Facts matter: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. Support our nonprofit reporting. Subscribe to our print magazine.


Since MoJo’s May/June 1993 cover story, “Beach Bummer,” which alleged that most sunscreens do not prevent malignant melanoma skin cancer, and may actually promote the potentially fatal cancer, two scientific reports on the subject have been published. The first, in the October 14 New England Journal of Medicine, described an Australian study in which sunscreen users showed a significant reduction in solar keratoses, a risk factor for skin cancer. Sunscreen did not prevent cancer; it simply reduced the likelihood of developing one of ten risk factors.

The U.S. media overstated the study’s findings and neglected to report that the sunscreen used in the study was nothing like what most Americans apply. Until recently, most sunscreens available in the U.S. blocked just one type of ultraviolet light–UV-B, the rays that cause sunburn. Deeper-penetrating UV-A rays, on the other hand, are barely blocked at all. Even “broad-spectrum” sunscreens only block about one-third of UV-A. But the sunscreen used in the study blocked 94 percent of it.

MoJo’s article focused on the theory that UV-A might be the culprit in the melanoma epidemic of the last twenty years. At the time of the article, there was no animal model to prove this. But last July, as reported in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers at Brookhaven National Laboratories induced melanoma in fish. “In this animal model,” the researchers wrote, “90 percent to 95 percent of melanoma may be attributed to UV-A. . . . It is reasonable to extend this conclusion to humans. Sunscreens effective in the UV-B region would not protect against melanoma induction by sunlight.”

Sunscreens that largely block UV-A include Photoplex and Shade UVA Guard.

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate