A man clutching a tiny microphone strides purposefully towards the sun care aisle in his local pharmacy. He picks up the orange and yellow bottles, scans the labels and quickly, performatively rejects them with a pantomime shake of the head. Why? Because he’s convinced that sunscreen is filled with “toxic chemicals” that, he claims, are “doing more harm than good”. And if you watch his video for long enough, he’ll probably start recommending the “natural” option he’s switched to instead. He might even (falsely) claim that, rather than protecting you from skin cancer, sunscreen increases the risk.
Variations on this scene are cropping up on social media with alarming frequency. Over on TikTok, this backlash against SPF (sun protection factor), known as the “anti-sunscreen movement”, has been brewing for a couple of years, but in the summer of 2025, it seems to have moved from a conspiratorial niche into something more mainstream.
Back in July, former The Only Way is Essex star Sam Faiers told her 2.5 million Instagram followers that she doesn’t use sunscreen, and neither does her family, including her young children. “Over the years, the kids have built up a really good tolerance to being in the sun,” she said, before claiming that many sunscreens “are actually pretty harmful and full of toxic ingredients”. In the same month, actor and influencer Kelsey Parker revealed that she avoids using SPF on her children, too (she said she uses a homemade “organic” version instead, made from beeswax and “no bad stuff”).
Their concerning beliefs aren’t outliers, either. Recent research has suggested that Gen-Zers are particularly susceptible to sunscreen myths. Last year, a study from the American Academy of Dermatology found that 28 per cent of 18- to 26-year-olds believe that getting a tan is more important than the risk of skin cancer, with 37 per cent admitting to only using sunscreen when they’re nagged by others to do so. And new data from health insurance provider Vitality found that 18 per cent of Gen Z respondents believed that you don’t need sun protection if you tan easily (there’s the myth of “good tolerance” again).
To properly examine the anti-sunscreen backlash, we need to get to grips with exactly how this product works. “The sun emits ultraviolet radiation in the form of UVA and UVB rays, both of which can cause damage to the skin,” says Dr Ross Perry, medical director of Cosmedics skin clinics.
UVA rays, he explains, “penetrate more deeply” into the skin and are responsible for signs of ageing, like wrinkles, sagging and pigmentation, while “UVB rays affect the surface, causing sunburn and direct DNA damage, which increases the risk of skin cancer”. Cancer Research UK estimates that 85 per cent of cases of melanoma (a type of skin cancer that develops in melanin-producing cells) are caused by overexposure to UV radiation; their analysis has also found that melanoma rates have increased by almost one-third over the past decade.
A broad spectrum sunscreen, Perry adds, is designed to shield us against both UVA and UVB rays. There are two main types of sunscreen: those that use chemical filters, which “work by absorbing UV radiation and converting it into harmless heat”, and those that use mineral filters, such as zinc oxide or titanium dioxide. These “sit on the skin’s surface to reflect and scatter rays away”.
It’s the first category of creams and sprays, those with chemical filters, which tend to be the focus of anti-sunscreen sentiment. That’s because a handful of studies have discovered UV filters such as oxybenzone and avobenzone in people’s blood stream after applying sunscreen. These chemicals are benzophenones, a type of chemical that may influence the endocrine system, which is in charge of creating and releasing hormones in the body.
Anti-sunscreen crusaders will often tout these studies as a way of lending their claims an air of scientific legitimacy. But – spoiler alert – discussing complex research in a 90-second video doesn’t always convey a full and nuanced picture. Dr Perry notes that although ingredients like oxybenzone have “shown hormone-like effects” in “very high laboratory doses”, “the amounts used in sunscreens are far lower and there’s no evidence they cause harm in real-world use”. Plus, all the active filters in sunscreen, be they chemical or mineral, will “have been rigorously tested and approved by regulatory authorities in the UK, Europe and the US”. And if you truly wanted to avoid benzophenones, you’d probably have to ditch half the contents of your washbag, because they’re common in other makeup and skincare products too.
Consultant dermatologist Dr Magnus Lynch takes a similar view. “It is true that certain chemicals used within sunscreen can be absorbed in small quantities through the skin,” he says, “however, there is little evidence that these are harmful.” Plus, “since sunscreen is used by so many people, even if there were a small negative effect, this would be very evident”. And yet he is still seeing patients “who are scared to use SPF” now, after seeing “myths amplified on social media” by people with no medical expertise. “I do understand the appeal of natural products and avoiding chemicals”, he adds, but “the risks of sunlight exposure are far greater”. For those who are worried about chemicals, he suggests swapping to a mineral sunscreen instead.
As for the idea of sun “tolerance” that seems to be cropping up all over social media? That’s a misconception. “You cannot train your skin to become safely resistant to UV,” explains consultant dermatologist Dr Rakesh Anand. “A tan is a visible sign of DNA damage, not a shield.” It might provide, at best, “an SPF of roughly two to four, which is nowhere near adequate”, he adds (the NHS recommends using at least SPF 30). “Relying on this ‘tolerance’ leads to cumulative damage, photoageing and higher skin cancer risk.”
Another concern for dermatologists is influencers sharing at-home “sun care” recipes. Last year, for example, model Nara Smith shared a video in which she mixed up coconut oil, shea and cocoa butter, jojoba oil, beeswax and zinc oxide. “These homemade concoctions are not tested for UV protection, may offer inconsistent coverage, and could result in uneven or insufficient protection, raising the risk of burns and long-term damage,” Dr Perry says. Beef tallow (an animal fat, also appealingly known as beef dripping) is another “natural” ingredient that anti-sunscreeners often praise. Perry describes its use for sun protection as “complete nonsense and potentially very dangerous”. “Beef tallow has absolutely no SPF or UV-blocking properties, so applying it to your skin gives you zero protection against sunburn, sun damage or skin cancer,” he adds.
He describes home remedies like these as not just ineffective but outright irresponsible, “because they give people a false sense of security in the sun, and that’s when real damage occurs”.
So why has sunscreen suddenly become the site of conspiracies? The backlash seems to have gained momentum in the wake of the pandemic, riding the wave of medical misinformation and scepticism about traditional medicine that emerged with the arrival of the vaccine. At the same time, there’s been a fresh focus on “clean” or “natural” products, which, as Dr Anand puts it, “sometimes frames ‘chemical’ as a synonym for ‘harmful’, which is misleading”.
Medical advice, Perry says, can often feel “technical or confusing, so myths and conspiracies offer an easier narrative, often framed as ‘big companies’ trying to hide the truth’”. In videos criticising sunscreen, for example, you might hear influencers claiming that doctors are simply telling us that the sun is bad so that “Big Pharma” can make millions from SPF products.
Social media only exacerbates the problem. “Platforms like TikTok reward short, emotive messages,” says Dr Jonathan Kentley, consultant dermatologist at Montrose Clinic London and the Lister Hospital, so influencers attempt to craft “a catchy narrative that cuts through, even if it’s completely untrue”.
Throw in “a growing mistrust of institutions”, he adds, “and you have fertile ground for health misinformation to flourish. It’s part of a wider trend: we’re seeing ‘DIY wellness’ and anti-medical narratives become popular online because they’re framed as empowering and rebellious”. Unfortunately, though, Kentley adds, these narratives “often end up doing more harm than good. We as doctors are finding it increasingly challenging to present the facts in an age where many get their primary source of information from social media platforms”.
So next time you find yourself drawn in by spurious claims about sun care, it’s worth keeping Kentley’s words in mind. “Decades of rigorous research show that sunscreen is one of the safest and most effective tools we have to reduce the risk of skin cancer and premature skin ageing,” he says. And while “there is no case of cancer that has ever been linked to sunscreen”, he adds, “conversely, as a busy dermatologist, I can assure you that I have personally seen hundreds of cases of cancer caused by not wearing sunscreen”.
