To not use spf50 on my children

[Elisannah]

They're 4&2. I'm always hot on putting sun cream on, making sure they're not out for a long time in the heat of summer, all the general recommendations with sun safety.

I've heard spf50 sun cream blocks a lot of the goodness of the sun whereas lower spf can still let that through.

So, given I stick to the recommendations of staying safe in the sun, aibu to use spf30 (with 5 star UVA rating)?

I use 30. 50 is not comfortable on the skin, for me at least and I have very non sensitive skin. If I want them to be more protected I will put them in UV suits, hats etc.

TBH if you have the kind of skin that burns really easily it’s probably best to stay in the shade 11-3.

I have one very fair child and one more olive toned. Yesterday was the first day this year we used suncream, we used it because we were going to an outdoor waterplay with hardly any shade. I applied spf15 on their shoulders, faces, necks, and tops of feet.

In general we try to only use suncream if they are going to be in the sun between 12 and 2, and where we are is very exposed (no trees or other shade). Most of the time we use clothing, hats, and parking our base under a tree, rather than suncream. We don't spend a lot of time on beaches, where I would be most heavy handed, because of the lack of shade, masses of reflection, and cool breezes that make your skin feel cool even when it is getting a lot of sun.

We do spend a lot of time outdoors, so they don't get to May without having soaked up quite a lot of sunshine (it's not like a week on holidayin Spain is the first time they have spent more than an hour outdoors). They have never been burned, but are generally tanned in the summer (well my olive skinned boy is, DD generally moves from a bluish tinge to white). I know that tanned children look to some folk like parental failure, but I have always felt the benefit of sun exposure personally and I think the recent research is that it is good for you in general, although burning as a child is dangerous. So i have always aimed for them not to burn (which ime happens when you go from low exposure to high without any chance to acclimatise).

I do think people go a bit OTT with suncream. I use 30 or 50 but I don't slap it on the second they see a bit of sun.

You can safely supplement Vitamin D levels.

There is no 'safe' level of expectation sure to sun radiation., though you can minimise risk by using an adequate sunscreen.

Your call.

Skin cancers remain rare in UK, but rates are rising. It boils down to whether you want your DC to avoid an avoidable risk.

I remember my terrified reaction when I was having a suspicious mole tested. I used unscreened in my DC assiduously.

as far as I can tell, vit D from supplements is nowhere like as beneficial as vit D from the sun. Rickets is on the rise and knowing someone with rickets I can tell you it's no joke.

Balance.

@Hither12 not sure where you got your info but I’m American and I can assure you chemical sunscreens are not banned in the USA. People always say the most random things about America on MN. In fact chemical screens are much more widely available than mineral. I used to use mineral only when my kids were small but I found it so thick and unpleasant to apply and the kids hated it so we ended up not doing it frequently enough. If you’re able to be consistent about it I applaud you but we weren’t, and we felt that the theoretical risk from chemical sunscreen was far outweighed by the very real risk of skin cancer. My dermatologist recommended a few brands that have less of the bad stuff than others. Also the environmental working group webpage has a great deal of info and grades almost every sunscreen available in America, many of which are the same as U.K. so we look at that too.

In any case OP I think SPF30 is totally fine. I try to let my kids have time in the sun with no sunscreen so they absorb Vitamin D but they are both very fair and prone to burning so I can’t do it much. Per our American pediatrician I give them chewable vitamin D supplements all year round, and we had their levels tested to make sure it was the right amounT.

Agree with meditrina

You can supplement vitamin D, which should be done in the UK anyway.

As said, it's your call but I'd rather not risk the kids burning (and mine would, very easily) and the associated damage.

You only need 20-30 minutes of your fave and hands being exposed to the sun to get sufficient vitamin D

That’s not true, it’s supposed to be arms/legs exposed for 20 min

I don’t use it. In the main part of the day we were hats and light/ loose clothing/ use shade and later on we don’t.

I’ve never burnt any of my 5, or gone a touch of pink even, this way.

*though as a disclaimer, we have Eastern European more olive skin- if my kids had pale Irish/ English skin I may have different views! I’ve never burnt and I’ve worked outdoors many years

See my kids are both fair, they both get the same cream, hats etc. and don't burn but my boy always gets a tan (girl just stays white). Do you think that means he's not well enough protected?

not sure where you got your info but I’m American and I can assure you chemical sunscreens are not banned in the USA

Most Chemical filters (except for avobenzone) as not allowed by FDA.

“U.S. consumers don’t have access to eight advanced European sun-filtering molecules because the Food & Drug Administration is not convinced they are safe for users”

cen.acs.org/content/cen/articles/93/i20/Decade-FDA-Still-Wont-Allow.html

Yanbu. Spf 30 is sufficient.

I'm in Australia and I think our sun is stronger than yours (not sure where I've read that but a quick google seems to support it). I'm fair skinned, prone to burning and use SPF 30. I do tan through it, but don't burn. Correct regular application, suitable clothing and a hat are all important.

I always use spf50 but we live near the equator and skin cancer rates over here are astronomical. I wouldn't have bothered back in the UK. When do you really need it over there?

Anything above factor 30 has apparently been banned from sale in Australia. Its because the difference between 30 and 50 is nothing like as much as the numbers would lead you to believe. its not almost twice as effective and it doesn’t increase the time you should be out in the sun. Far better to cover up.

Whatever factor you use it needs to have 5* UVA and UVB rating - not just UVA.

There is no need for 50

Well that all very much depends on the individual, doesn't it? It may come as a surprise to learn that all children have different skin.

My red haired, freckly, incredibly white-skinned child needs factor 50 or he burns. The "factor" is about how long you can stay out in the sun so obviously factor 50 protects more.

Agree re the UVA/UVB ratings being important.

Both DC here tan after just a few minutes of sun and look as though they've been basted in Piz Buin, but I'm pretty militant about taking care of their skin in the sun.

DH says I'm odd for using SPF50 since we're all pretty tanned year-round but I maintain that it works for us.

Oh and the best sun protection products we've found are the Aldi own brand range. Cheap as chips, comes in a range of sprays and creams, 5* protection for both UVA and UVB. Fantastic stuff. (And no, I don't work for them). No need to spend ££££ on the expensive brands.

The advice is to supplement vitamin D in the UK. You cannot get vitamin D from UK sun for 6 months of the year whatever time of day and reserves don't last 3 months.

We use a max of spf30. Any higher and the kids come out in a rash due to blocking the effectiveness of the skins job (apparently).

But all that means is whatever factor we do use, we apply more frequently. The spf is all based on how frequently the sun cream is applied. The low the factor, the more frequently it should be reapplied. As long as you are still following common sense sun protection, the kids will be fine.

My dcs are 14 and 5. We spend a lot of time outside. I use factor 30 at home in the UK, 50 abroad.

And I only apply it if we are going to be outside for longer than an hour or two.

Sun damage is serious, but so is rickets.

We had messages from ds school last week saying they need suncream, hat for break time and lunch. They get 15 mins in a morning, 45 mins at lunchtime some of which is spent eating inside, then 15 mins in the afternoon. At a minimum ds would have shorts, polo t shirt and socks on. So lower legs and arms and face exposed.

I didn't bother.

Factor 50 means they can spend 50 times longer in the sun before they start to suffer from damage. So if they are recommended to get 30 minutes, which is presumably safe, 50 x 30 minutes is 25 hours. We don't get 25 hours of sun. 30 x 30 minutes is still 15 hours.

Completely unscientific way to decide but it works for us. Dd is 14, strawberry blonde and very fair. Never burnt with us, even after 2 weeks in the Canaries in august and numerous full days out in the great British summer. She did get burnt with my mam though, on a uk beach on the north east coast when it was only about 20 degrees.

After I have been lectured for the last 12 years from my mam about keeping her covered/suncream/shade while abroad.

theconversation.com/explainer-how-does-sunscreen-work-what-is-spf-and-can-i-still-tan-with-it-on-88869
theconversation.com/how-do-the-chemicals-in-sunscreen-protect-our-skin-from-damage-74355
theconversation.com/mondays-medical-myth-spf50-sunscreen-almost-doubles-the-protection-of-spf30-3949