logo
Inside the terrifying rise of anti-sun cream myths being spread by celebs & influencers – & why lies could cost lives

Inside the terrifying rise of anti-sun cream myths being spread by celebs & influencers – & why lies could cost lives

The Sun3 days ago
WE all know how important it is to slap on sunblock to protect our skin - don't we? Apparently not.
A worrying trend is gripping social media platforms, flooding sites like TikTok with dangerous anti-sunscreen views, often repeated by influencers and celebrities with huge followings, experts warn.
8
8
Last week, Samantha Faiers, of TOWIE fame, was forced to hit back after coming under fire for revealing that her kids don't wear sun cream.
Admitting she is not a medical expert, the reality star, 34, wrote on Instagram that she believes SPF is 'pretty harmful and full of toxic ingredients', adding that her family has 'built a tolerance' to the sun.
It came after The Hills actress Kristin Cavallari, 37, said on her podcast, Let's Be Honest: 'I don't wear sunscreen and anytime I do an interview, I get a lot of s*** when I admit that I don't.'
Other celebs including Kelsey Parker and Lauryn Goodman have
told their followers they ignore NHS advice to wear at least SPF30.
They are not alone in falling for and repeating misinformation online.
Sunscreen sceptics believe the products contain toxic, cancer-causing chemicals and are to blame for rising rates of skin cancer.
But leading doctors and scientists say huge scientific advances, greater awareness of the symptoms is fuelling better diagnosis, while an ageing population and more people holidaying abroad, are also driving rates up.
The increase in sunbed use, tanning trends and misinformation, plus people ignoring advice, is 'also sadly fuelling the rapid rise in
cases', says Marie Tudor of skin cancer charity SKCIN.
She says the spike in anti-SPF sentiment is 'incredibly sad to
witness', adding: 'The rise in anti-SPF supporters, driven by misinformation on social media, is a mammoth concern.
'Largely promoted by TikTok, this damaging content is influencing a younger generation who are highly susceptible to sun damage and is further fuelled by tanning trends and products.
'Sadly, such misinformation is without doubt going to cost lives.'
Consultant clinical oncologist Dr James Wilson, who specialises in skin and lung cancers, agrees.
'Everybody thinks it's not going to happen to them,' he adds.
'I've got young people in my clinic who presented with metastatic [advanced] melanoma.
'I've had a number who have died, leaving young children behind.
'That's got to be avoided at all costs.
'Rumours of a risk should not put you off doing a behaviour that we know is protective.'
8
Melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer that can spread throughout the body, kills more than 2,000 people a year in the UK.
Nine in 10 cases could be prevented by staying safe in the sun and avoiding sunbeds, according to Cancer Research UK.
'Your lifetime risk of melanoma is correlated with the number of times you've had sunburn in your life,' says Dr Wilson.
'SPF stops you from getting sunburned.'
A child's skin is thinner, burns more easily and lets UV rays penetrate deeper.
Dr Leonor Chen, skin ageing and aesthetics expert
Samantha, 34, who is mum to Paul, 5, Rosie, 5, and three-year-old Edward, was asked on Instagram, where she has 2.5million followers, what sunscreen she uses.
Sharing her experience, she replied: 'So this is always a bit of a controversial one, but honestly, me and my whole family don't actually wear sunscreen.
'Over the years, the kids have built up a really good tolerance to being in the sun.'
Rather, she says, she takes other steps to protect her children - including mineral SPFs and staying out of the midday sun.
'I think SPF swimwear is such a good and safer option,' she added.
'But also, don't be afraid of the sun! Early in the morning or later in the afternoon when [the sun is] not as strong, I love letting the kids run around and soak it up. It's so good for them.
'That said, I do always bring a Tallow Zine SPF with me when I go away, just in case.
'And hats or caps are a must! Especially for us ladies, because no one wants extra sun damage.'
Fans' fury
Her response baffled followers and experts alike.
One follower responded: 'You need to delete your story about not wearing sunscreen, I don't think you understand the damage you can do to your followers by promoting this.'
PROTECT YOUR SKIN
TO protect yourself against the sun's rays, the NHS says to:
Marie says: 'The use of SPF 30+ broad spectrum sunscreen when the UV Index is 3 or above, is a critical prevention method.'
Dr Wilson says: 'There's enough variety in the market and information on the packaging for you to find one that agrees with you.'
Don't forget the star rating for UVA - the NHS recommends a minimum of 4-star UVA protection.
Meanwhile, Bruce Green, chartered chemist, scientist and founder of SOS Serum Skincare, says there is 'no such thing as 'building tolerance' to UV rays'.
'Skin damage from UV exposure is cumulative and largely irreversible,' he stresses.
Research shows that your chance of melanoma skin cancer doubles if you have had five or more sunburns, or one blistering sunburn in childhood or adolescence, according to Melanoma Focus.
London-based Dr Leonor Chen, a skin ageing and aesthetics expert, tells Sun Health: 'A child's skin is thinner, burns more easily and lets UV rays penetrate deeper.
'They also have less melanin - the pigment that helps protect against UV - and what little they do make takes time to build up.
'In other words, they burn before their tan appears.
'Their immune systems are also less developed, meaning their skin can't repair DNA damage as effectively.'
8
8
While celebs and influencers sharing their own experiences may not intend to do harm, experts warn that with millions of followers comes a responsibility.
Kimberley Medd, clinic lead at Face the Future, tells Sun Health: "Even well-intentioned comments can lead to real-world harm if they downplay established medical guidance.
'Paediatricians and dermatologists worldwide recommend sunscreen for children over six months.
'For infants under six months, sun avoidance and protective clothing are preferred.'
Mr Green adds: 'While I appreciate Sam Faiers' emphasis on shade, sun avoidance during peak hours and protective clothing, it's important to address the misinformation surrounding sunscreen that was shared in her statement.
'SPF swimwear and hats are excellent tools, but they should complement, not replace proper sunscreen use - especially when skin is directly exposed.'
Dangerous misinformation
So where does misinformation like this stem from?
We spoke to Roberta Whitney, 52, a former model with 21,000 Instagram followers, who believes we should 'embrace the sun'.
She told us: '[She believes] lots of SPFs have chemicals in them that are endocrine disruptors, and I feel we should embrace the sun rather than this fear-based marketing that surrounds SPF.'
Roberta believes many SPF formulas have 'chemical filters or stabilisers' that can be 'cancer-causing' or 'block the skin's pores'.
Most of the damaging rumours about SPF are based on concerns around a common ingredient called oxybenzone.
Dr Wilson says: 'When rats have been fed a high dose of oxybenzone, there have been some hormonal changes observed.
'To say that that would happen in humans massively underestimates the complexity of cell signaling and metabolism in humans compared to a rat.
'It also suggests that the amount of oxybenzone you absorb through the skin is the same as the circulating levels of oxybenzone in a rat that's been eating it.
'The evidence is really, really scant, and the people who shout loudly about it never seem to shout loudly about things where the evidence is really concrete and solid.'
For those worried about chemical sunscreens - in spite of the lack of evidence supporting those fears - Dr Chen says there are alternatives.
'For those concerned about chemical sunscreens — whether due to skin sensitivity or personal preference — mineral options like zinc oxide or titanium dioxide are a good alternative,' she adds.
'They're well tolerated, effective, and especially suitable for young or sensitive skin.'
Roberta is CEO of a beauty brand, BioBeauty, which doesn't sell SPF. But she says it's 'not anti-SPF', but 'pro-awareness'.
She says: 'I believe people should make smart decisions about whether or not they want to use it [SPF].
'Sunlight isn't the enemy. Burning is. That's what we want to avoid.'
8
Meanwhile, some so-called 'sun-nutritionists' also claim that sunscreen blocks us from experiencing the benefits of sunlight, particularly vitamin D, which we need for healthy bones.
'I don't think there's any real strong case for that,' says Dr Wilson.
'You do need natural light to generate vitamin D. In the British summer, being outside for somewhere between 15 and 30 minutes is enough to get you all the vitamin D you need.'
It can be achieved outside of peak UV hours, too, and in winter, the NHS advises taking a daily vitamin D supplement.
'You can also get vitamin D from your diet in things like oily fish and eggs, so there are ways you can supplement it very easily,' says Dr Wilson.
It's not just melanoma that SPF is scientifically proven to help protect you from, but non-melanoma types of skin cancer too - the most common cancer in the UK, with 156,000 cases each year.
'We've got concrete evidence that SPF can reduce your incidence of squamous cell carcinoma,' says Dr Wilson.
'People die of squamous cell carcinoma.
'It can invade deeply into the skin and even into the structures of the face, head and skull, and it can spread through the body to the lymph nodes and distant organs like the lungs.'
Meanwhile, basal cell carcinoma is very rarely deadly.
'But it's incredibly disfiguring depending on where it is on the body,' says Dr Wilson.
'I've got a patient who has basal cell carcinoma that is essentially destroying his eye because it's growing into the bones around it - he's now lost the function of his right eye.
'These skin cancers are not just trivial things you can chop off.'
What is confusing for many experts is the fact that many sharing anti-SPF views work in the beauty sphere - much of which is geared towards anti-ageing.
'The TikTok generation are more likely to get prophylactic (preventative) Botox to stop them getting wrinkles than they are to wear sunscreen potentially,' says Dr Wilson.
'That makes no sense whatsoever.
An amateur TikTok warrior isn't the same as the Government, NHS or your doctor's advice.
Dr Wilson
'The best way to stop yourself from getting wrinkles and having premature ageing is wearing a good, high-quality SPF on your face.'
Dr Chen agrees: 'UV radiation doesn't just raise cancer risk - it permanently damages the skin.
'It breaks down collagen and destroys elastic fibres. So every bit of unprotected exposure quietly accelerates ageing too.'
If you come across something deemed controversial on social media, Dr Wilson urges everyone to think twice.
'You need to look at the message and the messenger,' he says.
'An amateur TikTok warrior isn't the same as the Government, NHS or your doctor's advice.
'It's very easy to whip up a frenzy for likes and attention on social media.'
The good news is there are tonnes of products out there to suit different needs; SPFs for sensitive, oily, dry and dark skin.
What the experts are clear on is that your skin, and potentially your life, depends on that little bottle of SPF.
'USING SPF WOULD HAVE SAVED ME'
8
8
Lisa Costello, 43, has battled melanoma twice after being 'addicted to tanning' for years – and never applying SPF to protect her skin.
The driving instructor, from Essex, says it is a 'bad mistake' to not use suncream – and blames not wearing it herself as the cause of her melanoma diagnosis.
'I 100% regret not using SPF,' she said.
'If I had used SPF, it would have prevented me from getting skin cancer.
'As a child, I remember getting quite burnt and blistering in the sun.
'When I was older, I used tanning oils instead of protective sun cream.'
The first of Lisa's cancerous moles was found in 2018, and a second in 2021.
Her dad died of melanoma cancer in 2015 after being diagnosed in 2011.
But Lisa has had tests and the results found no genetic link.
In the past, Lisa used sunbeds and felt 'desperate' to be tanned.
Now, she says: 'After what I've been through, I now wear SPF every single day.
'I apply it again at the hottest point during the day, and if I go abroad, I re-apply it every two hours.
'I put it on my kids on a regular basis, too – sun protection has to start at a very young age.'
Responding to those who share misinformation about suncream online, Lisa warned: 'I hope they never get affected by skin cancer because it's absolutely awful.
'Not wearing SPF is a very risky thing to do - and something you may live to regret.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Weight loss pill that helped patients shift 12% of body mass may soon be on NHS
Weight loss pill that helped patients shift 12% of body mass may soon be on NHS

Daily Mirror

time5 minutes ago

  • Daily Mirror

Weight loss pill that helped patients shift 12% of body mass may soon be on NHS

A weight-loss tablet, which could be a cheaper and easier alternative to jabs and has seen patients during a trial lose up to almost 2st, could soon be available on the NHS A powerful new generation of weight-loss pill that could provide hope for millions of patients is set to be considered by regulators for NHS approval. ‌ A trial found overweight people taking the medication lost up to almost 2st – or 12% of their body weight – after 18 months. The maker, US firm Lilly, said it will seek the go-ahead by regulators for the drug orforglipron. It could be a cheaper and easier alternative to weight-loss jabs, which have to be refrigerated. ‌ The daily tablet is a GLP-1 agonist, which can cut appetite. Like jabs, the pill mimics the effects of hormones that make us feel full. Lilly also makes weight-loss jab Mounjaro. It comes after the NHS warned mouth symptom could be life-shortening disease. ‌ Kenneth Custer, of Lilly, said: 'We're working to transform obesity care with a potential once-daily oral therapy that could support early intervention and long-term disease management, while offering a convenient alternative to injectable treatments. 'We are planning to submit orforglipron for regulatory review by year-end.' ‌ It will need to be approved as safe by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency before the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decides if it is cost-effective for the NHS. The Mirror understands guidance is expected next year on whether it will be available on the health service. The study found 60% of people on the highest dose of orforglipron lost at least 10% of their body weight. While 40% of people shed at least 15% of their body weight. The study of 3,127 overweight adults also found benefits such as better cholesterol. ‌ Lilly said the safety profile of the tablet is similar to other GLP-1 drugs, with gastrointestinal issues the most common side effect. Dr Simon Cork, senior lecturer in physiology at Anglia Ruskin University, said: 'These early results on the effectiveness of orforglipron in promoting clinically significant weight loss are a positive step forward in the development of this class of drugs. 'Their effects on weight loss are not as profound as that seen in [jabs]. ‌ 'Nevertheless, that this medication is an oral form, rather than injectable, will likely be seen as more tolerable for many. Manufacturing costs are also anticipated to be significantly lower.' An estimated 1.5 million people in the UK use weight-loss medication, most privately. Mounjaro was due to be rolled out across the NHS in England from June 23 for those with the highest clinical need, but a probe found only eight of 42 NHS integrated care boards are providing it at present. Nearly half of boards say they will cap the number they treat due to lack of funding. NHS England says the plan is for jabs to bemore widely available. Figures suggest about 29% of adults are obese. Another new study has found GLP-1s may have other benefits such as improving Alzheimer's and liver disease.

Long NHS waiting lists bolster profits at BUPA as it cashes in on 'growing demand' for private care
Long NHS waiting lists bolster profits at BUPA as it cashes in on 'growing demand' for private care

Daily Mail​

time5 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Long NHS waiting lists bolster profits at BUPA as it cashes in on 'growing demand' for private care

Bupa is on course to make bumper profits this year as it cashes in on 'growing demand' for private care because of lengthy NHS waiting lists. The health insurer reported a pre-tax profit of £501million for the first six months of 2025, 19 per cent higher than last year. The results, which also saw an 11 per cent jump in revenue to £8.8billion for the first half of 2025, included Bupa's operations in Europe, Latin America, India, the Middle East and Asia. The company said its performance had been bolstered by surging demand for private healthcare and income from its care homes. Inaki Ereno, group chief executive, said: 'In the first six months of the year, we have served more customers than ever before.' The half-year report also revealed that the number of people taking out Bupa's health insurance globally rose 23 per cent to 40.9m, while the occupancy rate of its care homes for older people rose 1 per cent to 94 per cent. Its UK and India division recorded turnover of £2.8billion, while profits soared 89 per cent to £126million. UK insurance accounted for 48 per cent of the division's sales, while 9 per cent came from dental practices. The company has opened 61 sites around the world, including buying New Victoria Hospital, London, its first UK hospital purchase since 2008. The growth comes as people turn to private healthcare to avoid joining the 6.2m patients languishing on NHS waiting lists. The figures, revealed last week, also showed that nearly 3m patients awaiting care had not received a first appointment with a specialist or a diagnostic test since their referral. The Patients Association described the 'invisible waiting list crisis' as 'staggering', as millions are left in limbo while their health deteriorates. Other companies which have benefited from the boom in demand from those wanting to go private include Spire, Nuffield and Circle. David Rowland, director of think-tank Centre for Health and the Public Interest, told The Guardian: 'You've now got more and more people who are having to pay out of their own pockets for things like dental care or operations that aren't available on the NHS. 'Nobody's being honest about the extent to which this is happening. No politician has stood up and advocated for it. It's a trend which has been happening increasingly over the past 30 years with Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem parties in charge.' The General Medical Council recently revealed that 19 per cent of doctors are considering a move abroad – believing the profession is 'treated better' in other countries and better-paid.

Eating chips three times a week raises type 2 diabetes risk by 20%, study finds
Eating chips three times a week raises type 2 diabetes risk by 20%, study finds

The Guardian

time37 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Eating chips three times a week raises type 2 diabetes risk by 20%, study finds

Love potatoes? Well, there's good news and there's bad news. Eating chips frequently has been linked to a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes compared with baking, boiling or mashing the tuber. Consuming french fries three times a week increases the chances of someone getting the disease by 20% – and doing so five times a week by 27% – according to a study published in the British Medical Journal. Globally, potatoes are the third most commonly consumed food crop, after rice and wheat. Nine out of 10 of the estimated 5.8 million people in the UK with diabetes have the type 2 version of the disease, which is closely associated with lifestyle, especially diet. The findings confirm potatoes do not of themselves pose a danger to health, but frying them to turn them into chips, and eating them regularly, does make a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes more likely. An international team of researchers, led by Seyed Mohammad Mousavi, a public health expert at Harvard University, investigated the relationship between potato intake and the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. They based their findings on food questionnaires filled out by 205,000 health professionals in the US every four years between 1984 and 2021. Someone who eats chips three times a week was found to raise their risk of diabetes by 20%, but those who ate potatoes with the same regularity after baking, boiling or mashing them did so by only 5%. 'The high starch content of potatoes, leading to a high glycemic index and load, combined with possible loss of nutrients and possible health risks resulting from various cooking methods, could contribute to adverse health outcomes,' the study explains. Replacing potatoes with whole grains lowers the risk of diabetes by 8%, and if grains are eaten instead of chips specifically, that cuts the risk by 19%. Dr Kawther Hashem, a lecturer in public health nutrition at Queen Mary University of London, said: 'Potatoes can be part of a healthy diet, but it's how we prepare them that makes the difference. Boiled, baked or mashed potatoes are naturally low in fat and a source of fibre, vitamin C and potassium. 'But when we deep fry them into chips or french fries, especially in large portions and with added salt, they become less healthy with their high-fat, salt and calorie content that's much more likely to contribute to weight gain and increase the risk of type 2 diabetes.' However, replacing any form of potatoes with white rice is a bad idea as it leads to an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, the paper found. Dr Hashem added: 'This research reinforces the simple message, which is to enjoy potatoes – just don't rely on chips as your go-to option. And, where possible, try swapping them out for whole grains like brown rice, bulgur wheat, wholemeal pasta or even sweet potato with skin on, which are healthier and protective for long-term health.' The researchers stressed their findings were observational and did not prove a cause and effect relationship between eating chips and type 2 diabetes risk. The Food Standards Agency and Department of Health and Social Care both declined to comment.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store