Trusted Voices: The uncomfortable truths behind sun cream misinformation
This article explores the increasingly viral myth that sun cream causes skin cancer. Using research from PIF TICK certified organisations, the feature discusses the context behind the myth, the role of health information creators and how the PIF community can interpret and respond when viral myths break out.
This article will take five or six minutes to read.
Sun cream misinformation: why facts alone are not enough
As heatwaves have increased this summer, so has misinformation about sun cream online. Trusted health information must challenge false claims and address the real concerns that make them believable.
Influencers, podcasters and social media users are increasingly questioning the safety of sun cream, with frequent links being made to skin cancer.
Many of these online arguments are compelling and use genuine data to support their theories. A frequent claim is that skin cancer rates have increased exponentially since sun cream became widely available in the 1940s. Reliable data does show an increase in skin cancer rates. Cancer Research UK (CRUK) data shows melanoma skin cancer rates have risen by 164% since the early 1990s. One interpretation of this data is that sun cream has caused the increase.
CRUK says this interpretation fails to consider many other factors. These include an ageing UK population, better diagnostic tools and incorrect or inconsistent use of sun cream.
For those working to dispel misinformation, the use of reliable data to support a conspiracy theory poses a significant challenge as it may be more difficult to dismantle. This implies that teaching people the skills to accurately interpret data and information could be as important as the information itself.
Should specialist health organisations be left to fill the gap?
CRUK says there is no reliable evidence that approved sun creams cause cancer. In the UK, sun creams are regulated as cosmetics and must meet safety standards.
But people may feel more confident spending longer in the sun because they have used sun cream. However, many people use it incorrectly and do not protect themselves properly. This raises important questions about the information people receive. Are people reading the product instructions? Are the instructions clear and easy to follow? How easy is it to find reliable information online about using sun cream correctly?
Specialist health organisations are helping to fill this information gap. They often translate product instructions into practical advice, explain why correct use matters and challenge common misunderstandings. For example, CRUK has a page debunking common myths and the World Cancer Research Fund has information on the sun and IV rays.
However, should this responsibility fall mainly to specialist health organisations? Companies selling sun cream have a responsibility to help people use their products safely and effectively. Government also has a role in providing clear and consistent public health information. In 2016 NICE recognised that there were often inconsistencies or confusing advice around sun cream usage.
Research from Melanoma Focus suggests cost is another barrier to using sun cream. This shows that income also affects people’s ability to protect themselves. Anti-sun-cream misinformation may be particularly appealing when it appears to justify a decision someone has already been forced to make because of cost.
These information and affordability gaps cannot be addressed by specialist health organisations alone. They provide trusted voices, but companies and governments must also take responsibility. Easy-to-understand, inclusive product information must be accompanied by action to make effective sun protection accessible and affordable. Both are essential to improving public health and tackling misinformation. The cost of sun cream is another area that may benefit from government attention.
When knowing the risk does not change behaviour
People do not always take risks because they lack information. Social and cultural pressures can outweigh their awareness of possible harm.
The World Cancer Research Fund and Melanoma Focus both acknowledge that some people will use sunbeds or spend hours in the sun without protection, despite knowing the risks. Beauty standards can be powerful motivators. Both organisations recognise this and advise people to use fake tan instead.
Teenagers are often less risk-averse and more image-conscious. Fittingly, Teenage Cancer Trust also takes a realistic approach. It advises people to choose a sun cream they like the smell and feel of, as they may be more likely to use it. It also explains that expensive sun cream is not necessarily better. All sun creams must pass the same rigorous safety checks before they reach the shelves.
This approach responds to what people want, rather than only telling them what to avoid. There is no safe way to tan using ultraviolet radiation. However, fake tan offers a safer way to achieve the desired appearance.
It also shows why correcting misinformation may not be enough. People may understand the risks but still choose them because of beauty standards or social pressure. Trusted information can acknowledge these pressures and offer realistic, lower-risk alternatives.
What can information producers learn?
These examples show misinformation cannot always be challenged with facts alone. Information producers must understand why a claim appeals to people and what may make them more susceptible to it.
Before responding, they could ask:
- What accurate evidence is being misinterpreted?
- What makes the claim feel believable?
- Have people or communities been given reasons to mistrust the government, healthcare or other established organisations?
- Are poverty, low literacy or poor access to clear product information affecting their choices?
- Are social or cultural pressures more powerful than the health risk?
- Is the information clear, inclusive and easy to act on?
- Can we offer a realistic, lower-risk alternative?
- Do we have the power to address any of the underlying barriers?
- If not, who else needs to act?
Many of the underlying issues may be outside an information producer’s control. However, there may be practical ways to reduce their impact. These include using plain language, providing translations, offering realistic alternatives and connecting with seldom-heard communities through people and channels they already trust.
Health information producers cannot solve poverty, inequality or historic mistrust alone. However, they can recognise these issues and avoid treating misinformation as a simple lack of knowledge. They can also work with people and organisations that have the power to address wider barriers.
This underlines the importance of working across sectors as a community. NICE recommends a consistent, multiagency approach to information about sunlight. No single person or organisation can tackle misinformation and its underlying causes alone.
An adaptive, collaborative approach
Trusted information creators should correct false claims in the way they feel best suits their users as there is conflicting research on myth busting. Repeating a false claim may introduce it to more people or reinforce the myth. But failing to address myths head-on can leave people without trusted answers when they search for advice. At the same time, the industry must work collectively to respond to the needs, pressures and barriers behind behaviours. By working together, organisations can give information a better chance of being trusted and changing behaviour.
Want more tips on how to challenge misinformation and disinformation?