F15 sunscreen 'won't protect against cancer'
Medical journal argues that Nice guidance is inadequate, and warns GPs to be on the lookout for malignant melanoma
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.People are being exposed to an unnecessary risk of skin cancer because use of a minimum factor 15 sunscreen, as officially advised, provides inadequate protection, a leading medical journal says today.
The Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin (DTB) says the sunscreen protection factor recommended by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) is far too low and not based on how people actually use the creams. It says factor 30 sunscreen is necessary because people typically apply much less cream than is recommended by the manufacturers and do not reapply it as often as they should – after swimming or excessive sweating, for example.
The high cost of sunscreens also restricts their use, making the higher factor 30 versions more economical.
The Medical Defence Union, which insures doctors, has warned GPs to be on the lookout for malignant melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer. It said it had been told of 134 cases over the past five years in which patients with the disease took legal action against their doctors, mostly as a result of delayed or failed diagnosis.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments