I would agree with your dubiousness with regards to the FDA. I would describe your American regulatory boards as somewhere between lax and corrupt. That's aside from the funding cuts and neutering. So I certainly agree that a stamp from the FDA doesn't mean everything.

But it still means something. Smart people still looked at it and said, "not carcinogenic". It's a verification of what we already thought; there doesn't appear to be anything blatantly unhealthy about using this product. Yes, I realize how many caveats I included in that sentence. It still means something.

Of course, I might still use bp if it were mildly carcinogenic. I still use my cell phone, at least.

I fully intend to continue using it as well, even if I don't trust the FDA, even if bp turned out to be mildly carcinogenic after all. Avoiding carcinogens completely seems impossible, anyways.

Thank you for your input!

There are no studies that concluded that benzoyl peroxide was harmful, independent or FDA.

The only thing that you should be fastidious about is applying sunscreen when you use it as it seriously increases the skins' sensitivity to the sun, which in turn could lead to skin cancer.

However, you can add pretty much all antibiotics that are used to treat acne, both topical and oral retinoids as well as any type of physical or chemical exfoliants to this list.

Almost all mainstream acne treatments will make your skin 20-70% more sensitive to the sun's damaging rays. So, any of them could be blamed for 'giving' you skin cancer.

Really, you should be wearing sunscreen 365 days of the year, BP or not. This disease is so easily preventable and also unfortunately so common, it's not worth the risk.

There are no studies that concluded that benzoyl peroxide was harmful, independent or FDA.

The only thing that you should be fastidious about is applying sunscreen when you use it as it seriously increases the skins' sensitivity to the sun, which in turn could lead to skin cancer.

However, you can add pretty much all antibiotics that are used to treat acne, both topical and oral retinoids as well as any type of physical or chemical exfoliants to this list.

Almost all mainstream acne treatments will make your skin 20-70% more sensitive to the sun's damaging rays. So, any of them could be blamed for 'giving' you skin cancer.

Really, you should be wearing sunscreen 365 days of the year, BP or not. This disease is so easily preventable and also unfortunately so common, it's not worth the risk.

 

Oh goodness, I'm sorry! I meant to say "even if bp turned out to be mildly carcinogenic," not "and bp turned out to be mildly carcinogenic."

But yes, there are way too many people that underestimate the importance of sunscreen. Melanoma runs in my family, so I always try to wear an SPF of 30 or more whenever I go outside, unless it's night time.

Do you need to wear sunscreen inside the house? Because I use mine only when I'm about to go outside.

Do you need to wear sunscreen inside the house? Because I use mine only when I'm about to go outside.

Only if you sit right next to a window all day with sunshine beaming on you.

No, you don't have to wear sunscreen indoors.

...Really, you should be wearing sunscreen 365 days of the year, BP or not. This disease is so easily preventable and also unfortunately so common, it's not worth the risk.

The risk of using sunscreen every day is that it will result in a lack of vitamin D, causing bone problems & stomach problems such as IBS. This has been reported recently by the increase in the number of children with rickits. It is partly due to parents being paranoid about skin cancer & going overboard when applying sunscreen etc.

Everyone should have some unprotected exposure to the sun (every day if possible) to keep up their vitamin D levels.

...Really, you should be wearing sunscreen 365 days of the year, BP or not. This disease is so easily preventable and also unfortunately so common, it's not worth the risk.

The risk of using sunscreen every day is that it will result in a lack of vitamin D, causing bone problems & stomach problems such as IBS. This has been reported recently by the increase in the number of children with rickits. It is partly due to parents being paranoid about skin cancer & going overboard when applying sunscreen etc.

Everyone should have some unprotected exposure to the sun (every day if possible) to keep up their vitamin D levels.

There are much safer, food and fortified sources of vitamin D than sun exposure. If you have a healthy diet, you'll have enough vitamin D in your system. If not, you can always take supplements. I'd rather take supplements than risk skin cancer.

Victims of skin cancer who have been autopsied, were found to have excessive levels of vitamin D in their tissues, thus there's a strong correlation between skin cancer and too much vitamin D - i.e. sunbathing is not a good way to get your vitamin D.

Actually, you will still be absorbing some vitamin D through sun exposure even if you wear sunscreen, because depending on the SPF, they will be between 95-99% effective in filtering rays.

There are much safer, food and fortified sources of vitamin D than sun exposure. If you have a healthy diet, you'll have enough vitamin D in your system. If not, you can always take supplements. I'd rather take supplements than risk skin cancer.

Victims of skin cancer who have been autopsied, were found to have excessive levels of vitamin D in their tissues, thus there's a strong correlation between skin cancer and too much vitamin D - i.e. sunbathing is not a good way to get your vitamin D.

Actually, you will still be absorbing some vitamin D through sun exposure even if you wear sunscreen, because depending on the SPF, they will be between 95-99% effective in filtering rays.

It's unlikely that the average Western diet contains anywhere near enough vitamin D. Even eating a healthy diet probably wouldn't contain enough, without consuming a disproportionate amount of oily fish. Taking supplements is always dodgy if you don't know how much vitamin D you already have in your body.

As for the autopsies of skin cancer patients, what do you mean by excessive levels, and why do you assume that it was due to sunbathing? It's possible to reach a toxicity level of vitamin D when taken orally, but not when created by sunshine. Vitamin D created when sunshine strikes the skin levels off at a safe level, it doesn't continue to rise, unlike taking it orally. Do you have a link to these autopsy results?

The latest thinking by Cancer Research UK, along with other organisations, is that a certain amount of unprotected exposure to summer sunshine is benificial to your health. Obviously not enough to burn your skin. Like many things in life, a balance has to be struck. Too much, or too little sunshine is not good for you.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12013332

http://www.saga.co.uk/health/body/sunshine-now-the-good-news.aspx

There are much safer, food and fortified sources of vitamin D than sun exposure. If you have a healthy diet, you'll have enough vitamin D in your system. If not, you can always take supplements. I'd rather take supplements than risk skin cancer.

Victims of skin cancer who have been autopsied, were found to have excessive levels of vitamin D in their tissues, thus there's a strong correlation between skin cancer and too much vitamin D - i.e. sunbathing is not a good way to get your vitamin D.

Actually, you will still be absorbing some vitamin D through sun exposure even if you wear sunscreen, because depending on the SPF, they will be between 95-99% effective in filtering rays.

It's unlikely that the average Western diet contains anywhere near enough vitamin D. Even eating a healthy diet probably wouldn't contain enough, without consuming a disproportionate amount of oily fish. Taking supplements is always dodgy if you don't know how much vitamin D you already have in your body.

As for the autopsies of skin cancer patients, what do you mean by excessive levels, and why do you assume that it was due to sunbathing? It's possible to reach a toxicity level of vitamin D when taken orally, but not when created by sunshine. Vitamin D created when sunshine strikes the skin levels off at a safe level, it doesn't continue to rise, unlike taking it orally. Do you have a link to these autopsy results?

The latest thinking by Cancer Research UK, along with other organisations, is that a certain amount of unprotected exposure to summer sunshine is benificial to your health. Obviously not enough to burn your skin. Like many things in life, a balance has to be struck. Too much, or too little sunshine is not good for you.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12013332

http://www.saga.co.uk/health/body/sunshine-now-the-good-news.aspx

I did one of my biology case studies on skin cancer. Unfortunately I can't remember where I read about the link between cancer and high levels of vitamin D in tissues, but it would have been a paper, because I got all the references for the case study from clinical trial papers.

I don't see how taking the right amount of supplements is dodgy, because in the first place, you'd only take the supplements if a blood test showed you were deficient in vitamin D. The blood test would also tell you the serum levels so you would now whether your deficiency was mild/moderate/severe. But even if you are not deficient in vitamin D and taking supplements, as long as you only take 100% of your RDA or less, it's not dangerous.

How do you calculate exactly how much vit D you get from sun exposure? You can only guess, so if anything, sun bathing is more 'dodgy' in that regard

Bottom line is, I don't care what Cancer Research UK recommends, skin cancer is sooo common, and exposing your skin to the sun unprotected while treating your acne, if you're using any of the mainstream treatments, will make your skin so much more sensitive to the sun than usual, that you could potentially get a sunburn within 10 minutes on a bright, clear day. And it only takes one sunburn to set some pre-cancerous cells on their way.

I did one of my biology case studies on skin cancer. Unfortunately I can't remember where I read about the link between cancer and high levels of vitamin D in tissues, but it would have been a paper, because I got all the references for the case study from clinical trial papers.

I don't see how taking the right amount of supplements is dodgy, because in the first place, you'd only take the supplements if a blood test showed you were deficient in vitamin D. The blood test would also tell you the serum levels so you would now whether your deficiency was mild/moderate/severe. But even if you are not deficient in vitamin D and taking supplements, as long as you only take 100% of your RDA or less, it's not dangerous.

How do you calculate exactly how much vit D you get from sun exposure? You can only guess, so if anything, sun bathing is more 'dodgy' in that regard

Bottom line is, I don't care what Cancer Research UK recommends, skin cancer is sooo common, and exposing your skin to the sun unprotected while treating your acne, if you're using any of the mainstream treatments, will make your skin so much more sensitive to the sun than usual, that you could potentially get a sunburn within 10 minutes on a bright, clear day. And it only takes one sunburn to set some pre-cancerous cells on their way.

If you already know you are deficient of vitamin D through blood tests, and you stick to the same diet, then there's no problem with supplements. I was just making the point that it's possible to have a toxic level of vitamin D in your body if too much is taken orally.

As mentioned previously, you cannot calculate exactly how much vitamin D your body makes when exposed to the Sun, but you cannot produce toxic levels. Vitamin D produced by Sun exposure stops being produced before a toxic level is reached.

I realise that some acne treatments can cause the skin to become more sensitive to the sun, and that should be taken into account during unprotected exposure. Considering you are so concerned about cancer, I'm surprised you don't care what Cancer Research UK (along with other respectable organisations) recommends. The latest research shows that as well as other ailments, short exposure to sunlight actually protects against other forms of cancer. As clearly stated in the article, the exposure required should not be long enough as to cause sunburn.

The latest research shows that, like most things in life, a balance should be reached concerning sun exposure. There are health risks in not only getting too much sun, but too little sun as well, and to get zero unprotected sunshine on your body 24/7 seems a bit OTT.

There are also conflicting reports as to whether the chemicals in the sunscreen itself could possibly be carcinogenic, so applying it unnecessarily could be counter productive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_health_risks_of_sunscreen