Tanned baby

[redredbrine]

My son is under the age of 1 and is currently sporting a tan. He is mixed race (1/4 black, 3/4 white) and was covered in factor 30 on a day when it was 21 degrees Celsius. I chose factor 30 as the UV index was low and wanted to avoid factor 50 due to the chemicals - would only use if it was going to be very hot.

One of my friends went off on a rant at me. Apparently I'm increasing my son's risk of skin cancer, should've used factor 50 and it's awful for a child to have a tan.

AIBU to think that it's fine that he tanned because he has sun cream on and he just went a tiny bit darker? It wasn't intentional or like I was shoving him out in the sun on purpose for this reason...

I have an olive skin than tans easily during everyday activities - I rarely sunbathe. My children have the same skin and have year round 'tans'. I certainly never exposed them to strong sunshine as babies but they were not in permanent shade - that would've impossible!!

I'm mixed race and DS is very olive skinned. We can take all the precaution in the world and he will still tan.
Factor 50, hats, staying in the shade etc.
He's three now and has a permanent tan in the summer. Nursery have apologised to me in the past trying to reassure me that they are putting lotion on him and he's wearing his hat etc because he tans incredibly quickly.
It's his skin tone, he's never burnt and we keep him cool and protected.

There seems to be quite a bit of confusion on this thread about sun protection. The British Association of Dermatologists has this to say about skin type. It also has lots of advice about sunscreen. One of the most important things to remember is to apply frequently and liberally. Interestingly if you do a comparison often the own brand sun creams perform better than branded. For example when comparing Sainsbury's and Nivea the Sainsbury's sun cream had a higher UVA rating. It's worth doing some reading about.

I was told by a specialist doctor that there's no point using factor 50 as the difference in protection between that at F30 is negligible. Something like 1% difference in absorption of UVB. He was on a steering group advising NICE about it. (I was referred to him about a dodgy mole and as I had my baby with me he gave me info about protecting children in the sun).

F50 won't protect your children any more than F30.

After having severe vit D deficiency despite using supplements my GP recommended to be outside in the sun for at least 30 minutes each day. If the sun factor is high I need to break it up in 5-10 minutes scattered during the day. I feel much better now. I'm white with freckles and burn really quickly. I think a little bit of sun is a good thing, just be sensible and don't burn. We are a form of animal after all and we are supposed to be outside, not inside are whole life.

DH’s family live in rural North Africa everyone is tanned but nobody in his very large extended family has suffered skin cancer.

My unscientific observations are:-
They naturally build up their sun exposure gradually as they are outside all year.
Sun exposure is generally due to everyday activity not deliberate sun bathing
Their base skin colour is darker than mine and they all tan to a colour I couldn’t naturally achieve (blue eyed, Celtic)

There is a big difference between their sun exposure and a pale Northern European like me frying myself on a beach in Spain in the middle of summer for 2 weeks.

If THIS is the reaction to a baby's (slight) change to skin colour, I wonder what some of these Mumsnetters really think us, people who are born brown or black.

Not just this but the baby is mixed race so there's a chance he will get darker naturally and stay that way. I'd be highly offended if anyone suggested that my DCs (also mixed race) were getting too "tanned" as frankly that could be their natural skin tone just developing.

I hope new mum Meghan Markle is reading this thread and gearing up for the onslaught of ignorance headed her way if her baby is any shade darker than ivory.