FREE SHIPPING ON ORDERS $250 AUD+
Most reputable beauty industry journalism is thorough, expertly written, and focused on communicating the very best advice to its audience. Yet, occasionally something comes along that is as infuriating as it is dangerous. May is Skin Cancer Awareness Month, and as such we have recently been reading numerous articles and features around suncare, SPFs, and tips for staying protected and safe.
We know the dangers. They are so widely documented that it's second nature for most of us to consider daily SPF a non-negotiable, come rain or shine. We know UV penetrates glass, we know that shade doesn’t offer complete protection, and we know it can penetrate flimsy clothing.
UV light is omnipresent during the day — it cuts through clouds, reflects off surfaces, and silently damages your skin even when the sun isn’t visible.
Yet here we are, in 2026, with experts who should know better promoting fiction over facts. Even when it’s grey, rainy, or overcast, up to 80% of UV radiation can reach your skin — putting you at risk of damage even without direct sunlight. UV rays—the primary culprits behind premature ageing and skin cancers—are present year-round, and even if you are indoors or only nipping outside for short periods, cumulative exposure to UVA (such as sitting by a sunny window or car windscreen for prolonged periods) significantly increases the risk of skin damage and melanoma over time.
Clean is a Dirty Word
Clean Beauty is a movement that has long been challenged by Skin Rocks. Rooted in often questionable studies that do not provide evidence on context, dose or whole formula nuance, Clean Beauty is finally being unpacked as the suitcase of suppositions that it is. Our position is clear: scientific fact, rigorous clinical testing, and formulation education is the bedrock of skincare expertise. Possibilities and posturing are not.
Absorption Does Not Equate to Harm
One of Clean Beauty’s core scare tactics is around the absorption of SPF chemicals into the bloodstream (we’ll say it again, EVERYTHING IS A CHEMICAL). Yes, some studies have shown that certain chemical sunscreen ingredients (such as oxybenzone and octocrylene) can be absorbed into the bloodstream at levels exceeding the FDA's threshold for additional safety testing. However, the FDA emphasises that absorption alone does not imply toxicity. The American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) supports this view, stating that while some sunscreen ingredients are absorbed into the bloodstream, there is no evidence that this poses a health risk.
Context Is All
Concerns about hormone disruption and other toxic effects are primarily based on animal studies or in vitro experiments using doses much higher than those encountered through typical sunscreen use. For example, studies suggesting endocrine-disrupting effects of oxybenzone involved feeding rats high doses of the chemical, far exceeding human exposure levels. Remember, you are NOT a rat.
Truth Is a Responsibility
For reputable, influential media to promote the message that it is a “bad idea” to apply daily sunscreen in all weathers, and that some SPF ingredients are “probably not doing a lot of harm, but who knows?” is startling. “Probably”? “Who knows?”. This kind of glib and unsubstantiated language has no place in evidence-based safety. The Skin Cancer Foundation’s position is unequivocal:
Daily use of an SPF 15 or higher sunscreen reduces the risk of developing squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) by about 40 percent and melanoma by 50 percent when used as directed. Most melanomas, SCC or basal cell carcinomas will be the result of sustained UV damage, which is why The Skin Cancer Foundation recommends that everyone practice daily sun protection. There’s simply no justification for abandoning sun-safe behaviours.
Under 3s Go Free
No, they don't. The notion that you can swerve sunscreen when the UV index is 3 or under is fallacious and dangerous. The idea that sunscreen isn’t necessary when you're indoors/the UV index is 3 or lower may sound sensible —but it’s misleading, and potentially dangerous. While it’s true that UV intensity is lower on overcast days or in winter months, dermatologists and cancer researchers agree: there’s no completely safe UV exposure, especially when it comes to long-term cumulative skin damage.
For example, people spending long hours driving, or sitting by a window working all day, will still be at risk of skin damage and melanoma due to extended exposure, even when the index is under 3. Low UV levels do not eliminate risk.
“Clothing and shade are more effective than sunscreen”
Another dangerous claim, profoundly lacking in context, nuance, and evidence. While shade and clothing can of course be effective, they are not foolproof and are not inherently better than sunscreen. Not all clothing provides adequate protection against UV radiation, and numerous factors from fabric density to colour and construction affect protection. For example, a white cotton T-shirt has a UV Protection Factor (UPF) of around 5, which allows up to 20% of UV rays to reach the skin. In contrast, a broad-spectrum SPF 30 sunscreen blocks about 97% of UVB rays when applied properly.
In addition, the material, weave and texture of your clothing can affect how well it protects you. Synthetic fibres such as polyester or rayon are the best choices for sun protection, as are dense, heavy, tightly woven fabrics like wool, denim or corduroy. On the opposite end of the spectrum are natural and lightweight fabrics which allow more light to pass through.
Check a fabric’s sun safety by holding it up to the light. If you can see through it, UV radiation can easily penetrate the fabric and reach your skin.
Sounds Shady
While seeking shade reduces direct UV exposure, it does not eliminate the risk entirely. UV rays can reflect off surfaces such as sand, water, concrete, and snow, leading to indirect exposure. According to the World Health Organisation, up to 50% of UV radiation can reach the skin even when in the shade, due to reflection and scattering.
A study published in JAMA Dermatology highlighted that individuals sitting under beach umbrellas still received significant UV exposure, with a notable percentage developing sunburns on areas not fully shaded. This underscores that shade alone is insufficient for complete UV protection.
While shade and clothing are important parts of a sun protection strategy, they should never completely replace sunscreen.
Caroline Hirons
"Current evidence supports the safety and efficacy of both chemical and physical sunscreens. Multiple global health organisations, including the FDA AAD, and the Cancer Research Foundation continue to recommend regular sunscreen use as a critical measure in preventing skin cancer and protecting skin health.
The balance of sun exposure risks is not the same for everybody. Yes, people with deeply-pigmented skin will be at less risk than fair-skinned people or those with a family history of melanoma. However, this is not justification for avoiding daily sunscreen. Even those pushing the vitamin D argument are wrong. Wearing sunscreen responsibly does not block vitamin D production entirely, and it’s not a valid reason to skip SPF.
You can get extra vitamin D through diet and supplements. You can’t undo advanced metastatic stage skin cancer. Just wear it."
Words by Nicky Connors - Team Skin Rocks
Qualifications - Beauty Industry Professional, 25 years, BA (1st Hons) English, Beauty Writer, Copy Editor, HND Specialist Makeup
References:
- https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/fullarticle/2597893
- https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-science-of-sunscreen
- https://www.skincancer.org/press/2019-the-skin-cancer-foundation-comments-on-sunscreen-ingredient-absorption-study
- https://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-prevention/sun-protection/sun-protective-clothing
- https://www.skincancer.org/blog/dress-to-protect-5-things-that-affect-how-well-your-clothes-block-uv-rays/
