On Monday, both the Telegraph and the Mail ran stories about the world’s first drinkable sunscreen. However, the product described contradicts many of the most fundamental scientific principles (assuming it actually works as promised)

Yesterday, the Telegraph and the Mail ran stories about the world’s first drinkable sunscreen. To say the product described deviates from accepted science would be an understatement. Imagine you programme your sat nav to take you to central London, but instead it directs you to one of Neptune's moons; that’s the sort of deviation we’re talking about.

If science communicators were Jedi, this product would be like the destruction of Alderaan.

If unscientific claims were an illegal substance, this product would be so illegal that anyone caught possessing it would be instantly shot. Into the sun.

What follows is a critique of the claims made in the Daily Mail article, and, if you haven’t guessed already, it is not exactly impartial.

The Telegraph has, in fairness, since posted its own scathing assessment of the product , hence I’m focusing on the more extensive Daily Mail piece.

You know it’s going to be bad when even the title is questionable.

World's first DRINKABLE sun cream goes on sale

Minor point, but as they're mostly some form of liquid, there are many sun creams you can drink. It’s just not wise to drink them, and you won’t get any benefit from doing so (often quite the opposite).

The days of carrying bottles of suncream to the beach could be over, as the world's first drinkable SPF is launched

Thank goodness for that. If there’s one thing that always ruins a trip to the beach, it’s having to carry a small bottle of viscous fluid.

Harmonised H20 UV claims to provide holidaymakers with up to factor 30 protection, meaning sunbathers could be able to soak up the rays for longer without fear of getting burned.

Is this implying that factor 30 is some hitherto unknown level of protection? Because I’ve got factor 50 in the cupboard. My Celtic background means I don’t handle direct sunlight very well, some of the stuff I’ve had to use, I wouldn’t be surprised if it blocks gamma rays.

Once ingested, the product's liquid molecules vibrate on the skin, cancelling out 97 per cent of UVA and UVB rays, according to US company Osmosis Skincare.

Say what? You ingest it, and it ends up “on” the skin? How exactly? I’ve studied human anatomy, I’ve never noticed any direct connection between oesophagus and epidermis. And the skin isn’t uniformly porous so that any fluid in the body can just pass through it, otherwise the skin wouldn’t be able to keep blood on the inside, which is arguably its main job.

The liquid sunscreen - which claims to be the world's first - is on sale now.

No, pretty sure they’ve all been liquid thus far. You produce one that’s actually a gas, then that’ll be something original.

There are two varieties available - 'tanning' and 'non tanning', the former allows users achieve a tan while being protected from harmful sun rays.



Judging from this claim, we have a substance that can, via some unspecified mechanism, directly alter cellular responses to stimuli, in this case switching off skin cell’s production of melanin in response to Ultraviolet (UV) rays, which results in tanning. I’m not saying this sunscreen (wasn’t it a cream in previous paragraphs?) can’t do this, I’m just curious as to why the discovery of how to precisely control cellular behaviour is being used for minor cosmetic concerns, rather than curing countless diseases.

Even if it is restricted to melanin production, how specific is it? Does it only work in the presence of intense UV, or is it a blanket shutdown of melanin production? Basically, if a black person were to use this, would they eventually turn Caucasian?

On its website, the medical skincare brand advises: 'Take 2ml every 4 hours while in the sun...”

Assuming the sunscreen does end up “on” your skin as previously claimed (although how that would happen is anyone’s guess) that’s 2ml, spread over your whole skin surface, so roughly 2 square metres. The product is called “Harmonised H2O”, but obviously can’t be just water, as 2 ml of water spread over 2 square meters, in direct sunlight? You’d be lucky if that lasted seconds, let alone 4 hours.

Dr Ben Johnson, who founded the company, adds in his blog: 'If 2 mls are ingested an hour before sun exposure, the frequencies that have been imprinted on water will vibrate on your skin in such a way as to cancel approximately 97% of the UVA and UVB rays before they even hit your skin.

What the...? Frequencies “imprinted” on water? That “vibrate” on your skin? Very powerful effects produced by very small volumes? Are you familiar with Sherlock Holmes’s famous “the dog that did not bark” observation? Well despite having all the signature features, this article doesn’t mention homeopathy once, almost as if it’s actively avoiding doing so. That’s fair enough, what with homeopathy being an unscientific alternative medicine found to be no better than placebo, and it would be terrifyingly irresponsible to promote it as a valid protection against something so dangerous. That would be against the rules. Lucky that’s not happening here though, eh?



But then, by what mechanism do they “imprint frequencies” on water? Such a thing is impossible according to our current understanding of physics. And even if it weren’t, so what? How is a barely-there layer of vibrating water meant to stop UV rays? UV can be used to sterilise water, so clearly is capable of getting through it. And “before [the UV rays] even hit your skin”? How does that even make sense? Are the water molecules vibrating in such a way that they spell out “beware of the dog” in a manner comprehensible to energetic photons, causing them to veer off in search of easier targets?

Harmonised H20 is yet to be endorsed by dermatologist bodies, however, the company website does carry testimonials for the product.



Oh. Em. Gee. Really? No way! You mean a company has a product that supposedly acts as a sunscreen (one of the main functions of which is to help prevent cancer) via bizarre and seemingly impossible means, and rather than have it verified by trained medical professionals, they decided to sell it on the strength of some strangers saying it’s fine? I’m sure no harm can come of this.

One testimony is given at the end of the article.

'My year and a half year old drinks it as well and hasn't burned once this summer and is outside everyday! Thank You, Thank You for this product!'

I rarely wish I was a more religious person, but reading this as the parent of a toddler makes me wish there really was a hell, because I’m fairly sure the person who thought it was OK to use this tactic to sell this product would end up there.



The company founder’s blog (linked to in the Daily Mail piece, because I’m not sending him traffic) goes into much more detail and also has a questionable approach to science, much like how Godzilla has a questionable approach to architecture. It includes such claims as some people experiencing no benefit from the product, which is very odd for a sun block.

All in all, this product rings so many alarm bells I’d advise everyone to avoid it at all costs. The health of you and your family is not something that should be risked purely for the convenience of carrying a slightly smaller bottle to the beach.

Dean Burnett is acutely aware of how many ways he could be sued if he wrote his initial reactions to the articles about this sunscreen. He is on Twitter, @garwboy



