All products featured on Vogue are independently selected by our editors. However, we may receive compensation from retailers and/or from purchases of products through these links.
Charles Rosier and Augustinus Bader, cofounders of the latter’s eponymous skincare brand, are telling me over a Zoom call about the brand’s latest addition: The Sunscreen. Professor Bader’s pale complexion suggests he is a sun avoider, but Rosier, on the other hand, has the kind of sun-kissed visage that denotes frequent winter breaks in the Caribbean, topped up with pit stops to the South of France.
And so, on the eve of launching what Bader calls “the biggest innovation in the field of sun protection to the market since the existence of SPF,” it seems only fair to ask: how do they personally wear sunscreen? “I haven’t been the biggest user,” admits Rosier, whose favorite holidays in the sun turn out to be Tarifa, the Gulf of Naples, and the Aeolian Islands. “Let’s say, I’m more of an old-school, European-style person who likes to have a little bit of a tan…”
While Rosier’s use was haphazard, it turns out fair-skinned Bader was even less of a fan. The noted director of cell techniques and applied stem cell biology at Leipzig University avoided sun cream for decades because of the possibility of exposure to toxic chemicals. Yet they are both wearing it now. “This is not a [typical] SPF,” explains Bader of the elegant, white bottle with rose-gold trim and the clear label reading “SPF 50.” Their first foray into sun protection comes after four years of development, hitting the sweet spot of protecting and restoring skin simultaneously. “It’s a shield, plus repair technology,” Bader continues, “which is a big innovation in the history of SPF. Besides the shield, the repair technology [exists] to focus on inflammation.”
Augustinus Bader isn’t alone in its focus. Following six years of research, Sisley has revamped its suncare range with Sunleÿa Anti Aging Facial Sun Care SPF 50+ (it also comes in 30+), designed to help protect elastin and collagen fibers from both UVA and glycation.
Could it be that we’re finally learning to live in—and out—of the sun, balancing the joy (and highly essential vitamin D) it gives us with a sensible attitude to protecting our skin from harmful rays? If so, does a “sensible attitude” mean more sunscreen? Or less? My cynical side can’t help but be suspicious of the barrage of emails I receive telling me to wear it every day, even when I live in a country where grey skies are the norm from October through March. Lest we forget, as of 2022, the global sunscreen industry was worth more than $11 billion annually, and is estimated to reach $16 billion by 2029.
Nuance is beginning to creep in. Sisley, for example, takes a more considered approach on days when the UV isn’t that high—its All Day All Year moisturizer is a bestseller, offering protection via encapsulated filters, while having no actual SPF rating. It also knows many still like a tan and advises accordingly. “The most serious mistake is to try to tan very quickly by exposing yourself to the sun without taking precautions against solar erythema,” says scientific communication manager Pauline Poussin. “This action would guarantee sunburn and, as a consequence, accelerate photo-aging. You must therefore be particularly vigilant at the beginning of the holidays.” Most dermatologists would also argue that protection is vital if you’re using retinol regularly or have just had laser or semi-invasive or invasive procedures.
But what of those who maintain that a blanket slathering of sunscreen in all weathers encourages good habits? “My personal view is that this is totally the wrong advice, it’s not a good habit. It’s a bad habit. You shouldn’t do it,” says Professor Brian Diffey. The emeritus professor of photobiology in the dermatology department of Newcastle University developed the original star rating for sunscreen, still being used by UK-based Boots today, and has published several hundred medical and scientific papers on the subject. Diffey has been arguing for nearly 20 years that if we work indoors, we don’t need to wear sunscreen on days when the UV index is three or under. In February 2024, the Australia and New Zealand Journal of Public Health revised its position on sunscreen, saying more or less the same thing, unless you have family members with melanoma, an autoimmune condition, or lots of moles. When you consider that Australia has the highest incidence of skin cancer in the world, costing its health system $1.7 billion per year, this is more than noteworthy.
Diffey’s view? “Use sunscreen when your exposure to the sun is going to be potentially detrimental,” he advises. “On a typical winter’s day, you might travel to work, pop out to lunch, you’ll get the equivalent of 45 seconds of summer sunbathing. On a rainy day, it would be the equivalent of 15 seconds. This amount of sun exposure is biologically trivial.”
And don’t get him started on sunscreens professing to offer protection from infrared or blue light exposure from screens, a threat so minimal it apparently warrants no countermeasures at all. “You’re getting no blue light exposure of any consequence.”
How much should we be wearing? “Very few people who use sunscreen will get the protection [they expect],” says Diffey. “The internationally agreed thickness, which is what the laboratory testing is based on in order to measure the SPF, is 2 mg per square centimeter—but this doesn’t reflect human behavior. Typically, people will apply it at 1 mg per square centimeter, so if you buy an SPF 50, you’ll end up with an SPF 25 or thereabouts. Wearing a hat will reduce the intensity of sunlight on your face. Clothing and shade are much more effective modalities than sunscreen.”
Instead, what you can get by overusing certain types of sunscreen is exposure to potentially harmful ingredients. I’ve always been skeptical of marketing claims about “clean” products, but with scientist after scientist flagging the same question mark, I have to listen. “There are side effects associated with sunscreen use that mean you can get contact and photo contact reactions, as well as systemic absorption, which means the active ingredients are absorbed in the bloodstream,” says Diffey. “They’re probably not doing a lot of harm, but who knows? In those sunscreens containing titanium dioxide and zinc dioxide you can get nanoparticles – and there is some concern there may be a risk to humans from these.” That s why, if you re selecting a mineral sunscreen, you should always choose one with a non-nano formulation.
In the US, where sunscreen is regulated by the FDA, 12 ingredients were flagged as not being safe and effective, while the last new ingredient to be approved was in 2006, much to the frustration of chemists who work in the industry. Accordingly, Augustinus Bader has created an entirely separate mineral version of The Sunscreen just for the US market. “To take it to an extreme, massive sun exposure gives you sun damage, but if your protection comes with chemical toxicity, then that’s not great either,” says Bader. “The sun is a double-edged sword.” It is. And the time has come for us to pick our battles. How will you wear yours?
