Why is this a bigger deal for me than for everyone else?
Because skin that has lost its color burns readily. That turns sun protection from a general health message into a thing you have to solve, on ordinary days, for the rest of your life. Evidence
Why this matters
The American Academy of Dermatology says this on its vitiligo self-care page. It names the same three broad options everyone else gets: shade, clothing, and a sunscreen used according to its label. None of that is specific to vitiligo, which is part of the problem.
Questions for your dermatologist
- Are there parts of my skin you would want me to be most careful with?Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
- Does my treatment change any of this?Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
Should I tan the rest of my skin so the patches blend in?
The American Academy of Dermatology says to avoid tanning, indoors and outdoors. Its reason runs the opposite way from the idea. Tanning increases the contrast between your natural color and the light spots and patches, so vitiligo becomes more noticeable. Evidence Evidence
Why this matters
The same page says tanning beds, sun lamps and other indoor tanning devices are not safe alternatives to the sun. Like the sun, it says, they can burn skin that has lost its pigment and worsen vitiligo. It also says a bad sunburn can worsen vitiligo. And it gives protection a second reason on a lighter skin tone: skin that has not tanned often makes the spots and patches less noticeable.
Questions for your dermatologist
- I have thought about tanning to even out my skin. Is that a bad idea for me?Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
- If I have used a tanning bed, is that worth telling you about?Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
What does the SPF number on the bottle actually tell me?
One thing. It rates protection against sunburn, and almost nothing else. The FDA is blunt that it is not a clock, which is how most people read it. Evidence Evidence
Why this matters
Every sunscreen is tested by comparing how much ultraviolet it takes to burn skin with the product on against how much it takes without it. Sunburn is mostly caused by UVB, so the FDA says an SPF value is primarily a UVB number. UVA needs the words broad spectrum on the label, and not every product has them. A product that is not broad spectrum, or that is under SPF 15, has to carry a warning saying it has only been shown to help prevent sunburn.
Questions for your dermatologist
- Is there a reason to pick one sunscreen over another for me?Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
- Does anything I use on my skin already change what I should buy?Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
Is mineral sunscreen different from chemical sunscreen?
Less than the marketing suggests. The mineral ones were long described as reflecting light. DermNet says studies have since shown they protect mainly by absorbing it, which is what the chemical ones do. Evidence Evidence
Why this matters
The mineral filters are titanium dioxide and zinc oxide. DermNet describes both as broad spectrum and photostable, and says they are often mixed with organic filters to hold those steady. The FDA regulates all of them as active ingredients in one list, and added a new one, bemotrizinol, in June 2026.
Questions for your dermatologist
- Do you have a view on sunscreen ingredients for someone using light treatment?Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
- What would you want me to do if a product stings or reddens my skin?Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
What is UPF, and is special clothing worth buying?
UPF rates how much ultraviolet gets through a fabric, the way SPF rates a sunscreen. Higher is more protection. DermNet gives UPF 50 as blocking 98 per cent of it. Evidence
Why this matters
In the United States the ratings come from two textile standards, AATCC 183 and ASTM D6603. The minimum for a garment to be called sun protective there is UPF 15. European rules require at least UPF 40. The Australian and New Zealand standards set body coverage requirements as well as a minimum rating. DermNet says a garment can generally be expected to last one to two years of ordinary wear and washing.
Questions for your dermatologist
- Is covering up something you would push harder on for me?Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
- Are there areas where clothing matters more than sunscreen?Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
Do I have to buy special clothes, or will my own do?
A lot of what is already in your wardrobe does part of the job. DermNet puts denim, merino wool, polyester, satin-finish silk, tightly woven fabrics and unbleached cotton in its protective column. Evidence
Why this matters
Dark colors give around five times the protection of white in the same fabric, because the dye absorbs ultraviolet. Loose clothes protect better than tight ones, because tight fabric pulls the fibers apart and lets more light through. To judge a garment, hold it up to a window or a lamp: less light through means more protection. DermNet lists the poor performers too.
- Polyester crepe, viscose, and bleached cotton.
- Knits, especially loosely woven ones.
- Undyed white denim.
- Fabric worn thin or threadbare.
Questions for your dermatologist
- Is there anything about my skin that makes fabric matter more than usual?Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
- Should I be treating this differently in water?Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
Where do people actually get caught out?
On the edges. The FDA keeps a list of the spots people forget, and it is almost entirely the places that are awkward to reach or easy to assume are covered. Evidence Evidence
Why this matters
The FDA names these.
- Ears, and the back of the neck.
- The nose, and along the hairline.
- Lips, for which it points to a lip balm carrying an SPF.
- The hands, and the tops of the feet.
- Scalp that thinning hair has left exposed.
Questions for your dermatologist
- Which parts of my skin would you want me watching most closely?Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
- Do you want to hear about it if I burn?Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
Evidence and update context
This optional layer shows the evidence boundary reviewed for this page as of 2026-08-22.
- What this evidence supports
- The American Academy of Dermatology says this on its vitiligo self-care page. It names the same three broad options everyone else gets: shade, clothing, and a sunscreen used according to its label. None of that is specific to vitiligo, which is part of the problem.
- What it does not establish
- The obvious next sentence is that skin with no pigment left burns at some particular rate. No source on this site has measured that. Burns readily is what the evidence says, and it is weaker than a rate. The AAD page also discloses support from Incyte Dermatology, so it is patient education rather than independent evidence.
Applicability check
Who was studied?
These fields show what the cited evidence reports about the people and body sites behind outcome or safety claims. “Not reported” means the reviewed source omitted the field; “Pending exact source review” means SteadySkin has not made that determination yet.
The American Academy of Dermatology says to avoid tanning, indoors and outdoors. Its reason runs the opposite way from the idea. Tanning increases the contrast between your natural color and the light spots and patches, so vitiligo becomes more noticeable.
- Age range
- Pending exact source review
- Condition subtype
- Pending exact source review
- Severity or extent
- Pending exact source review
- Sample size
- Pending exact source review
- Geography and care setting
- Pending exact source review
- Skin tone or phototype
- Pending exact source review
- Race
- Pending exact source review
- Ethnicity
- Pending exact source review
- Body sites
- Pending exact source review
What that means for this page: This is explicitly gated as a safety claim, but exact population extraction is still pending. It cannot publish or support an estimate of individual risk until that review is complete.
Evidence behind this page
Sources
Each evidence badge opens the source and its limits. The full list stays available here.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports patient-facing context that skin which has lost its color can burn readily and that shade, clothing and labeled sunscreen use are broad protection options. It also supports that for some people a skin injury triggers new spots or patches, and it names cuts, scrapes and burns. The wound a tattoo makes can lead to the Koebner phenomenon, with new spots appearing about 10 to 14 days later. It supports that a tattoo added for pigment may not blend with natural skin color, that its color can eventually bleed, and that the vitiligo underneath can spread over time. It supports the page telling readers to avoid tanning, indoors and outdoors, because tanning increases the contrast between natural skin color and the light spots and patches. That is what it says makes vitiligo more noticeable. It supports that tanning beds, sun lamps and other indoor tanning devices are not safe alternatives to the sun. Like the sun, they can burn skin that has lost pigment and worsen vitiligo. It supports that a bad sunburn can worsen vitiligo, and that on a lighter skin tone untanned skin often makes the spots and patches less noticeable. It supports that self-tanners and skin dyes tend to last 3 to 5 days, against one day for makeup. It names dihydroxyacetone as the ingredient to look for, and says natural-looking results take practice. It supports that vitiligo increases the risk of some other diseases such as thyroid disease, and that a dermatologist can monitor for them.
What it does not support
The page acknowledges support from Incyte Dermatology, so it does not independently establish treatment efficacy. It does not establish a personalized sun plan, a product ranking or a treatment-day instruction. It gives no frequency for injury-related patches and no way to tell in advance who they happen to. It gives no measure of how much tanning changes contrast, no threshold for a bad sunburn, and no way to tell whether one person’s vitiligo will worsen. It compares no tanning device with prescribed narrowband UVB and establishes nothing about medical phototherapy. It names no product or brand for camouflage, self-tanner or skin dye.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
- U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that the FDA regulates sunscreens as non-prescription drugs against safety and effectiveness standards. Every sunscreen is tested by comparing the amount of ultraviolet needed to cause sunburn with the product against the amount needed without it. An SPF value therefore rates sunburn protection, and because sunburn is mostly caused by UVB, SPF is primarily a UVB number. Broad spectrum products also protect against UVA, and not every product is broad spectrum. A product that is not broad spectrum, or that is under SPF 15, must carry a Drug Facts warning that it has only been shown to help prevent sunburn. It supports that SPF is not related to time in the sun, but to the amount of light. It supports that the amount changes with the time of day and with latitude, so someone nearer the equator gets more of it. It lists the permitted active ingredients, mineral and organic together, including titanium dioxide and zinc oxide, and records that bemotrizinol was added in June 2026. It supports that there is evidence at least some sunscreen active ingredients are absorbed through the skin, and that the FDA has requested data from industry to confirm their safety. It supports that no sunscreen is waterproof. A product labelled water resistant must be tested, and must state on its label how long it remains effective while swimming or sweating. Every sunscreen must carry directions for reapplication. It lists the frequently forgotten spots. They are the ears, nose, lips, back of the neck, hands, tops of the feet, along the hairline, and scalp exposed by thinning hair. It points to a lip balm carrying an SPF for the lips.
What it does not support
It is consumer guidance from a regulator, not a trial and not a comparison of products. It measures nothing about skin that has lost its pigment, and never mentions vitiligo. It ranks no brand and no ingredient. Its own recommendations carry numbers: an SPF floor, a reapplication interval, a midday window and an amount to apply. Every one of them is reported here as the FDA saying it, and never issued by this site as an instruction. It does not establish that any listed active ingredient is unsafe; it establishes that the FDA has asked for data. It cannot say what any product will do for one person.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
- DermNet (Whittaker L, Medical Writer, New Zealand; reviewing dermatologist Coulson I; previous contributors Reiche L, Ngan V, Oakley A, Gordon H)Patient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that chemical sunscreens, also called organic filters, work by absorbing ultraviolet radiation. The physical or mineral filters are the inorganic metal oxides titanium dioxide and zinc oxide. It supports that these were previously thought to reflect or scatter light. It supports that studies have since shown they too protect mainly by absorbing it. It supports that both metal oxides are photostable and give broad spectrum cover, and that they are often combined with less stable organic filters. It supports that SPF ratings pertain primarily to UVB protection, because UVB is the main cause of sunburn. It explains the number as a difference in time to sunburn, an analogy that holds only while the strength of the light is constant. It supports that SPF 15 gives about 94 per cent protection against UVB. It records that the FDA has proposed titanium dioxide and zinc oxide as safe and effective. It records that PABA and trolamine salicylate have been proposed as not safe and effective. It records that more information is needed on twelve other ingredients. It supports that the term sunblock is now considered misleading, because no sunscreen blocks all ultraviolet.
What it does not support
It is a dermatology reference page, not a trial of any product. It never mentions vitiligo and measures nothing about skin where pigment has been lost. Its recommendation numbers - an SPF floor, an amount to apply, a reapplication interval and a UV index threshold - are reported in this record rather than published as instructions. Its time analogy for SPF is not used in the copy, because the FDA states directly that SPF is a ratio of the amount of light rather than of time. It does not establish that one class of filter is safer or more effective than the other.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
- DermNet (Whittaker L, Medical Writer, New Zealand; reviewing dermatologist Coulson I; previous contributor Ngan V)Patient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that ultraviolet protection factor, UPF, is the accepted measure of how much ultraviolet passes through a fabric. It supports that UPF works the way SPF does for sunscreen, and that a higher number means more protection. It supports that UPF 50 blocks 98 per cent of ultraviolet. It supports that United States guidelines come from AATCC 183 and ASTM D6603, with a minimum of UPF 15 and no established minimum body coverage. It supports that European rules require at least UPF 40. It supports that the Australian and New Zealand standards specify body coverage as well as a minimum rating. It supports that sun protective clothing can generally be expected to last one to two years of normal wear, tear and laundry. It supports that denim, merino wool, polyester, shiny polyester blends, satin-finish silk, tightly woven fabrics and unbleached cotton give some protection. It supports that polyester crepe, bleached cotton, viscose, loose knits, undyed white denim and threadbare fabric give less. It supports that holding a fabric up to a window or lamp shows how much light passes through. It supports that darker colours give around five times the protection of white in the same material, because dye absorbs ultraviolet. It supports that loose clothing protects better than tight, because tight fabric spreads the fibres apart. It supports that many fabrics lose protection when wet, some by as much as half, and that this is especially true of cotton. It supports the coverage recommendations. They are hats that shade the face and neck, tops with long sleeves and high collars or necklines, long trousers or skirts, and enclosed shoes. It supports that a scarf can cover the neck when a hat has no brim.
What it does not support
It is a dermatology reference page, not a trial, and it tests no named garment or brand. It never mentions vitiligo and measures nothing about skin where pigment has been lost. It does not compare a specific rash guard with a specific cotton shirt; the wet-fabric statement is a property of fabrics, and this site does not upgrade it into a garment comparison. It gives no price for anything and endorses no seller. A rating is measured on the fabric and not on the person wearing it.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
- World Health Organization, with the World Meteorological Organization, the United Nations Environment Programme and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation ProtectionGuideline · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that the Global Solar UV Index is a measure of the ultraviolet level at the Earth’s surface. It names six things that change that level. The first is sun elevation. The higher the sun, the higher the level, so it varies with time of day and time of year. Outside the tropics the highest levels come at around solar noon in the summer months. The second is latitude, and the closer to equatorial regions the higher the levels. The third is cloud cover. Levels are highest under cloudless skies, but can still be high under cloud, because scattering can act like reflection from a surface. The fourth is altitude. A thinner atmosphere absorbs less, and levels rise by 10% to 12% for every 1000 metres. The fifth is ozone, which varies over the year and even across a day. The sixth is ground reflection. Fresh snow can reflect as much as 80% of ultraviolet, sea foam about 25%, and dry beach sand about 15%. It supports that the ultraviolet region covers 100 to 400 nm. It divides into UVA at 315 to 400 nm, UVB at 280 to 315 nm and UVC at 100 to 280 nm. All UVC and about 90% of UVB are absorbed by ozone, water vapour, oxygen and carbon dioxide. It supports that the maximum level falls in the four-hour period around solar noon. Solar noon falls between local noon and 2 p.m., depending on location and on daylight saving. It supports an international presentation in five categories. They are low at 1 and 2, moderate at 3 to 5, high at 6 and 7, very high at 8 to 10, and extreme at 11 and above. It supports that up to 80% of solar ultraviolet can penetrate light cloud cover. It supports that haze can even increase exposure. It supports that water offers only minimal protection, and that reflections from water can enhance exposure. It supports that levels are generally lower in winter. It supports that snow reflection can double overall exposure, especially at high altitude. It names early spring, when temperatures are low and the rays are unexpectedly strong. It carries a table of common misconceptions. That table includes a suntan being healthy, a tan protecting you, being unable to burn on a cloudy day, being unable to burn while in the water, and winter ultraviolet not being dangerous.
What it does not support
It is an educational and reporting guide for authorities and media, not a trial. It was published in 2002, and its reflectance and altitude figures are stated without a measurement range. It never mentions vitiligo. It measures nothing about skin where pigment has been lost, so it supports no statement about depigmented patches. It sets no exposure time for any person and predicts nothing for one. Its sun-protection categories are recommendations this site reports rather than issues. Nothing on it describes a prescribed course of phototherapy, and nothing on it is used here to weigh one.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.