The "No Sunscreen Theory" Spreading on TikTok: The Perils of Health Information Reflected in Social Media Reactions

Every summer, sunscreen takes center stage at drugstores and beauty counters. UV protection, prevention of spots and wrinkles, and reduction of skin cancer risk—these have long been the basic health messages reiterated by dermatologists and public institutions.

However, in recent years, platforms like TikTok, known for their short-form videos, have been spreading messages that are the complete opposite. Claims such as "sunscreen is harmful to the body," "the sun is not the enemy," "chemical ingredients are toxic," and "natural substances like beef tallow are safer" are being shared. These assertions are often conveyed with emotionally charged language rather than expert explanations, leaving a strong impression in brief videos.

An article reported by the Toronto Sun highlighted the spread of misinformation about sunscreen on TikTok, and the growing concerns among dermatologists and researchers. The study behind the article analyzed approximately 1,000 TikTok videos related to sunscreen posted in 2024. Researchers categorized videos that recommended sunscreen, criticized it, or included both perspectives, and compared the reactions such as views, comments, likes, and shares.

Interestingly, the majority of sunscreen-related videos on TikTok actually treated the use of sunscreen positively. This indicates that the entire platform is not dominated by anti-sunscreen sentiment. Rather, many posts conveyed information on how to use sunscreen, product reviews, the importance of reapplication, and the necessity of UV protection.

Nevertheless, the issue lies in the fact that some critical videos garnered relatively high engagement. The study found that videos portraying sunscreen negatively tended to receive more comments, likes, and shares from viewers. This reflects a typical phenomenon in the social media era, where sensational information more easily captures attention, even when accurate information is available.

Why the Phrase "Sunscreen is Poison" Resonates

There are several patterns in the anti-sunscreen claims spreading on social media. Common assertions include "sunscreens contain carcinogens," "chemical ingredients are absorbed into the body," "avoiding sunbathing leads to vitamin D deficiency," "tanning is inherently healthy," and "pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies are instilling fear to sell products."

These claims seem to align with viewers' doubts. In recent years, there has been a growing atmosphere of suspicion regarding food, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, vaccines, and the belief that "there might be hidden truths by big corporations." When combined with words like "natural," "inherent health," and "traditional methods," these claims can appear convincing, even if they lack scientific basis.

Especially on short-form video platforms like TikTok, strong assertions spread more easily than complex explanations. Statements like "This is dangerous," "Doctors won't tell you," and "My skin improved after I stopped using sunscreen" quickly stimulate viewers' anxieties and curiosity. Personal anecdotes and before-and-after presentations leave a stronger impression than medical verification.

However, dermatologists are concerned that these videos won't just end as a beauty trend. Avoiding sunscreen can lead to the accumulation of skin damage from UV rays. In the long term, this is related not only to visible changes like spots, wrinkles, and sagging but also to the risk of skin cancer.

It's not that sun exposure itself is bad. It's true that sunlight is involved in the body's production of vitamin D. However, the discussion of "sunlight has benefits" is separate from "you don't need to use sunscreen." Experts are concerned about posts that downplay the harm of UV rays by highlighting the benefits of sunlight.

Social Media Reactions: A Mix of Empathy, Distrust, and Counterarguments

Reactions on social media to this issue can be broadly divided into three categories.

The first group empathizes with the anti-sunscreen claims. They share sentiments like "It's better to use natural products on the skin," "Ingredient lists make me anxious," and "People in the past lived without sunscreen." Some even respond positively to posts introducing alternatives like beef tallow or plant oils.

This group's reaction reflects not just ignorance but also distrust towards modern medical and beauty industries. Cosmetic ingredient names can be difficult for general consumers to understand, and many feel "it seems dangerous" just seeing technical terms. When influencers say, "I felt better after stopping this," it is received more as a relatable anecdote than scientific data.

The second group expresses anxiety or anger towards misinformation. On social media, reactions like "Promoting not using sunscreen as a health method is dangerous," "What if young people believe this?" and "Don't take it lightly; I have a family member who experienced skin cancer" are prominent. Particularly, medical professionals and users interested in science communication point out the risks of conveying health information in definitive terms in short videos.

The third group does not fully agree with either side and shows confusion. They express concerns like "Which sunscreen is actually safe?" "I don't understand the difference between chemical and mineral sunscreens," and "I think sunscreen is necessary, but I'm also worried about the ingredients." This group is not actively believing misinformation but is overwhelmed by the volume of information. Experts may need to engage most carefully with this undecided group.

Observing social media reactions, the problem is not the "absence of correct information" but rather "encountering emotionally stirring information before reaching reliable information." Furthermore, algorithms promote videos with high engagement. Posts that evoke anger, anxiety, surprise, or conspiracy-like interest generate debates in the comments, fueling their spread.

Why "The Majority is Correct Information" Doesn't Provide Reassurance

The important finding of the study is that the majority of videos recommended sunscreen. This is a positive aspect. TikTok has many beneficial pieces of information from dermatologists, beauty experts, science creators, and general users. Posts explaining the amount to apply, reapplication, SPF selection, and outdoor activity precautions do exist.

However, being the majority does not equate to having strong influence. Accurate information often appears dull, conditional, and cautiously phrased. "Sunscreen is effective as part of UV protection when used properly," "Choose SPF 30 or higher, broad-spectrum, and water-resistant products," "Combine with clothing, hats, and shade." While this is reliable advice, it lacks stimulation in the world of short-form videos.

On the other hand, misinformation is powerful. "Sunscreen is poison," "Don't apply it to your skin," "The truth is being hidden." Such words prioritize shock over accuracy. Viewers might comment to refute, thinking "That can't be true," or save it, feeling "It's scary if true." In any case, engagement increases on the platform. Even the counterarguments of those who don't believe can contribute to the video's spread.

This structure is troublesome for public health. As researchers point out, misinformation about sunscreen often includes novelty, shock, and conspiracy-like elements. These stimulate human emotions and create a desire to share. While correct information is steadily built up, misinformation can spread instantly.

The Real Risks Dermatologists Warn About

Sunscreen protects the skin by absorbing or reflecting UV rays. Of course, sunscreen alone does not provide perfect protection. It is advisable to combine multiple measures, such as hats, sunglasses, long sleeves, shade, and avoiding times when UV rays are strong.

Still, sunscreen is a crucial pillar of UV protection. Dermatologists sound the alarm on anti-sunscreen videos because stopping sunscreen use could expose viewers to unnecessary risks. Especially for younger generations, the results of UV damage received now are not immediately apparent. Changes in the skin and the risk of skin cancer manifest over years.

Moreover, claims like "sunscreen is carcinogenic" are very strong words, yet often lack clear evidence. Even when there are discussions about ingredient concerns or environmental impacts, they do not directly lead to the conclusion that "it's safer not to use sunscreen." A perspective that compares risks is necessary. UV-induced skin damage is an established risk, and sunscreen is used to reduce that risk.

Of course, there are people with sensitive skin, those who feel irritation from certain ingredients, or those who dislike fragrances or textures. In such cases, options include choosing a different type of sunscreen, trying mineral-based ones, or consulting a dermatologist. The problem is abandoning UV protection altogether due to anxiety.

New Ingredient Bemotrizinol and the Timing of Backlash

An interesting aspect of the recent reports is that they coincide with the approval of a new active ingredient in sunscreens, Bemotrizinol, in the United States. Bemotrizinol is a broad-spectrum UV filter that protects against both UVA and UVB rays and has already been used in other countries. In the U.S., the approval of new sunscreen ingredients has been slow for many years, making this addition a significant milestone.

Ideally, having more sunscreen options is positive news for consumers. If improvements are made, such as reducing white cast, enhancing usability, and providing broader UV protection, more user-friendly products may become available for daily use. Sunscreens need to be not only theoretically superior but also practical for everyday use.

However, if the message "sunscreen is dangerous" gains attention on social media at the same time, anxiety and doubt may spread before understanding new options. The more complex the ingredient name, the more likely it is perceived as "unknown and therefore dangerous." Here, experts and media need to explain not just by saying "it's safe," but by detailing what is known and what is being debated.

Three Perspectives Needed for Information Recipients

So, how should we evaluate health information encountered on social media?

Firstly, question "overly strong assertions." When health-related topics use expressions like "absolutely dangerous," "truth no one tells you," or "this alone is enough," caution is needed. Medical and public health information often involves conditions and individual differences. The stronger the assertion, the more necessary it is to verify the basis.

Secondly, separate personal anecdotes from scientific evidence. Even if someone feels "my skin improved after stopping sunscreen," it does not prove applicable to everyone. It might be that the product used did not suit their skin, or other lifestyle changes had an impact. While anecdotes can be informative, they do not constitute medical conclusions.

Thirdly, verify whether "alternatives" truly have the same effect. Even if there are posts about applying beef tallow or plant oils, it does not guarantee they protect against UV rays like sunscreen. Being naturally derived does not automatically ensure safety or efficacy. Conversely, being artificially made does not inherently mean danger.

The Responsibility of Platforms and Experts

TikTok claims to prohibit health-related misinformation and collaborates with independent fact-checkers to identify and remove misinformation. However, in reality, it is challenging to immediately detect and stop all misinformation. Especially with topics like sunscreen, clear falsehoods, personal opinions, product reviews, and ideological health views intermingle, making simple deletion insufficient.

Therefore, the role of experts in disseminating information becomes crucial, alongside the platform's efforts. Dermatologists and researchers need to communicate in words and formats that resonate with younger generations. Long papers and official statements alone cannot compete with the speed of short-form videos. Efforts are needed to make accurate information as easily discoverable as misinformation in viral spaces.

However, expert communication that merely "corrects from above" may not reach the audience. The background to viewers' anxiety about sunscreen includes experiences of skin irritation, ingredient doubts, distrust of companies, and disappointment in past health information. Ignoring these emotions and simply stating "it's scientifically correct, so believe it" can provoke backlash.

What is important is not denying the anxiety but enabling risk comparison. "If you're worried about ingredients, choose this way," "If it doesn't suit your skin, there are other options," "Don't rely solely on sunscreen; use clothing and shade as well." Such practical and gentle explanations are more likely to reach those who are undecided.

How to Engage with Viral Health Information

The debate on TikTok about sunscreen is not just a beauty trend. It is an example of how modern health information spreads, is misunderstood, and changes behavior.

On social media, correct information does not always prevail. Instead, information that is sensational, emotionally stirring, and villainizes someone tends to stand out. The more familiar the topic, like sunscreen, the more people react by projecting their own experiences and values. Therefore, misinformation is not "someone else's problem" but an issue that can involve anyone.

Of course, whether or not to use sunscreen is a personal choice. However, that choice should be made based on the most accurate information possible. If a short video on social media causes anxiety, it is advisable to consult multiple reliable sources, such as dermatologists, public institutions, and peer-reviewed studies, before reaching a conclusion.

There is no need to fear the sun, but neither should the risks of UV rays be underestimated. Valuing a natural lifestyle and using scientifically validated preventive measures should not be in conflict.

The "No Sunscreen Theory" spreading on TikTok poses a question to us: Do we believe viral information, or do we pause and verify the evidence before acting?

What is needed to protect health is not fear, but judgment. The current debate over sunscreen shows that this judgment is increasingly being tested in the age of social media.

Source URL

Toronto Sun Article: Reported on the spread of misinformation about sunscreen on TikTok
https://torontosun.com/health/sunscreen-misinformation-spreading-on-tiktok-researchers

PLOS Digital Health Published Study: Analyzed 971 TikTok videos related to sunscreen and examined response trends in videos containing misinformation
https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0001440

Washington Post Article: The source referenced by the Toronto Sun article, introducing researchers' and dermatologists' views and TikTok's explanations
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2026/06/20/most-tiktok-sunscreen-content-is-accurate-misinformation-gets-attention/

FDA Announcement: Official announcement regarding the addition of Bemotrizinol to the list of active sunscreen ingredients in the U.S. on June 9, 2026
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-expands-sunscreen-options-first-time-20-years

American Academy of Dermatology: Explanation from a dermatological professional organization recommending SPF 30 or higher, broad-spectrum, and water-resistant sunscreens
https://www.aad.org/media/stats-sunscreen

The Skin Cancer Foundation: Explanation on the use of sunscreen and prevention of skin cancer and skin aging
https://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-prevention/sun-protection/sunscreen/