Sunscreen Prevents Cancer, Right? Well, It’s Complicated.

Using sunscreen makes sense, but data on just how effective it is, in what forms, and for which people, is more sparse than we’ve been led to believe.

“Ladies and gentlemen of the class of ’97: Wear sunscreen.” So begins a hypothetical graduation speech written by Chicago Tribune columnist Mary Schmich that rippled through pop culture that year — long before “going viral” was even a thing. “If I could offer you only one tip for the future, sunscreen would be it,” Schmich continued. “The long-term benefits of sunscreen have been proved by scientists, whereas the rest of my advice has no basis more reliable than my own meandering experience.”

MATTERS OF FACT: Exploring the intersection of science & society.

Good data on precisely how effective sunscreen is, in what formulations, and for which people, is significantly more sparse than most consumers have been led to believe.

Australian film director Baz Luhrmann would later reach the number 10 spot on the Billboard charts with a spoken-word version that adapted Schmich’s words over a soulful beat. And while the “speech” is still sometimes misattributed as a real commencement address delivered by Kurt Vonnegut, the writer went on record with The New York Times to deny authorship. “What I said to Mary Schmich on the telephone was that what she wrote was funny and wise and charming,” Vonnegut told the newspaper, “so I would have been proud had the words been mine.”

More than two decades later, it remains a delightful essay, even if its most enduring conceit — that sunscreen is a certain and safe defense against the cancer-causing effects of the sun — is less rooted in science than most of us have come to believe. Indeed, the campaign to convince us to wear sunscreen began years before Schmich penned her wry essay, so that by now it has been burned into our collective consciousness. The Skin Cancer Foundation says on its website that “anyone over the age of six months should use a sunscreen daily” — even indoors. The American Academy of Dermatology also recommends it for everyone: “Sunscreen use can help prevent skin cancer by protecting you from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays. Anyone can get skin cancer, regardless of age, gender, or race.”

But here’s the rub: While it’s plausible that sunscreen prevents skin cancer (more on that later), robust evidence to back that up is hard to come by. Such is the conclusion of a review study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology in February. “Sunscreen is a multibillion-dollar industry, and its efficacy in the prevention of skin cancer is often taken as fact,” the authors note. “Despite this, there are only four prospective studies that examine sunscreen’s role in preventing skin cancer, and none of these studies examine the efficacy of sunscreen in preventing skin cancer in otherwise healthy individuals.”

You might be thinking “So what? What’s the harm in using sunscreen every morning — particularly if there’s a chance it might prevent skin cancer, right?” Well, maybe. But even that is complicated. For starters, not everyone has the same skin cancer risk, with darker skinned people facing a far lower risk overall than lighter skinned people. On top of that, a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) raised questions about the safety of various sunscreen ingredients. In a pilot study of 24 adults, scientists at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) showed that four active ingredients commonly used in sunscreens — avobenzone, ecamsule, octocrylene, and oxybenzone — were absorbed into the bloodstream at high enough levels to trigger the need for additional safety studies.

While, the health implications of minute amounts of sunscreen chemicals in your blood is unknown, other research mostly in test tubes and lab animals, has raised a few concerns. In particular, oxybenzone has been shown to affect sex hormones and cause allergic reactions.

In an editorial accompanying the JAMA study, former FDA commissioner Robert Califf and the editor in chief of JAMA Dermatology, Kanade Shinkai, suggested that our cultural certainty about sunscreen is unearned. “Sunscreen users reasonably presume that companies that manufacture and sell sunscreens have conducted basic studies to support the safety and effectiveness of their products and that the medical profession would demand high-quality evidence,” they wrote, adding that despite decades of widespread use: “[S]unscreens have not been subjected to standard drug safety testing.”

To be clear: The argument here is not against sunscreen. Sunlight can damage the skin, and sometimes lead to cancer, so it’s prudent to protect yourself. The problem is that good data on precisely how effective sunscreen is, in what formulations, and for which people, is significantly more sparse than most consumers have been led to believe — though scientists and public health officials have known this for a long time. They simply chose to gloss over the uncertainties in deference to a highly profitable industry and an easy-to-digest health message. “The problem is, as humans we don’t like uncertainty and we can’t handle assessing risk very well,” said Adewole Adamson, an assistant professor at Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin. While the public should be made aware of where the science stands, Adamson told me, if messaging conveys uncertainty, “it is possible that misinformation can creep in more easily, especially in the era of social media where misinformation travels fast.”

And yet, hiding the uncertainty carries risks, too. Buried questions don’t go away, after all, they mushroom. “If we don’t do the research needed to address uncertainties,” Adamson added, “ultimately physicians, public health officials, and industry are at risk of losing public trust.”

There’s no doubt that ultraviolet (UV) radiation from sunlight takes a toll on our skin. Over time, exposing naked flesh to the sun causes wrinkling, sagging, and dark patches called lentigos, more commonly known as age spots. UV exposure can also increase the risk of skin cancer by damaging the DNA in skin cells, causing them to develop abnormally and multiply out of control.

“If you just use a sunscreen that just protects against sunburn, you are effectively getting the same sun exposure as you would from a tanning bed.”

Skin cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the U.S. according to the American Cancer Society. An estimated 3.3 million Americans will be diagnosed with either squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) or basal cell carcinoma (BCC) each year — cancers that can be disfiguring, but are seldom life threatening. Fewer than 100,000 people will be diagnosed with melanoma, which can be deadly if it spreads, but is highly curable if detected while still confined to the skin, as most cases are in this country.

Melanin, the pigment that gives skin its color, absorbs and scatters UV light. So, in general, the darker your skin, the lower your risk of skin cancer, although data for non-melanoma skin cancers are very limited for people of color says Susan Taylor, an associate professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania and founder of the Skin of Color Society, a professional organization dedicated to skin health issues in people of color. Melanoma is extremely rare in African Americans, and typically develops in areas not exposed to the sun, such as the palms and soles of the feet.

Given the sun’s probable role in most skin cancers, though, it’s surprising that there isn’t stronger evidence that sunscreen prevents all forms of the disease. In the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology review, the authors found only four randomized controlled trials conducted in the last four decades. The analysis found strong evidence that sunscreen prevented squamous cell, but not basal cell carcinomas, most likely because those cancers develop too slowly for studies to detect a trend, said lead author Reid Waldman, a dermatology resident at the University of Connecticut.

Only one study looked at melanoma, Waldman and his co-author found. Although that study is widely cited as proof that sunscreen halves the risk of melanoma, that’s misleading, Waldman told me. People given sunscreen and told to use it daily during the four years of the original trial had a 1.5 percent risk of developing melanoma 10 years later, compared to a 3 percent risk in those not given sunscreen or instructions — a difference that barely reached statistical significance.

Love Undark? Sign up for our newsletter!

Melanoma, meanwhile, is a complex disease: Genetics, patterns of exposure (regular sun exposure may be less harmful than intermittent, high-intensity sunlight, for example), and other still-unknown factors contribute to the risk. This may partly explain why melanoma rates in the U.S. have tripled since the 1970s, even as the use of sunscreen has increased. A lot of the blame, says Waldman, may be due to the use of tanning beds, which studies show sharply increases the risk of melanoma and other skin cancers. Another theory is that sunscreen may actually increase people’s skin-cancer risk if it allows them to spend more time in the sun, especially if they are not protected against the broad spectrum of UV radiation — including what’s known as UVA radiation and its counterpart, UVB.

UVB rays cause sunburn; UVA rays, the primary form of radiation used in indoor tanning, penetrate the skin more deeply and damage DNA without blistering. Unlike in Europe, U.S. regulations allow sunscreen makers to sell products that filter out UVB to prevent sunburn, but provide less protection against DNA-damaging UVA.

“If you just use a sunscreen that just protects against sunburn,” said David Andrews, a senior scientist at the nonprofit Environmental Working Group, which recently published a comprehensive report on sunscreens, “you are effectively getting the same sun exposure as you would from a tanning bed.”

Meanwhile, researchers have known for at least two decades that the chemicals in many sunscreens get into the blood and potentially cause harm. “The American public should be furious that the active ingredients in these products have not been adequately tested for safety,” said Andrews.

In February, the FDA proposed new regulations that would require manufacturers to test 12 active ingredients to see if they are absorbed into the blood at levels above a specified threshold. If they are — as the recent FDA study proved is likely — then companies will be required to do further tests in lab animals to see if the chemicals increase the risk of cancer or cause reproductive or developmental problems. The FDA has also proposed classifying the two chemicals used in mineral sunscreens, zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, as “generally recognized as safe and effective,” exempting them from further tests. Those ingredients act as a physical barrier to UV radiation and do not appear to penetrate the skin.

The rule, which if finalized would go into effect in November, also requires that products with a sun protection factor (SPF) of 15 or higher provide broad-spectrum protection — that is protection from both UVA and UVB radiation.

In an email, a spokesperson for Johnson & Johnson, one of the leading sunscreen makers, acknowledged that small amounts of sunscreen ingredients are absorbed, but deflected my question about whether that finding necessitates further safety testing. “Each sunscreen ingredient has a safety profile that substantiates their safe use when used appropriately, and each has been in use for decades with FDA approval,” the spokesperson said. “No credible evidence shows that absorption of small amounts of sunscreen ingredients, like what was found in [the FDA] study, has harmful effects on human health.”

At the end of the day, Schmich’s advice to wear some sort of sunscreen is still sound for most people, according to all the experts I spoke with. What we do know with the greatest certainty is that sunlight can damage the skin, so it’s prudent to protect yourself. In a statement about the FDA study, the Skin Cancer Foundation echoed Johnson & Johnson’s assertion that sunscreens have been used for many years without evidence of harm: “There’s simply no justification for abandoning sun-safe behaviors.”

Sunscreen is not an invincible shield, and seeking shade, avoiding the direct midday sun when UV intensity peaks, and wearing UV-protective clothing are also recommended.

For people concerned about possible health risks, experts advise using mineral sunscreens until we have better safety data on the chemical versions. “Out of an abundance of caution, pregnant and nursing women may want to consider using mineral sunscreens as well,” advises the Skin Cancer Foundation.

Susan Taylor of the University of Pennsylvania, who is also vice-president elect of the American Academy of Dermatology, says the advice to wear sunscreen applies to people with darker skin too. “Although blacks are less likely to develop non-melanoma skin cancer and melanoma, when we do develop it, it is at a more advanced stage with increased morbidity and mortality,” she said. “So why not recommend that blacks use sunscreen? Would we not be doing an injustice to black people if we did not recommend it until we have more data?”

In addition, both medical societies and the experts I spoke with warn against relying on sunscreen like it’s an invincible shield, which it’s not. Seeking shade, avoiding the direct midday sun when UV intensity peaks, and wearing UV-protective clothing, broad-brimmed hats, and sunglasses are also recommended. “I think that we should be discussing even more the role of sun avoidance for children as well as protective clothing more than we do,” said Taylor.

Still, the soundbite of advice to “wear sunscreen” conceals a host of unknowns, according to the JAMA editorial. There’s the “urgent question” of the effects in infants and children, who may absorb chemicals at a higher rate. There’s also the question of how much people inhale from spray sunscreens or absorb from the many personal-care products that now contain UV filters. And Adamson pointed out that research and public health advice often ignores how the risk-to-benefit calculus may differ for people of color. “Dermatology is a largely white organization,” said Adamson, who is black.

“There’s also the optics of, here you are, tone deaf, giving these recommendations to folks with darker skin that are completely devoid of any evidence at all,” he added.

Adamson told me that he recently agreed to serve on a panel for the American Academy of Dermatology to discuss more nuanced recommendations. The AAD and other organizations could do a better job relaying uncertainty, said Taylor. “I feel strongly that we must give the public accurate information (even if it is ambiguous) for each person to decide what is best for them.”

Andrews told me that he’s encouraged by the FDA’s proposal to require commonsense safety testing — though he also suggests that scientists, regulators, and even journalists like me ought to have been raising questions about the certainty of public sunscreen messaging a long time ago. Had we done so, it’s likely that the market would have evolved by now to produce products whose safety is more certain. “The companies that make sunscreens and other cosmetic and consumer products will rapidly change their products to meet consumer demand,” Andrews said.

Schmich concludes her column: “Be careful whose advice you buy, but be patient with those who supply it. Advice is a form of nostalgia. Dispensing it is a way of fishing the past from the disposal, wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts, and recycling it for more than it’s worth.

“But,” she added, “trust me on the sunscreen.”

When it comes to the science of sunscreen, that trust still needs to be earned.

Teresa Carr is an award-winning, Texas-based journalist with a background in both science and writing, which makes her curious about how the world works. She is a former Consumer Reports editor and writer, and a 2018 Knight Science Journalism Fellow at MIT. In 2019, she began penning the Matters of Fact column for Undark.

Top visual: Jeffrey Greenberg/Universal Images Group via Getty Images
See What Others Are Saying

23 comments / Join the Discussion

    Very careful article. I know it’s a passionate subject for many people. But can you really play both sides of the field like this and be taken seriously? Follow the money on this one. The human body was meant to be outdoors. It’s insane to think we are not naturally equipped to survive sun exposure. Some common sense goes a long way…


    This article is surprisingly confusing. Just how did sunscreen become ubiquitously recommended without sufficient research? Also, it should be more clearly stated that chemical, not physical sunscreens are being questioned.

    As a brown South Asian, I use sunscreen primarily to prevent wrinkles. However, I treat it as the last defense, not the first. My hierarchy is 1. Avoid midday sun 2. When outside a lot (at least in summer) wear a hat. 3. Sunscreen reapplied as needed or every 2 hours. I use chemical.myself but am thinking to switch to physical barrier because it seems to be less sweat inducing.


    I am 70 years old and during my life I have been located in some of the warmest spots on earth…for this past weekend in the DC area, as has always been the case for me….I have used Baby Oil and enjoy the Sun….and life. People have been living in Sunny places since the beginning of time. I know of folks who have stayed out of the Sun most of the entire life but passed away because of skin cancer. Give me the Sun…and give me a sense of freedom to say bring it on. Too much worry in America these days and not enough humility and courage to live the almighty heck out of everyday. What is it Frank said “I did it my way.” By the way, it was very hot and sunny in Vietnam in 1968-69, and Sunscreen was the last thing on our minds, especially my brothers in the bush. Best to all!!


    For many decades, one of the sunscreen ingredients became carcinogenic when exposed to Uv radiation.

    And you should read some of that tanning bed, ‘research.’ It’s so bad, you’d have to hold y0ur nose. Total lack of scientific design and protocol.


    Low Vit. D levels kill more people from colon and breast cancer annually than melanoma will in 100 years. The sunscreen industry has been playing us for fools. Vit D from sunlight lasts longer and works better than taking pills.

    Start slowly. Work your way up to hours. (Unless you have vitiligo or albinism.)

    For goddess’ sake, let your children play in the sun unless you love buying braces and expanders.


    But I understand one only needs about 15 minutes of actual exposure to get enough vitamin D for the day. Although I wonder now if that’s only good for white people up north.


    The immune system is a huge factor in getting or not getting melanoma, and its treatment – and of course sun exposure boosts your immune system. Stress also compromises the immune system, and once I stopped focusing on sun exposure as the cause of my melanoma, I could see the pattern of deep stress that had led to my being susceptible to producing this cancer. Sadly, even the specialists are rigid in just suggesting avoiding the sun. This just isn’t good enough.

    When I followed the doctors’ prescribed covering up from April to October, I noticed that I felt like a major illness was imminent as soon as I reached February. My sunshine-related vitamin D reserves that i should have been soaking in during those crucial months had never been able to be filled.

    My emphasis now is enjoying the healthy sunshine and doing all I can to boost my immune system in general.


    Hey keke, as far as helping your immune system and treating the melanoma, look into eating seriously seriously real healthy food, and really look into finding yourself some full-spectrum, organic(if possible), CBD oil. Its derived from hemp which is the best plant on the planet for humans, no doubt.


    Sun exposure has both risks and benefits. How can we make good choices while only looking at one side of the equation? Perhaps it increases the risk of skin cancer, while decreasing the risk of other diseases. The research just hasn’t been done.


    I’m white, 70, love the sun, barely ever used sunscreen, overexposed myself, especially in my rash youth, a lot, have spots but no cancer, yet anyway. I realize I’m lucky, or have appropriate genes. But I look at all the people, entire families, indicating the level of brainwashing present, who wear ridiculous clothing, covering up all skin all the time, looking like they’re from another planet, and it’s abundantly clear there is some very strange thinking going on. The sun is not our enemy, and a little common sense regarding how much exposure we allow goes a long way.


    I started using sunscreen in my early 20s when it began to be discussed in women’s magazines in the UK. Now at age 66 my face looks 15 years younger than my peers. Vitaligo(skin cells absent melanin) entered my life in my mid 30s and it became even more important for me as those areas affected have no protection at all and will burn deeply and remain red for weeks. Having moved to Canada in my mid 20s my choice of product became supplied by the US market.
    Having a passion for outdoor activity, skiing, horses, sailing and gardening, my life has been reasonable even though I have slathered on the creams daily, “Kids” lotion SPF60 UVA/UVB Broad Spectrum Coverage.
    Disaster struck when my skin suddenly began to react a couple of weeks ago. The ingredient list revealed that it contained the trifecta Homosalate, Octocrylene and Avobenzone. Searching through all the products on the market in Canada I found that ALL of them contained these chemicals except the mineral based zinc protective ingredients !!
    One of the lotions in my cabinet had been obtained in the UK – this product did not trigger and allergic reaction – that list revealed quite different ingredients.
    This dependence by governments to only rely on testing by their own organisations, FDA in this instance, results in the public getting limited advice, limited products, limited safety and very expensive testing that duplicates existing certifications.
    We can only hope that this situation improves over time. Yes a naive hope unfortunately.


    I am an American living in Australia. This message originally came out in the 1980s and has been added to since then. I have young grandchildren who must have covering sunhats for school or they don’t play outside on days when there is a potential for UV exposure. Sunscreens are in schools for students to use. It is a jingle that you seen in ads on TV, radio etc. Because Australia has a high incidence of skin cancer, this message is drilled into children at a very young age and they listen and follow the rules. Preventing skin cancer is about much more than just sunscreen, young children I know in summer have rashie sun protected bathing suits on with partial coverage of their arms and legs, plus hats. Americans might look at a model that includes more than sunscreen for sun protection.
    “Over the years, the sun protection message has expanded to Slip! Slop! Slap! Seek! Slide! and Sid the Seagull has returned to our TV screens with a new and improved jingle. Sid asks us to protect ourselves in five ways from skin cancer during sun protection times:

    Slip on sun protective clothing that covers as much of your body as possible.
    Slop on SPF 30 or higher broad-spectrum, water-resistant sunscreen, at least 20 minutes before sun exposure. Reapply every two hours when outdoors or more often if perspiring or swimming.
    Slap on a broad-brimmed hat that shades your face, neck and ears.
    Seek shade.
    Slide on sunglasses.”


    I love that! Especially because it removes
    the ‘but it’s TOO HOT to dress like that’
    bs excuse. It’s not as hot here as it is
    Down Under.


    Homo sapiens evolved over 8 million in Africa since they separated from our brothers the gorillas and chimpanzees under the same sun today and never needed no sun creams or sun glasses. All the animals of the earth are adapted to sunlight, as it could not be otherwise.


    There are a few problems with your line of thought. One of them involves evolution. For evolution to occur, you’d have to die of skin cancer before you’ve had some, or any children. Skin cancer generally occurs later in life, after you would traditionally had many children. Therefore there’d be little evolutionary protective effect of a genetic mutation that protects against the sun. Not saying that such a mutation couldn’t occur, but that it’s effect would be minimal. You’re also assuming that light radiation has been consistent throughout the last 8 million years, which it really hasn’t been. Potentially more during some magnetic pole reversals, but I’m no expert. What I’m stressing though, is the need for some more critical thinking.


    Normally I don’t post comments, but sunscreen is my personal enemy! Back in 1983 I used a moisturizer containing Oxybenzone 3 and lost the majority of my face and neck to reactions to this nasty drug. Why do I know this? My dermatologist obtained all the ingredients and after testing ingredients – bingo! It was Oxybenzone 3. Interestingly, there was no reaction until under ultraviolet rays – even with cloud cover I had a severe reaction.

    So I could stop wearing it, but what about the trail of sunblock people leave on telephones, car seats, lawn chairs, toilet seats at the beach, door handles, in pools and hot tubs, etc. People left the trail just hugging or even kissing me. Once the rash began I had no choice but to use very nasty cortisone prescription ointments, affecting my adrenals for the worse. So my endocrine system was affected. What really makes me mad is the sunblock dispensers at Tucson’s Desert Museum!

    Regarding UVA and UVB rays: UVB rays come out mid-day and it is UVB that allows us to absorb Vitamin D. UVA rays do nothing but harm us. So most sunblocks are affecting people’s health by messing with our endocrine system and Vitamin D status.

    I see ZERO point to using them. Just cover up with a big hat, long sleeves, when out for long periods. Expose yourself to UVB rays mid-day for 20-30 minutes, then cover up. Stop using trans-fats and highly processed vegetable oils. If you must use a sunblock, use mineral based. I’ve seen articles about micronized minerals being a problem so I’d be very cautious.

    I don’t burn anymore, just watch closely for sunblock users and places they’ve been.


    Excellent story and very interesting comments – however, as a toxicologist who has worked in this industry for over 40 years, I would like to bring a few other points to peoples attention. 1st – over exposure to the sun causes skin cancer – that we all agree on; 2nd – using an SPF 50 and above fools people into thinking they are protected from the sun, causing them to increase their time in the sun which increases their risks of skin cancer – this is call “Sunscreen Abuse” (International Agency for Research on Cancer – Br J Dermatol., 161:40-45); 3rd – there is no data supporting that sunscreens prevent, stop or even slowdown the incidence of skin cancer – in fact, skin cancer has significantly increased “GLOBALLY” since we started using sunscreens frequently about 40 years ago (American Cancer Society – CA Cancer J Clin., 68:7-30 and International Agency for Research on Cancer – Int. J. Cancer., 88:838–842.); Lastly and most important – there are literally hundreds of scientific papers that demonstrate that there are many adverse reactions to chemical sunscreens in numerous aquatic and terrestrial species, including humans (! This is why FDA is relooking at the safety of these chemicals and why they have removed 2 sunscreen actives from the “GRASE” list and are questioning 12 other chemicals.
    At this time – avoiding sun exposure during peak hours (10 AM – 3 PM), minimizing sun exposure on beaches (beach umbrellas/cabanas), wearing protective clothing (including hats and sunglasses) and “LASTLY” using a non-nano size zinc oxide or titanium dioxide sunscreen on skin exposed to sun appears to be the best known practice to avoid skin cancer.


    I wonder if the first commenter understood the article. “Nowhere in the entire thing do you present any evidence that contradicts suggestions given by the AAD and other numerous health organizations.” Yeah, exactly – because there’s isn’t any, that is like the core thesis of the piece. “Overall, sunscreen has been proven to be one of the best ways to prevent skin cancer” – you ask for contradictory evidence, then provide none of your own. I think the author was pretty clear in stating multiple times that it’s not that sunscreen is bad, it’s that the evidence that it protects against skin cancer is far flimsier than most people think and more evidence about safety of specific chemicals commonly used in it is needed.


    Sunscreen is not specifically designated as prevention of cancer. It prevents the damage and burns related to over exposure to the sun and reducing one factor of risk. Truth is the causes of skin cancer when studied found the perfect the risk is 50/50 genetics vs damage.


    This is an extremely poorly researched article. Nowhere in the entire thing do you present any evidence that contradicts suggestions given by the AAD and other numerous health organizations. All you do is point out possible downsides of using sunscreens, which are all either already acknowledged or misleading, mostly for fearmongering. For one, of course sunscreen is not a perfect shield against the sun, (and no company claims this) and on the back of every sunscreen you can find, it will recommend to wear protective clothing and find shade and avoid direct sunlight. Secondly, sunscreens are regulated by the FDA as drugs (which is why some filters available elsewhere in the world are not available in the US), meaning they must prove safety and efficacy (an SPF rating). We are not relying purely on the company to provide a functioning product. Thirdly, the study published in JAMA about chemical sunscreen filter absorption says NOTHING about the safety of chemical sunscreens, only that further research is needed. Also, in the study, the subjects applied much larger amounts of sunscreen that would ever be used in actual day to day use (4 times a day to 70% of body surfaces). And this study only applies to chemical sunscreen filters, not mineral filters (zinc and titanium), meaning that even if there was a risk, you can use mineral sunscreens instead. Lastly, while darker skinned individuals are less prone to skin cancer, there are still numerous studies showing its importance, and your assertion that dermatologists’ recommendations are disproportionally hurting darker skinned people is frankly ridiculous and unsuppported.

    Overall, sunscreen has been proven to be one of the best ways to prevent skin cancer, backed up by some of the largest medical organizations, and most of the claims in this article are misleading.

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


& Tipsters

Corruption in science?
Academic discrimination?
Research censorship?
Government cover-ups?

Undark wants to hear about it.

Email us at, or visit our contact page for more secure options.