Open TikTok and sunscreen seems above all like something for a well-lit bathroom: bottle in the foreground, skin shiny at the right point, texture that “absorbs immediately”, makeup that lasts, look like a successful morning routine. Prevention comes later, when it arrives. First there is the product, the advice, the “this saved my skin”, the comparison between mineral and chemical filters, the bag size, the promise of more even skin. Then, in the midst of this infinite catalog of SPF, videos appear that play another game: those that portray sunscreens as something toxic, dangerous, useless, even capable of blocking the benefits of the sun.
The most useful data from a new study published on PLOS Digital Health it’s right there: misinformation about sunscreens, among the most viewed videos, represents a minority. A small minority. But when it appears it garners more reactions. Researchers analyzed 971 of the most viewed videos on TikTok using five very popular sunscreen-related hashtags: #sunscreen, #sunscreenviral, #spf, #sunscreenreview and #sunprotection. 86.8% of the content promoted the use of sunscreen. Only 6% contained health-related criticisms, including claims that sunscreens are harmful or that they impede benefits such as vitamin D production.
Few hoaxes, a lot of noise
The disproportion comes with interactions. Videos focused on criticizing sunscreen obtained on average more likes, more shares and more comments than videos that simply recommended its use. The views alone told less. The impact of the content, however, was clearly visible in the way users reacted: liking, commenting, forwarding, discussing under the video. All fuel for the algorithm.
The mechanism is quite recognizable. A correct review must explain, distinguish, remember that the sun is also good for health, that excess is harmful, that the product must be reapplied, that shade and hat still matter. A counter-current video takes much less: “They lied to you”, “this stuff is bad for you”, “the sun is natural”, “vitamin D is blocked”. Four dry sentences, a confident face, perhaps a revealing tone. And the game starts.
The problem lies in the fact that here the suspicion does not concern the wrong foundation or a cream that is too greasy. It concerns exposure to ultraviolet rays, sunburn, skin damage that accumulates over the years and the prevention of skin cancers. The World Health Organization recalls that small amounts of UV rays help the production of vitamin D, while excessive exposure is associated with damage to the skin and eyes, including melanoma, skin cancers and premature aging. In 2020, excess UV caused approximately 1.2 million new cases of non-melanoma skin cancers and 325,000 melanomas worldwide.
Vitamin D misused
Vitamin D is one of the most convenient levers of the anti-sun narrative. It starts from a true thing: the sun contributes to its production. Then he takes that truth and stretches it until it loses shape. Hence the idea that protecting oneself means sabotaging the body, as if removing the cream was enough to fix everything.
The WHO says something different and much more concrete: UV rays in small quantities are useful, excess causes damage. For this reason he recommends limiting time in the sun in the central hours, seeking shade, using protective clothing, hats, glasses and applying a broad-spectrum cream to the areas of the skin that remain uncovered. He also adds an often forgotten detail: sunscreen should not become a permit to stay in the sun longer.
The American Academy of Dermatology also recommends broad-spectrum, water-resistant protection with SPF 30 or higher, to be used in conjunction with shade and protective clothing. On vitamin D, the indication is equally clear: those who need to ensure an adequate intake can do so through diet, fortified foods or supplementation when indicated, without increasing the risk linked to sun exposure.
In Italy, AIRC also debunks the myth of harmful sunscreens: used according to indications, they are an active prevention tool against skin tumors, while the lack of protection exposes one to concrete risks such as sunburn, premature aging, DNA damage and possible skin tumors.
Skincare covers health
There’s another piece of the study that says a lot about how we talk about sun protection online. Even when videos promote the use of sunscreen, they often do so for aesthetic reasons: more beautiful skin, fewer blemishes, fewer wrinkles, acne under control, glow effect. The reduction in cancer risk appears much less. In the study, only 6.1% of the videos explicitly mentioned cancer prevention. More frequent are references to general damage to the skin, acne, aging and wrinkles.
This doesn’t make skincare content useless. If a person starts using protection because they have found a light cream that doesn’t burn their eyes or ruin their makeup, that’s fine. The entrance door can also be aesthetic. The trouble comes when the main reason always remains out of sight. Sunscreen was created to limit damage from UV rays. Everything else comes later: the texture, the scent, the cute packaging, the “invisible finish” so loved by those who have to leave the house at eight and don’t want to look like a plaster statue.
Social communication, on the other hand, loves objects that are easy to show. One tube works better than a long-term risk. A glowing face works better than an explanation about UVA and UVB rays. A controversy works better than a boring recommendation, even when that recommendation saves you from a serious burn.
The hoax works because it arrives lightly: few words, confident tone, promise of hidden truth. Good information must take more effort: explaining that the sun is useful, that excess is harmful, that the cream should be used well, that it should be put back on after a bath, that tanning does not act as a shield.
Then July arrives: red shoulders, children smeared in half, bottles left in the car, the usual “I’m only half an hour anyway”. TikTok is already on the video after. Not the skin.
You might also be interested in:
