Abstract
The basis of skin cancer and photoaging prevention is the widespread use of sunscreens. There is a big debate regarding the safety, efficacy and environmental impact of organic (chemical) and inorganic (mineral) UV filters, however. This is a review on the gap between clinical need and health issues of humans. A systematic literature search was performed using the databases of PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library for published papers between 2015 and 2025, with a particular focus on randomized controlled trials, position statements of the FDA (2025) (to propose) and the EWG reports (2024–25), to compare the chemical and mineral filters. Although chemical filters such as oxybenzone and homosalate are more aesthetically pleasing and have a high sun protection factor (SPF), the 2025 data indicates that high levels of these filters are absorbed by the body and the new evidence suggests that this disruption of the thyroid axis happens as a result of chronic exposure in susceptible populations. The safest are mineral filters (ZnO, TiO₂) but they are hard to formulate and generate reactive oxygen species (ROS) in the presence of UV. A therapeutic "hole" in the treatment of UV and filter after penetration is discussed. We highlight the Sun-D Trial results of the effect of sunscreens on vitamin D levels and propose iron oxide technology as a "therapeutic" option to visible light dermatoses. Photoprotection in the future will not be based on the chemical vs mineral choice, but on the hybrid, so-called barrier + therapeutic products. Nanotechnology and the use of antioxidant conjugates may be seen as a step towards minimizing the biological impact of the UV light, whilst the filters themselves.