Nope, not even a little bit.

A recent pop science article has been sent to me by various friends and colleagues and since it challenged one of the major tenets in the practice of dermatology, I thought I would throw in my two cents. This article, entitled “Sunscreen is the New Margarine”, makes the argument that the public has been duped by the medical community into using sunscreen to prevent skin cancer, when new research may suggest that avoiding the sun hastens our deaths. These conclusions were drawn from a few observational survey studies from one research group in Sweden, which have not been reproduced by any other independent researchers. The author even states at one point, “Am I willing to entertain the notion that current guidelines are inadvertently advocating a lifestyle that is killing us?" That is certainly a strong and inflammatory statement that I’m sure is not warranted quite yet.

One of the major conclusions of the scientific paper cited in the article is that sun avoidance is as much of a risk factor for early death as smoking. I don’t personally believe there is enough evidence to definitively say that. At this point, the data is not strong enough to make the definitive conclusion of causation, perhaps only an association. This reminds me of the many nutrition studies that grossly misstate causation (“Blueberries prevent memory loss”), via data derived from faulty survey studies ridden with biases. A great article from FiveThirtyEight.com explores how easy it is to draw spurious correlations from data sets, in which two random variables can be shown to have a “causative” relationship. For example, they found that if you eat steak and trim the fat, you have a higher rate of being an atheist. They also saw in their data set that eating cabbage was associated with innie bellybuttons. This TylerVigen.com post has great infographics illustrating other absurd spurious correlations, such as the number of people who drowned by falling into a pool is correlated with the number of films Nicholas Cage appeared for any given year. Huh?!

Only at the very end of the article is some semblance of a nuanced stance. The author cites updated recommendations from Cancer Council Australia, where they suggest that there might be some health benefits from sun exposure and that limited time out in the sun sans sunscreen when the UV index is under 3 may provide health benefits. This is a sensible approach that acknowledges emerging research while balancing it with the known harmful effects of sun exposure. In my opinion, sunscreen is DEFINITELY not the new margarine and it does not have to be sunscreen all the time or none at all. I'm all about moderation, but with that, I'll let you make up your own mind.

___

Want more reading? Check out this great rebuttal to the original scientific article here.