loan

subject: UVA Reform: It's Not PDQ [print this page]

UVA Reform: It's Not PDQ
UVA Reform: It's Not PDQ

AS summer begins, Americans are buying up sunscreen, confident that applying it

diligently will protect them from the rays that can lead to skin cancer, sunburn

and wrinkles.

But depending on the product, they may be wrong. The SPF, or sun protection factor,

tells people how effective a sunscreen is at blocking ultraviolet B rays, the kind

that cause five-alarm sunburns. But there is no similar gauge for ultraviolet A

rays, which tans skin but also can cause cancer and wrinkles. More often than not,

product labels are of little help in this department.

There is good news and bad news on the ultraviolet A front. On the plus side, the

Food and Drug Administration is considering a set of guidelines for sunscreen that

would set up a four-star system for effectiveness against UVA rays. The rules would

also ban the use of misleading terms like "sunblock" and "all-day protection"

from labels.

The bad news: These rules were proposed three years ago, and the agency has yet to

take action. Critics of the F.D.A. have accused it of foot-dragging because of

pressure from sunscreen manufacturers.

In the absence of new rules, consumers are left with sunscreen regulations that

date back to the Carter administration 1978 when the science of sun

protection was far more primitive. The status quo leaves Americans with less-

effective sunscreens than Europeans, doctors and scientists say.

"In the States, we are selling an obsolete generation of sun protection," said

Lionel De Benetti, the president of Clarins Laboratoires, a French cosmetics

company. In its European sunscreens, Clarins uses superior ingredients that are not

approved for use in the United States, he said, adding, "It's a bit upsetting."

To get state-of-the-art sun protection, some consumers seek out sunscreens from

Europe that use UVA filters that are not yet approved by the F.D.A. Yu-Chi Lyra

Kuo, a graduate student at Princeton University, took the trouble to do research

online and now uses European products.

"The sunscreens in North America tend to be very effective at blocking UVB rays,

but not UVA rays," she said.

She had a colleague bring her back a Mustela spray from France that uses Tinosorb

M, an ingredient that protects against a broad range of UVA rays but is not

approved for use in American sunscreens. To replenish her supply, Ms. Kuo plans to

order from Tubotica.com. "Frankly, the shipping rates are high from Europe," she

said. "I find it very inconvenient to order online."

But she added, "I also covet the European ratings. I find a lot of American

sunscreen brands are not exactly directly misleading in their labels, but they have

labels that can be misconstrued."

The F.D.A. is considering whether to approve Tinosorb M and other ingredients, but

that process is separate from the consideration of the 2007 proposal. Adoption of

the latter, the agency says, may be just around the corner. "We are targeting

publication of the final rule in October," said Shelly Burgess, an F.D.A.

spokeswoman. If so, compliant products will be available at the earliest in the

summer of 2012.

The F.D.A. has a history of blowing such deadlines. It attributes delays to three

factors, the first of which is the amount of scientific homework on its plate. "We

have to investigate and evaluate new research and development beginning in the '

70s all the way to today," said Matthew R. Holman, deputy director of the division

of the F.D.A. that regulates over-the-counter sunscreens.

Second, he said, the F.D.A. has received more than 3,000 comments on the proposals

from citizens, advocacy groups and corporate America and each one must be

investigated. "We weigh the information carefully," Dr. Holman said.

And third, he said, there are more than 10 tests that gauge the efficacy of sun

products against UVA rays, and research on the subject "has been evolving since we

began this process."

The elected officials and consumer watchdogs who have been holding the F.D.A.'s

feet to the fire are far from satisfied with these explanations. They say there is

enough scientific information for the F.D.A. to adopt new rules.

In 2007, at least four senators sent written requests to the F.D.A. asking for

comprehensive sunscreen labels. Several class-action lawsuits have been filed

against sunscreen manufacturers over false advertising.

In May, the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit advocacy group, released its

fourth annual report on sunscreens, concluding that only 8 percent of the 500

products it reviewed were "safe and effective." Many products exaggerated their

sun protection powers, the group said.

The rules sitting in limbo at the F.D.A. would cap the maximum SPF that a product

could claim at "50+." The rules would most likely also set up a four-star system

one star for the lowest protection and four for the highest to rate products

on their effectiveness against UVA rays.

welcome to loan (http://www.yloan.com/)