens.

"People should still use a sunscreen, but not on its own," he said.

Dr Scerri stressed that sunscreen is only part of the package to protect the skin and people should ideally wear hats, put on protective clothing, stay under an umbrella and whenever possible stay in the shade.

"Sunscreen should not be used as a means to prolong staying in the sun," he said, adding that "no perfect sunscreen" existed.

Using the same testing method that is widely employed across the European sunscreen industry, the tests found that a particular sun lotion had sun protection factor of 10 as opposed to the claimed 15. Meanwhile one by another manufacturer had a sun protection factor (SPF) of 11, another had a protection of nine, yet another 12 and a different one had a protection of 13, although all claimed an SPF of 15.

On the other hand, some products were found to have a higher SPF than the 15 - and 16 in the case of one brand.

The products were tested by applying them to 12 volunteers and after a sun simulator was used, the skin was tested for redness. The average results were taken.

Which? explained that the higher the sun protection factor, the better a product should protect a person from UVB rays, which cause between 80 - 90 per cent of skin damage. It said officially sunscreens are allowed to vary by 20 per cent on either side of the claimed SPF since results can vary because of human variation and the difficulty of measuring skin redness.

"We don't think the current test methods are good enough. The industry needs to work towards a more robust test method to reduce variability," the magazine said, adding that until then the claimed SPF on the label should reflect the lower end of the range so as to ensure that products do not fall below the protection level on the label.

Which? also tested five sunscreen sprays for children that claimed an SPF of 30. When tested, three out of the five had an SPF of more than 30, while the other two were 27 and 28.

Dr Scerri explained that the SPF indicates the length of time a person can stay in the sun without getting sunburnt. SPF only wards off UVB rays, which are the rays that cause sunburn.

On the other hand, he said, it is very difficult to filter out UVA rays, which are responsible for aging. Dr Scerri said both UVA and UVB rays are responsible for cancer.

The dermatologist said the SPF on a product is measured in a laboratory and not on the beach, which is the place where most people use sunscreens. He also explained that a standard amount of sunscreen - around two milligrams per square centimetre of skin - is used, and added that usually people use less.

"The message here should be for people to use high factors to make sure that they have better protection," he said, adding that adults should used a minimum factor of 30.

Despite the fact that Which? mentioned a number of high street brands which it said did not offer the claimed protection, Dr Scerri said most reputable brands recommended by dermatologists were "quite adequate".

He said a sunscreen should be put on around 20 minutes before a person went out in the sun to give the skin time to absorb it. Sunscreens work for at most two to three hours and people should reapply, mostly if they are swimming or sweat a lot.

He said that certain areas of the body, like the back of the neck, the ears and the surface of the feet, were sometimes forgotten and people got sunburnt there.