Fight disinformation. Get a daily recap of the facts that matter. Sign up for the free Mother Jones newsletter.


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.

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you'll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you’ll agree is worth supporting.

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