| |
 |
| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:53 pm  |
June 9, 2005
Psst! This Stuff Keeps You Young, but It's Illegal
By LAUREL NAVERSEN GERAGHTY
MEXORYL is not the most notorious drug on the black
market. Only a few insiders, most of them women, even
know its worth, let alone where to buy it. But it is
one of the most ordinary substances ever to be
bootlegged. Mexoryl SX, made by the Paris-based
skin-care giant L'Oréal, is an illegal sunscreen in
this country, one that is thought to be particularly
useful in preventing wrinkles.
Called by dermatologists one of the most effective
filters of all wavelengths of ultraviolet light,
Mexoryl has been used in sunscreen lotions sold in
Canada and Europe for more than a decade. But the Food
and Drug Administration has not yet approved it.
The reason for the delay is difficult to discern,
because the F.D.A. does not comment on drugs going
through its sometimes lengthy approval process. Dr.
Darrell S. Rigel, a dermatologist at New York
University, however, said safety is not an issue.
"It's just bureaucracy," he said.
And so the cognoscenti ask for Ombrelle Extreme ($11),
Garnier's Ambre Solaire ($24) or the particularly
coveted Anthélios XL by La Roche-Posay ($40 and more
for a relatively small tube) at certain drug stores -
like Zitomer and Cambridge Chemists on Manhattan's
Upper East Side - or order it online from Canadian or
French pharmacies or even on eBay. Though the F.D.A.
does not track down and prosecute those consumers, the
purchases are technically illegal.
When asked about the decision to sell the unapproved
sunscreens, representatives of both Zitomer and
Cambridge Chemists declined to comment.
"I started buying it from Canada," one 46-year-old New
Yorker said about Anthélios, which she has used for
three years. (She insisted that her name not be
published because she did not want it publicly
connected with illegal purchases.) The Canadian
pharmacy Web site feelbest.com sells a three-ounce
tube for a little over $20, which is less than half
the cost at Cambridge Chemists.
The woman said she finds Anthélios lighter than
titanium dioxide sunblocks and less likely to stain
her clothes. "I buy it by the case," she said. "It's
pretty good stuff."
The demand for Mexoryl is partly driven by one of the
strongest motives: vanity. People are getting wise to
the idea that UVA rays, less known than
sunburn-causing UVB rays, cause classic signs of
aging, not only wrinkles but also sagging skin, brown
spots and yellow discoloration. And finding a legal
sunscreen in the United States that effectively blocks
UVA light, which Mexoryl-enhanced products do, is not
as easy as it might seem.
Sunscreen labels often advertise "full spectrum" or
"broad spectrum" properties, meaning that they block
both UVA and UVB rays. But products can make this
claim without specifying how well they protect against
UVA rays. And because the familiar sun protection
factor (SPF) measurements apply only to UVB blockage,
consumers have no handy way to gauge the effectiveness
of UVA filters.
A 2004 Procter & Gamble study that looked at 188
United States sunscreens found that only 56 percent
offered significant UVA protection, though 82 percent
claimed to do so.
Part of the problem is that only within the last 10
years have scientists come to understand the
biomechanics of UVA damage. "Up until 1995 the
thinking was that UVA was not as important as we now
know," Dr. Rigel said.
So far the Food and Drug Administration has approved
only three ingredients protective against UVA: zinc
oxide, titanium dioxide and avobenzone (trade name
Parsol 1789).
But Mexoryl seems more effective than any of these at
protecting against UVA light. In 2000, Canadian and
French researchers slathered six brands of sunscreen
and sunblock on the backs of volunteers and exposed
their skin to a UV sunlamp for 15 minutes. The product
containing Mexoryl (along with avobenzone, titanium
dioxide and other ingredients) was more than twice as
effective in protecting against UVA light as any of
the others. The study was published in the Journal of
the American Academy of Dermatology.
Mexoryl's secret is its chemical structure, Dr. Rigel
said. "You can achieve much more efficient and
powerful and effective protection with this one
ingredient, or you can add it to another ingredient
and get an incredibly high SPF protection level, all
the way up to SPF 90," as well as UVA protection, he
said.
The difference between UVA and UVB light is a matter
of wavelength. UVA rays come in longer wavelengths
(320 to 400 nanometers), so they pass through the
outer layer of skin, rather than burning it as do the
shorter UVB rays (290 to 320 nanometers). UVA rays
penetrate deep into the dermis, or lower layer of
skin, where they can break down collagen and other
proteins that keep the skin plump and firm.
"That deeper penetration and deeper damage is what we
think is really associated with premature aging in the
skin," said Dr. Clay J. Cockerell, a Dallas
dermatologist, who is president of the American
Academy of Dermatology.
The UVA rays can also damage cells and DNA in the
dermis, decrease the skin's immunity and generate
harmful free radicals. Though the exact mechanisms
remain unclear, doctors assume these actions explain
why UVA exposure is also associated with skin cancer.
Unlike UVB light, prevalent only when the sun is high
in the sky - between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. during summer
- UVA light is virtually inescapable. "It's present in
the same amount from sunup to sundown, 365 days a
year, totally independent of climate conditions," said
Dr. Katie Rodan, an associate clinical dermatologist
at Stanford University.
That means it not only penetrates car windows and
T-shirts, but it also reaches the skin during fog,
rain and even blizzards.
Mexoryl is also very sturdy compared with other UVA
filters, which tend to decompose when exposed to
sunlight. That may account for Mexoryl's slightly
gummy texture, which can be noticeable on the skin
long after it has been applied.
It is hard to tell whether Mexoryl will make it to the
United States market anytime soon. A L'Oréal
spokeswoman would say only that the company has
"initiated a process of discussion with the F.D.A.
regarding Mexoryl and is continuing to work closely
with the F.D.A."
Doctors say UVA protection in this country has been
slow to improve because consumers are not yet aware of
the damage UVA light can do and of how inadequately
many "broad spectrum" sunscreens protect against it.
"I take care of some very well-educated people," Dr.
Rodan of Stanford said. "Half of them are Berkeley
professors. But beyond the SPF number, they don't know
anything about sunscreen or what UVA light does. It's
like 'in SPF I trust,' but that's so misleading when
you consider the whole picture." |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Jun 09, 2005 4:14 pm |
| Thanks for this very informative article. I'm off to check outwww.feelbest.com right now. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Jun 09, 2005 4:31 pm |
Thanks for the article 
Anyone know of any sunscreens with MEXORYL but WITHOUT titanium dioxide  |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Jun 09, 2005 6:53 pm |
I read this article during breakfast and felt rather smug -- we're all way ahead of the NYT when it comes to sunscreen FAQs .
I also thought it's quite possible a reporter has been lurking on the EDS Forum! |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Jun 09, 2005 8:52 pm |
 April, you can be hilarious!
Thanks, betterat40, for the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:06 pm |
Interesting, thanks for posting.
There is something that confuses me though and I've been looking on the internet for an answer.
Most sites say UVA is always present and from this article it seems to say it doesn't increase or decrease in the Summer/Winter (which is something I've been trying to find out), but most sites also say that UVA is responsible for 97%(ish) of tanning and UVB is mostly responsible for burning. So, I must be missing something because that would mean we'd tan in the Winter too, wouldn't it?. Have I misread something? Can anyone clarify this for me?
Thanks - M |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:45 pm |
Molly - I wonder if something as simple as the difference in the sun's position in winter versus summer may be a factor in the degree or type of UVA damage. After all, UVB damage isn't as great in winter months either, except perhaps for skiers. The article clearly quotes a Stanford University dermatologist as saying UVA is consistently powerful year long, though Maybe you can find a second opinion.
Let us know if you do! |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 10, 2005 12:02 am |
...and also. If the production of melanin is the response to skin damage from UVA rays and UVA rays are damaging all year round (which I believe is true), why doesn't our skin trigger the melanin defence mechanism in the Winter months too?
Does this lack of skin response mean winter UVA is less damaging or damaging in a different way to summer UVA? |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 10, 2005 7:44 am |
May be it has to do with different habits in different seasons... In winter people tend to spend more time indoors and wear long sleeve clothing, scarfs, hats, etc; whereas in the summer, people spend more time outside and wearing less and thinner clothing..... 
just a thought... |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:26 am |
I thought that UVA was responsible for Aging (wrinkles etc) and UVB was responsible for Burning That leads me to believe that we have to watch out for UVA all the time and UVB during the months when the sun is hottest
Does UVA cause burning too |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:43 am |
| I think you're right cbrooke. UVA penetrates deeper to cause premature aging and damage to the skin while UVB causes tanning and sunburn. I also thought UVA was fairly constant year-round while UVB changes according to closeness of sun to earth during different seasons...In any case, UVB is easy to protect from but seems in the US getting a good protective sunscreen from UVA is difficult. |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 10, 2005 1:21 pm |
Thanks betterat40 for posting the article.
It states that only 56% of sunscreens in the US offer UVA protection. I thought it was at 5 - 10%.
BTW, does anyone know what is the best US sunblock (one that gives ultimate UVA protection)? |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 10, 2005 6:28 pm |
mmmm...I've been reading a lot. Everything I've read says UVA tanning/aging, UVB burning.
UVA rays are responsible for tanning because they penetrate the layers of the skin more deeply and trigger the body's defence mechanism to produce melanin and tan. You can buy sunscreen with just UVB filters which let you get a tan and not burn. This deeper penetration is also why it's primarily responsible for skin aging because it's damaging the deeper cells, whereas
the UVB rays which are much stronger in the Summer months only hit the top layers of the skin and are primarily responsible for burning.
If you've just started reading about UVA/UVB and you're wading through EDS stuff you might like to read this page. I think it's written for kids, but it's really clear.
http://health.howstuffworks.com/sunscreen.htm
And, yes UVA rays are constant all year round, which is why I'm baffled that we don't tan in the Winter. If the rays are damaging our skin why is there no physical response.
mmmm....Des's suggestion - some activities remain constant Summer and Winter, like dog-walking and I don't wear a hat or gloves, but definitely no tan there.
M.April could be onto something. My parents live in a Greek village half the year and the locals are very wary of Winter sunshine, they seem to think it's much more damaging and some of the old women have amazing skin. Perhaps it's more damaging because the skin doesn't respond and protect your skin with melanin.
So, I look at my own skin and the parts which I only expose in the Summer months and am happy to tan like legs and they are still in good condition. It's only the parts which are constantly exposed in the Winter - hands and face, which look sundamaged. This leads me to believe that tanning (natural protection) is not so bad for the skin. It seems the constant Winter (non-melanin-triggering) UVA rays are the aging ones. The facial skin is thinner, but hands they should stand up to it better.
M |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 10, 2005 8:15 pm |
Just had a thought, I'll answer myself.
Could be that in the Winter the lack of light means that the Pineal (sp?) gland isn't stimulated and this is also a factor in the triggering of melanin protection in the skin.(see howstuffworks.com for an explanation) This could be why Winter sun is more aging, it's still penetrating the deeper layers of the skin, but the skin doesn't try and defend itself. Yikes, that's bad news! It's a theory, anyway.
 on the other hand some places are blindingly bright in the Winter and you still don't tan (e.g. Beijing), but then again it's so cold you can't stay out for very long. But then again if you go ski-ing in BJ you can burn so UVB and stronger light must be present.
It's a bit strange posting my own answer to my own question. I'm only doing it because I'd like to know if anyone has any more knowledge about this. So, go ahead and tell me I'm wrong if you know something about it. You'll be most welcome. |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 10, 2005 8:57 pm |
One's hands and face are exposed year round -- not just in Winter (unlike arms, legs back, etc.). The conventional wisdom is that the degree of damage is correlative to CUMULATIVE sun exposure. Simple as that, don't you think?
Thus, most postings on this forum are largely about facial products, with a few others about hair, hands and feet.
My first dermatologist told me (with a wink) that nuns have the best [skin] What does that tell us??? |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:30 pm |
Yes Joani, good point - cumulative damage if we're addressing the aging aspect, which I partly was. And I also think this means it's OK to get your body out on holiday and tan a bit. I mean 2 or 3 weeks exposure out of 52 if you're careful isn't going to do that much harm. I really think this absolute no tan thing is overplayed.
But it still isn't an answer to the main thing that makes no sense to me. Maybe I've written too much so in brief.
All my info says UVA not UVB is responsible for tanning because it penetrates the skin more deeply and triggers the skin's defence mechanism in the form of melanin so why, if UVA is constant all year round and penetrates just as deeply, don't we tan in the winter? I'm thinking light and pineal gland now, but I'm not sure.
It's really just a theoretical question but it baffles me. |
|
|
|
|
| Fri Apr 19, 2024 6:51 am |
If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.
Click Here to join our community.
If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site. |
|
 |
|
|
