Kosmetika: Die Themen     Free! Analyse your cosmetic products Enjoy the summer with great make-up Key word hydration: what is the best cream for dry skin? Death of coral due to sunscreens Ester oils versus genuine plant oils

Anti-wrinkle day creams:
More sun protection than day cream

The summer has come to an end. Many of us who reach for a day cream in the mornings when getting ready for the day, however, continue to use sun-protection cream. Why? This is because many anti-wrinkle creams contain a high dose of light-protection filters. These are the same synthetic light-protection filters also used in sun-protection creams. Is this really good for your health and for your skin?

• For animals, it is disastrous, as light-protection filters are repeatedly being tested on animals during the course of studies, due to the potential problems they cause (see below).

Some creams have a small label “SPF 18” or “SPF 15”, while with some products the user is not even told that they contain synthetic light-protection filters as anti-ageing “weapons”. Usually, the term “light protection” is discreetly used. What is behind it all? From some of the letters I receive, it emerges that many do not know that this light-protection is the very synthetic light-protection filter used in sun-protection products (see examples below).

• When using an anti-wrinkle cream with a protection factor of 15 or 18, you might as well use sun-protection cream as face cream every day or add a sun-protection cream to your normal day cream (without light-protection filters).

A factor 18 means 93.3% sun-protection effect. Factor 18 – this does not sound like a lot. It is a lot, however, as the high light-protection factors completely hide the fact that a cream with a factor of 18 achieves a UVB absorption level of 93.3%. The difference between a factor 18 cream and a factor 40 cream is a mere 2.2 % (see figure).

Do light-protection filters keep your skin young for longer?

It is true that sunlight plays a role in the ageing process of the skin. If we consistently covered up from head to foot, our skin would remain youthful for longer. What is equally true, however, is that light is a life elixir. We need it, as we need air to breathe.
• Sunlight is urgently needed to generate vitamin D in our skin. Experts blame a lack of vitamin D for many chronic illnesses and depressive moods.

Difference between theory and practice

In theory, screening the skin against the effects of light is a sound concept, when justified. And in practice? In practice, protecting the skin from the effects of light is a process fraught with risks and side-effects. So far there have been no answers at all to any of the important questions.
• Does permanently protecting the skin from light with the aid of synthetic UV filters really make people look younger years later? Nobody can answer this question, because it is impossible to test the same woman twice: using a cream with light-protection filters for many years and no such cream on the other hand.
• Light is, after all, only one of many ageing factors. Experts say that we can influence 40% of the ageing process, but by doing what? Firstly and most importantly, by eating healthily, taking exercise, leading a generally healthy way of life, having a positive attitude to life and consistently doing without sun-bathing.
• Those who adhere to these points have done much to keep their skin young. Those who do not will not be able to do much against the effects of ageing by using cosmetics either, as the skin gets its strength and nutrition from within.
• There is also nobody to answer the question of whether the high dose of light-protection filters and daily sun-screening might have exactly the opposite effect – damaging the skin and perhaps making it look even older. There may even be more serious health effects.
• My opinion: by using creams with light-protection factors and chemical light-protection filters all year round, people are reduced to guinea pigs. Nobody knows whether these creams do more harm than good, but they are still used.

Excessive sun-bathing is dangerous but light is not

• What is the real point here? Sun-bathing in the summer or in a tanning booth definitely promotes ageing of the skin and poses a health risk. Those who expose themselves to strong solar radiation for longer periods must protect themselves by using sun-protection creams.
• It would be much better for the health and youthfulness of the skin not to spend so much time in the sun in the first place, but to enjoy it from the shade.

Are the potential risks and environmental stresses associated with synthetic light-protection filters to some degree related to the profits to be expected? This question should be posed against the background of the increasing number of allergic people.
• As not all synthetic light-protection filters pose a similar problem, much would be gained if the manufacturers dispensed with particular light-protection filters. The light-protection filters most used, however, are those that have been criticised for years.

With regard to the product examples:
light-protection filters in breast milk, hormonal effects, coral death - the risks and side-effects of chemical light-protection filters

Coming soon: a major product comparison of anti-ageing creams

The main point is that this powerful mixture of chemical light-protection filters is shown in very small print

This advertisement emphasises ingredients that hardly play a role in the product itself: retinol and hyaluronic acid. This makes the advertisement similar to many others of its kind. The same methods are used time and again: excessive exaggeration and clever formulations.

• The word “practically” plays a leading role in these clever formulations. “Wrinkles practically eliminated”. This formulation ensures that there can be no legal consequences. “Practically filled in” sounds like a lot, but says nothing.
• This advertisement does not even mention the ingredients that really play a major role.
• First among these is good old glycerine. It is used by almost all manufacturers because it is of major importance for ensuring the moisture balance and thus the tightening (anti-wrinkle effect) of the skin.
• Another important factor is the powerful mixture of chemical light-protection filters. In this advertisement, they have been cleverly packaged in the word “pre-programmed” wrinkles. This can actually only mean that blocking out the light is supposed to prevent the formation of wrinkles and that this is done by means of a powerful mixture of chemical light-protection filters.

• Ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate has been shown to have hormonal effects when tested on animals. It is absorbed via the skin and has been found in breast milk.
• Once again, a comparison with the sun-protection product on the right-hand side shows: synthetic light-protection filters such as those used in sun-protection cream are used here as well.

Synthetic light protection filters “process” sunlight. They work by reacting with and on the skin. The associated chemical reactions have an effect on the skin. This is why light-protection filters frequently have significant side-effects, such as allergies.

Light-protection filters in breast milk, hormonal effects, coral death

• The well-known German consumer protection magazine “Öko-Test” proved the existence of some light-protection filters in breast milk as early as 1998.
• Researchers at the University of Zurich associated with the scientist Dr Margret Schlumpf have proven that many of the most frequently used light-protection filters adversely affect the normal development of rats when conducting animal experiments (i.e. have an undesirable hormonal effect).
• As light-protection filters are increasingly being used and their potential for causing problems is thus increased, they have been tested on animals for many years. This is partly because the powerful cosmetics industry has been contesting the results and has refused to draw the conclusions. The term “light-protection filters” has become synonymous with animal experiments
• Dr Schlumpf and Walter Lichtensteiger have been able to prove a hormonal effect of certain light-protection filters in cell cultures and in some cases in animal experiments. In their book published in 2003 (“Kosmetika, Wirkungen und Umweltverhalten von synthetischen Parfümstoffen und UV-Filtern” – Cosmetics, their effects and the environmental behaviour of synthetic perfume ingredients and UV filters) they pointed out that we are exposed to light-protection filters twice over – via the skin and via the food chain, “as these primarily lipophilic compounds are formed in food sources containing fat, for example fish and human milk”.
• In the meantime, the EU is having hormonal substances used in cosmetics investigated. One conclusion: the light-protection filters octyl methoxycinnamate and 4-methylbenzylidene camphor were found to affect the formation and decomposition of thyroid hormones, thus limiting the efficiency of the thyroid gland.
• A Japanese study has now also shown a hormonal effect of the light-protection filter octocrylene during cell studies.
• Studies conducted by marine biologists, which were published at the beginning of 2008, describe the frightening dimensions of such damage. Scientists at the Ancona Polytechnical University in Italy have reached a clear conclusion: sun creams with synthetic light-protection filters are endangering coral reefs worldwide.
• A special problem was posed by the chemical light-protection filters ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate, benzophenone-3 and -4 and methylbenzylidene camphor. All these light-protection filters are also suspected of having hormonal effects.