Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40017850›Full record

ReviewBMJ public health2023

Are in-market control systems for sunscreens adequate for consumer protection? A review of the legal framework regulating sun protection factor labels in Europe.

Aleix Bacardit

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Aleix BacarditIsdin SA, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-3223-7355

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Public health authorities and regulations in Europe protect the population against the damaging effects of excessive solar ultraviolet radiation through, among other means, monitoring marketed sunscreens and enforcing compliance with sun protection factor labelling requirements. In-market control processes are fundamental and complementary to other public health initiatives in a context of suboptimal sunscreen use in real-world settings. However, the laboratory testing method used for determining the sun protection factor of sunscreens is known to produce variability of results. The combination of an inherently variable testing method with the necessary rigidity of regulations generates volatility in the decision-making process followed by regulators during official in-market controls and exposes sunscreens to be susceptible to accidental mislabelling challenges. This leads to a paradoxical situation that may leave most sunscreens incorrectly labelled in the market and to a potential dilemma for authorities. The issue may get further amplified when non-official sources echo and broadcast uncontrolled messages about sunscreens to the public. Amending current regulation with a tolerance level to compare results that accommodates the variability of results from sun protection factor tests would ease decision-making, bring robustness to an uncertain legal landscape, make more efficient the efforts to convey consistent public health messages about the benefits of sunscreen use and better protect users. There are precedents of using tolerance levels for regulatory decision-making in other fields, and a review of the applicable legal landscape in Europe reveals that implementing it for sunscreens would only require one change to current cosmetics law.

Indexed as

Consumer Product SafetyPreventive MedicinePublic Health

Identifiers

PMID40017850
PMCPMC11812704

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.