Skin Cancer: The burning question

Will Britons see sense on protecting against skin cancer? Mark MacKenzie reports

Government spending on treatment for the 70,000 Britons diagnosed with various types of skin cancer every year is estimated to be in excess of £1.7m annually, a vast sum when you consider that two thirds of skin cancers are preventable.

Of the various initiatives taking place next week, one of the more high profile will be that organised by the charity Cancer Research. Its government-funded Sun Smart campaign is running for its fourth year. To help spread the word, the charity has appointed an Australian, Genevieve Frisby, as campaign manager, aware perhaps of Australia's excellent track record in reducing the incidence of sun-induced melanoma and carcinoma.

"These days, more people die from skin cancer in the UK than in Australia," Ms Frisby explains. "In Britain, the sun comes in concentrated bursts so people tend to get carried away when sunbathing." Ms Frisby believes that this, allied to the huge increase in the numbers of Britons holidaying overseas, has led to a significant increase in skin-cancer mortality rates.

"Our message is never burn, because it can double the risk of contracting cancer," she says. To seasoned travellers, the Sun Smart message is doubtless a familiar one: avoid the sun's strongest rays between 11am and 3pm; use sunscreen with a minimum sun protection factor (SPF) of 15; and wear long sleeves and a hat. Nevertheless, adds Ms Frisby, "we still have our work cut out changing attitudes towards tanning. Some people working outdoors consider a tan a perk of the job, but they're up to four times more likely to get certain types of cancer, such as squamous-cell or basal-cell carcinoma."

Others say that when it comes to reducing sun-induced cancers, the Government has its priorities wrong. Graham Hill is managing director of Delph, one of only six brands of sunscreen listed on the Government's Drug Tariff, the national index that classifies health-industry products as clinical rather than cosmetic. "In Europe and the UK, sunscreen is regarded as a cosmetic," says Mr Hill, "largely thanks to Coco Chanel, who made tanning fashionable in the 1920s and 1930s." Hill says sunscreen should be reclassified as a "preventative medicine" with all the rigorous clinical trials that entails, and says the industry that produces our most widely used method of sun protection is in need of an overhaul. Currently, he explains, manufacturers are under no obligation to conduct clinical trials, only making changes in the event of a consumer complaint to a Trading Standards officer.

In recent years, Delph has invested more than £150,000 on independent testing to ensure its products meet the criteria set down by the Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances (ACBS), the government body charged with deciding which products make the jump from a cosmetic to a medicine. For a sunscreen to make it on to the Drug Tariff it must undergo testing on human volunteers.

In addition to improved testing, Mr Hill says there are more basic lessons on the use of sunscreens that are still to be learned. "Studies ... have shown that most people only apply a third to half of the correct amount of sun protection," he says. "The SPF rating of any product is based on an application of 2mm per square centimetre of skin, with regular top-ups. The average person needs to apply 35mm per application, a huge amount." Hill points out that the amount required will vary depending on body size but even by a conservative estimate, an average 200ml bottle of sunscreen should last no longer than two days.

Genevieve Frisby also wants clearer information on usage: "There's a lot of confusion over the protection available. For example, factor 30 only provides 4 per cent more protection than factor 15, but most people assume it's double."

For more information on the Sun Smart campaign go to sunsmart.org.uk