When I first tasted samphire I nearly swooned with happiness. This ordinary-looking green vegetable, a bit like skinny asparagus or cactus, revealed itself in all its sea-flavoured, salty glory. Even the word samphire suggests something dazzlingly exotic. There is nothing like it.

That first bite was only three or four years ago. I don’t know what took so long – samphire is no ludicrous foreign import, some Johnny-come-lately food fad. It is native to these isles, grows wild and abundantly along shore lines and until recently not many people had heard of it. Now it would be unpardonable for any decent seafood restaurant not to feature samphire when it’s in season. No other vegetable can compete as an accompaniment to fish and seafood.

There are two main types of samphire growing in the UK and Ireland – marsh samphire (also known as glasswort) and rock samphire. Marsh samphire grows wild near the sea and in particular on salty mudflats and in marshy shallows. Rock samphire is rarer and hard to find. They say it tastes even better, but I’m happy with marsh. Some supermarkets – Waitrose comes to mind – sell samphire on their fish counter, over priced and absurdly encased in plastic. Try a real fishmonger, or even a farmer’s market. I once bought a bagful from Borough Market in London. Hunter-gatherers can forage for their own at low tide. It is in season in summer, so we now have the whole of spring to pass in drooling anticipation of the pleasure to come. It is ridiculously easy to cook – steam, then dress with extra virgin olive oil, lemon juice and black pepper.

Growing near the sea, samphire is chock full of minerals. I’m particularly interested in the iodine content, because iodine deficiency is a serious concern for all of us. This trace element, and component of thyroid hormone, is found in seafood, seaweed and dairy foods (but only because it is routinely added to cattle feed). Iodine deficiency is a major global problem, as it can cause stunting and mental disability and is recognised by the World Health Organization as the most common preventable cause of brain damage in the world. Deficiency is rife, because most of the iodine on the planet is in the sea, not in the soil. This is largely thanks to glaciation during the last Ice Age, which exposed the iodine-rich layers of soil to rain, flooding and wind, and washed it into the sea. Soil erosion has continued ever since, making us vulnerable to iodine deficiency. Because of the effects on mental impairment in the unborn child, deficiency during pregnancy is a particularly serious issue. A study published in 2008 of 31 women in Surrey, which measured iodine concentration in urine, found that approximately 30 per cent of the women were classified as mildly to moderately iodine-deficient. More recently, a study of more than 700 teenage girls from all over the UK found that more than two-thirds were iodine-deficient. Because iodine is part of thyroid hormone, deficiency is also linked to hypothyroidism so will also affect metabolism, energy and the rate at which you burn fat. You should only take iodine supplements if medical tests show you are deficient, but eat samphire at every possible opportunity for the sheer joy of it.

Skeaff, S.A. (2011) Iodine deficiency in UK schoolgirls. The Lancet, 378(9803):1623-1624

Rayman, M., Sleeth, M., Walter, A. & Taylor, A. (2008) Iodine deficiency in UK women of child-bearing age, Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 67 (OCE8):E399.

Calorie counting doesn’t add up, scientists have just discovered. The theory that if you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight is, and always has been, just a theory. It is one enshrined in nutrition science as an irrefutable truth and is promoted by public health organisations, dietitians and doctors. You can see why: it is simple, easy to understand and appears to be self-evident, in the same way that it is self-evident that the Earth is flat.

According to this hypothesis, what you eat does not matter, in terms of weight loss or gain – it’s the number of calories you consume that makes all the difference. Theoretically therefore if you reduce your calorific intake by, say, 100 calories a day you will eventually, and at an even rate, reach your ideal weight. If you fail to do so it is because you are a lazy, weak-willed lard-arse.

The thing is, people have been doing just that for decades and failing to achieve their goals. Obesity is at crisis point, and people are still dieting – reducing their calorie intake – for all they’re worth and getting nowhere. Now researchers who have tested the calorie-in, calorie-out theory are saying that it, and therefore NHS diet guidelines, are wrong. There are a number of reasons why they are wrong, and the one given by the researchers is that reducing calorie intake also reduces metabolic rate. As I state in I Wish I Hadn’t Eaten That, severely restricting your calorific intake is one of the best ways of guaranteeing weight gain. First you lose weight, and feel great. Your willpower is firing on all cylinders. Then your weight reaches a plateau: even though you are still counting calories, nothing is shifting. You struggle to keep up the restricted eating, and feel depressed because you suffer constant gnawing hunger, but are no longer seeing any results. To add insult to injury, when you eat ‘normally’ you find you actually put on weight.

There’s a very good reason for this. A reduction in food intake triggers a metabolic reaction which slows down the activity of the thyroid gland in an effort to retain fat stores. As calorie intake falls, so too does the level of thyroid hormone output. This latest research has revealed nothing new. Studies confirmed years ago that underfeeding results in a decrease in metabolic rate. Specifically, it results in lowered T3 levels. T3 is the active form of thyroid hormone, responsible for metabolism. So you have to eat less and less to lose any weight at all or just maintain the same weight. Because your metabolic rate has diminished, so too has your energy and your inclination to exercise – unlike your appetite which is in overdrive; sooner or later you will give in. This survival mechanism evolved over millennia and you simply cannot beat it.

Losing weight does not have to be such a hard slog. It is relatively easy: you simply cut out the carbohydrates. For as long as you continue to eat starchy carbs, your body has no need to burn its fat stores. Furthermore, the more carbs you eat, the more insulin you produce. Insulin is the hormone responsible for fat storage – one of its jobs is to convert sugar from digested carbohydrates into fat, and apply that fat to various parts of your body. If you want to know more about the mechanics of weight gain, and loss, I recommend Why We Get Fat and What to Do About It by Gary Taubes

Sample, I. NHS diet guidelines exaggerate weight loss, say scientists. The Guardian 21/02/12

Garrow, J.S., James, W.P.T. & Ralph, A. (eds) (2000) Human Nutrition and Dietetics. London: Churchill Livingstone.

Fontana, L., Klein, S., Holloszy, J.O. & Premachandra, B.N. (2006) Effect of long-term calorie restriction with adequate protein and micronutrients on thyroid hormones, Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 91(8):3232-35.

Sometimes I really admire junk food manufacturers. They are driven by a positive ideology that enables them to see opportunity everywhere, even in the most unlikely of places. Where others might only see obstacles, they see challenges, which they then embrace with gusto. I like that.

Generally speaking, that is; not when it comes to junk food. We don’t need it and it does us more harm than good, yet we are persuaded by these misguided masters of opportunity that something as ludicrous as pancake mix is desirable. Yesterday was pancake day, or Shrove Tuesday if you prefer. Now, I have no problem with festival foods that wouldn’t ordinarily fit the health bill. Pancakes are pretty basic things – quick and cheap and if done well a real treat. Traditionally they are made from flour, eggs, milk and butter, with sugar and lemon to taste. They require minimum preparation time and little in the way of culinary experience. Children enjoy making them, because they can. Pancakes don’t have much to commend them in the health department, but festival food is soul food, as is all shared food which is central to a group celebration.

But these plastic bottles containing dried pancake mix, which only came to my attention yesterday, are a source of despair. I examined the ingredients, and the instructions. The powdered mix contains all things dried – egg white, egg yolk, skimmed milk powder. Even the ubiquitous, odious ‘vegetable fat’ has managed to insinuate itself into the ingredients list. I don’t know why; there is probably a food technology explanation for this, albeit one I can’t summon any interest in. Your task is to take off the lid and fill the bottle with water, up to the line, shake, pour into a frying pan and surrender your soul.

This product of the R&D department of some nondescript factory somewhere in the UK removes all joy from the act of pancake-making and strips us of our last vestige of culinary creativity, of human participation. Unless of course we choose not to.

Only a dietitian could state, without a trace of irony, that crisps ‘can be part of a healthy balanced diet.’ I did a double take when I heard just that on the recent BBC programme Britain’s Favourite Supermarket Foods, presented by the immensely likeable but utterly guileless Cherry Healey.

What a strangely uninformative programme it turned out to be. If it’s edible, or drinkable, then it’s good for you, seemed to be the expert opinion on virtually every food or drink item discussed. We started with tea. Tea contains antioxidants and antioxidants can help prevent cancer, heart disease and stroke. We drink gallons of the stuff every day, it was established, but nobody spotted the obvious paradox that the three biggest killers today in Britain are .. cancer, heart disease and stroke.

We got round to crisps. It was generally agreed that crisps are full of salt, and salt is bad. But hang on – it turns out that crisps don’t have all that much salt after all! Well they do, but everything being relative, you could say they hardly have any. Our sanguine dietitian pointed out that you’d have to eat five whole packs of crisps to get the salt equivalent of a mere six slices of white bread. Comparing one junk food item with another does not a clear picture paint. But what truly redeemed our crisps was the revelation that, despite all the salt, they also contain potassium – just like bananas and broccoli! This elevated the previously reprehensible crisp to superfood status.

This disingenuous, reductionist approach is unhelpful and misleading. Isolating single chemicals in a food or drink and finding something good to say about those chemicals does not make the whole food worthy of a healthy diet. You could be forgiven for believing that eating crisps and drinking tea all day was all you needed to do to guarantee a long and healthy life. No matter how tasty or moreish crisps may be, and what lovely nibbles they make at drinks parties and other social gatherings, and how we all have our favourite flavours (cheese & onion), we shouldn’t kid ourselves. Healthy they are not, and you really do not want to be eating them on a regular basis, in my opinion. When carbohydrate foods such as potatoes are fried at high temperatures, chemicals called acrylamides are produced – if it’s oily and crunchy, that’s the acrylamide experience for you. Acrylamide is one of the chemicals that make up cigarette smoke and is believed to be carcinogenic, as it has been found to be associated with ovarian and endometrial cancer. Acrylamide is also an industrial product, used for various purposes such as construction grouting, sewage treatment and paper making. It is also known to cause nerve damage (peripheral neuropathy) to humans exposed in the workplace. Crisps are usually fried in polyunsaturated oil such as sunflower, which is another disaster area in terms of health and one which I previously covered in my post on breakfast bars (Jan 16). Believe me, there are better ways of getting a good intake of potassium.

Britain’s Favourite Supermarket Foods – a great boost for the industry. Bewildering for the rest of us.

Wilson, K., Mucci, L.A., Rosner, B.A. & Willett, W.C. (2010) A prospective study on dietary acrylamide intake and the risk for breast, endometrial and ovarian cancers. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 19:2503

I recently received a greeting card from a friend which read We’re Not So Old That We Need Bran. Never a truer word was said, in jest or otherwise. Bran is what some experts recommend to other people but probably wouldn’t dream of eating themselves.

Could anything look or taste anything less like a real food than bran? It’s dark brown, hard and brittle. It tastes as bad as it looks. It smells of dried cereal, which is partly what it is. I remember being forced to eat bran flakes for breakfast as a small child – for the good of my health – and I’ve not forgotten it either.

Bran is the hard outer layer of a grain, usually wheat but oats or rye may also be used. It is the by-product of the milling process which creates refined grain and is not to be confused with the whole grain. There’s a lot of profit to be had from breaking down a whole food into its constituent parts and selling them off separately.

Wheat bran is coarse, concentrated insoluble fibre which in my view is too harsh for the digestive system. Oat bran is more gentle but the principle is still the same, although as an ingredient it does lend itself well to some recipes. Bran is touted as a ‘health’ food, especially for those with digestive problems. However it has been found to exacerbate the symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome in some cases, and I know from experience with clients that they almost always report feeling better when they stop eating bran, on my suggestion. They are usually also grateful for the opportunity to halt this punitive dietary measure.

So bad does bran taste that brands such as Kellogg’s lace it with sugar, barley malt flavouring, salt and honey, just to make it palatable. Life really is too short for that sort of thing, no matter how old you are.

Mammerle, C.W. & Surawicz, C.M. (2008) Updates on treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. World Journal of Gastroenterology, 14(7):2639-2649.

Have you ever lain awake in bed wondering how it is that all plant life on earth does not burn to a crisp shortly after sunrise? All that vegetation quietly growing in full exposure to the relentless sun directly overhead. But nothing burns.

I covered vitamin D and the effects of sunlight in previous posts but there’s one more sun-related issue I feel compelled to mention, and it relates to the above question. The answer, in a word, is carotenoids. Plants have their own built-in protection mechanism which they kindly bestow on us when we eat them. It is a beautiful example of the unified, circular nature of life, of which we are an integral part.

Carotenoids are plant chemicals which take the form of an orange pigment, so foods which contain them are easily identifiable: sweet potato, carrots, bell peppers, pumpkin, squash, cantaloupe melon, mango and apricots are fine examples. Less identifiable are the carotenoid-rich dark leafy greens whose green pigment predominates: kale, spinach, greens and the like. There are many different types, the best known being beta carotene (carrots), lycopene (tomatoes), alpha carotene (pumpkin and carrots), lutein and zeaxanthin (kale and spinach). Carotenoids protect the plant from damage from UV light and this protection is attributed to their antioxidant properties: they are able to absorb the harmful oxidative chemicals produced during photosynthesis, the process whereby plants make energy from sunlight.

Both animal and human studies have consistently shown that eating carotenoid-rich foods protects against damage from ultraviolet irradiation from the sun. In humans sun damage causes not only burning (known as erythema) but also premature ageing of the skin and cancer. A diet rich in lycopene in particular has been found to significantly lower the risk of burns to the skin.

So carotenoids are effective against burning – what about skin cancer? Well, animal studies have confirmed that carotenoids protect against skin cancer, but as far as humans go we don’t know. Randomised, controlled trials of humans are lacking, not surprisingly.

Animal studies are good enough for me. Clearly we have to exercise common sense when it comes to sun exposure, but we should equally ensure a regular supply of dietary carotenoids, and not just the day before the summer holidays. Studies which have demonstrated the protective effects of carotenoids have also shown that they have to be consumed regularly, in high amounts over weeks and months, not just days. The odd tomato or carrot is not going to cut it. The carotenoids that you eat from fruit and vegetables are distributed around the body, with higher concentrations found in the skin and the eye. Sometimes you can tell when you’ve eaten a lot as they affect skin colour, making it appear more yellow.

It is possible – just possible – that the alarming increase in skin cancer rates in the UK and Ireland is related to the equally alarming low level of fruits and vegetables, and therefore carotenoids, in the average diet. Data from the latest National Diet and Nutrition Survey for adults reveal that in Great Britain just 7% of girls and 22% of boys aged 11 to 18 years, and 33% of women and 37% of men are meeting the five-a-day guidelines for fruit and vegetable consumption. With so little carotenoid consumption we really are at risk, especially the fair-skinned whose defences are already down.

We are regularly exhorted to slather ourselves in sunscreen to protect ourselves from the sun’s rays, but never to eat more carotenoids. These sunscreens contain an unnerving mix of chemicals whose safety is always the subject of doubt and which even within the scientific community remains a matter of opinion.

So get eating your carotenoids now. And here’s an extra tip. Carotenoids are fat soluble so put some butter on those carrots, and extra virgin olive oil on those tomatoes to improve your absorption. Cooked is better than raw, as the cooking process releases the carotenoids from the vegetable, making them more readily available.

Stahl, W. & Sies, H. (2002) Carotenoids and protection against solar UV radiation. Journal of Pharmacological and Biophysical Research, 15(5).

Stahl, W. et al (2000) Carotenoids and carotenoids plus vitamin E protect against ultraviolet light-induced erythema in humans. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 71(3):795-798.

Bates, B., Lennox, A. Swan, G. (eds) 2010 National diet and nutrition survey: headline results for year 1 of the rolling programme (2008/2009). Food Standards Agency.

Sies, H. & Stahl, W. (2004) Nutritional protection against skin damage from sunlight. Annual Review of Nutrition, 24:173-200.

Jensen, J.D., Wing, G.J. & Dellavalle, R.P. (2010) Nutrition and melanoma prevention. Clinics in Dermatology, 28(6):644-649.

When in doubt, shock or trouble, we put the kettle on. Unfortunately, making tea is a tradition in tatters, and I blame the government, the economy, corporate greed, the education system and the housing market.

In the UK we drink in the region of 165 million cups daily. Almost all of those are made from tea bags, which is bad enough, but many people even dispose of that most quintessential accessory, the teapot. I bet today’s youth haven’t even heard of a tea strainer.

A good reason to avoid teabags, other than taste and decency, is that most contain chlorine, whose purpose is to bleach the bag and disinfect it to prevent bacterial decay. In doing so, it leaves a chemical residue. Not all do, but that’s not the point. A bag of dusty tea can never replace the real thing – loose leaf, stored in a tin caddy.

By switching to loose leaf, and therefore properly brewed tea, you are joining a revolution which is taking place all over the world. It is a quiet revolution, and rather, well, slow. The Slow Food movement began in Italy in 1986 as a protest against the opening of a branch of McDonalds at the foot of the Spanish Steps in Rome, and now has over 100,000 members in 150 countries. It is ostensibly concerned with the rejection of a pervasive fast food culture and the promotion of real, sustainable food. But on another level it is much more than that. Slow Food is an ideology which gently subverts the culture of ‘consumerism’ which has reduced us to mere economic units, too busy to stand and stare, or to eat properly, or engage with the process of making a proper cup of tea. Instead, the focus of consumerism is speed and quick fixes. New homes are built with tiny kitchens, the idea being that spatial economy can maximise value. How can we be happy with nowhere to store a teapot?

Some things are best done at a snail’s pace, like eating slowly, chewing each morsel thoroughly and thoughtfully. Similarly, we need to adopt a Zen-like approach to tea making. The pleasure is not only in the drinking but in the preparation. The Japanese art of tea-making exemplifies this philosophy; each step is a choreographed ritual culminating in the most simple of pleasures, performed with reverence for the tea, the giver and the receiver.

So, how to make a decent brew? I’m not keen on builder’s but like a nice pot of green or herbal tea. When I say herbal, I don’t mean those pleasant-smelling but foul-tasting fruit teas. No, I mean loose leaf nettle, perhaps mixed with dandelion leaf or comfrey; that sort of thing. Mint leaves after dinner also go down very well. It is essential to warm the pot before you add the tea, then cover the pot with a well padded cosy. I let the tea draw for around five minutes, then strain. OK, that’s not entirely worthy of a Japanese ceremony but definitely more Zen than a chlorine-dunked bag of dust.

Following on from my previous sunlight and vitamin D post, here’s a personal anecdote which illustrates the healing power of the sun, and how fiendish food intolerance can be.

A food intolerance is a slippery knave. It can develop any time in your life, seemingly inexplicably but often after years of overdoing a certain food. My dairy intolerance certainly caught me on the hop, but thinking about it, I have always been a cheese addict and I certainly got my just desserts in the end. Just as I was settling cosily into middle age I developed eczema on my legs for the first time.

Now, how I sympathise with anyone with this condition. It’s a fire that burns not so much with pain as maddening itch. It starts with a harmless tingle, but I know what’s coming – a blazing crescendo of angry inflammation. My resolve collapses and I set to scratching for all I’m worth to gain some indescribably blessed relief. Slathering on some cool soothing aloe vera gel really does help, but it is by no means a cure. It takes at least half an hour and intermittent slathering and scratching before the fiery beast tires of tormenting me and makes its retreat.

Eczema is an itchy inflammatory skin disorder – redness, dry patches, blisters and lesions are all symptomatic. There are various types, and it is much more common in children than in adults.The medical view is that the cause is unknown, but may be due to genetic and/or environmental factors and treatment usually involves steroid creams and emollients. I find it breathtakingly irresponsible that the role of food sensitivity, although occasionally mentioned, is generally downplayed.

In my book I Wish I Hadn’t Eaten That, I describe the process of identifying a food intolerance without the use of expensive testing, which basically involves eliminating a suspect food for several days and then reintroducing it in a large amount in one sitting. That is what I did myself, and sure enough I found that a cheese fest would bring on an attack of the beast, but not immediately. A delay of a few hours is normal. I did a bit more experimenting and discovered that I really do have a classic intolerance – if I eat dairy foods no more than once every four days I can avoid all symptoms completely, but if I cross that line I will pay for it. This means that I count the days till I can have my next fix, really enjoy it and then start on the next period of abstinence.

Now, here’s the thing. I don’t have this problem at all in the summer. Off come the layers and out I head, bare-legged, to get as much sun exposure as I can. It’s glorious – almost immediately I can eat cheese with impunity and stop counting days. Not that I overdo it – an intolerance is still an intolerance and I don’t want to drive symptoms inwards, but I can relax in the knowledge that if I do occasionally overdo it I won’t be punished. Come late September early October, the first itch appears, like the first frost. Every year it’s exactly the same, and I go back to counting days and planning my next cheese fix.

It is already established from research that sun exposure can alleviate eczema, though you’d hardly know it from medical or charity websites. Phototherapy – the use of sun lamps using UV rays can also be effective, under the supervision of a specialist dermatologist.

Now I’m not saying that anyone with eczema is going to have the same experience. Not at all – in each individual case it is important to establish the cause. But experimenting with possible food intolerances seems a reasonable approach, when the alternative is a lifetime on steroids.

Letić, M. (2009) Exposure to sunlight as adjuvant therapy for dyshidrotic eczema. Medical Hypotheses, (73)(2):203-204.

Potter, P. (2011) A therapeutic approach to atopic eczema. SA Pharmaceutical Journal, (78)(5):40-44.

After living with vitamin D deficiency for the past 50,000 years we’ve finally woken up to how serious the problem is – the BBC has started reporting the issue. Unless you’ve been living in a hermetically sealed envelope the last few weeks, you’ll be aware that vitamin D is the nutrient du jour. Cases of childhood rickets – a sign of severe deficiency – have rocketed over the last 15 years with one in four toddlers thought to be at risk.

The problem can be traced back to the Garden of Eden, and our leaving thereof. That’ll teach us to go seeking knowledge. Humans originated in equatorial Africa, where we all went about naked as newborns, enjoying year-round warm sunshine and vitamin D on tap. We also all had black skins that offered protection from the blazing sun and the radiation which would otherwise have killed us. Then, for whatever reason, we took it upon ourselves to move out of this earthly paradise, a transition which necessitated the donning of more than just a strategically positioned fig-leaf. Moving further north meant wearing clothes and following fashion. Think about it – no other animal on this planet has to build shelters, insulate and heat those shelters and still wear multiple layers of clothing just to stay alive, which shows how poorly suited we are to our current environment. It also explains why we have a primeval love of warm weather and stripping off whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Moving north towards Europe meant that we gradually lost more and more protective skin pigmentation, as having paler skins made it easier to absorb rays to make vitamin D. However, layers of clothing also means that the sun never reaches those parts once so blissfully exposed. Most of the world’s population today lives in the northern hemisphere, and the further you are from the equator, the less vitamin D you make. And from October to April you can expect to make none at all. The darker your skin, the worse off you are: black people only synthesise about one-sixth of the vitamin D that white people synthesise on exposure to sunlight.

Your only other hope – and it’s a very important one, whatever your skin pigmentation – is diet. This vitamin (which is actually really a hormone) is only available naturally in some animal-derived foods, especially oily fish (the food which keeps on giving), and eggs. Those hardy folk who live close to the Arctic would have died out long ago were it not for all the seal blubber and oily fish they consume.

Not only is vitamin D deficiency linked to rickets and other bone disorders, but also sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), TB, heart disease, multiple sclerosis and a variety of cancers: breast, prostate, colon, pancreatic, ovarian and Hodgkin lymphoma. Therefore anything that blocks your ability to make vitamin D is potentially harmful.

Sunlight has two ultraviolet rays: UVA and UVB. UVB is the one needed to make vitamin D but can also cause your skin to burn. UVA is more damaging as it can penetrate the outer skin and reach the cells that can become cancerous.Sunscreen protects against burning, but when it comes to preventing skin cancer, that’s quite another matter. There are three main types of skin cancer associated with excessive sun exposure – cutaneous melanoma (the most lethal), basal cell carcinoma (the most common form) and squamous cell carcinoma. And the truth is, there is no evidence that they (sunscreens) protect against basal cell carcinoma or melanoma …. sunscreen companies have emotionally and inaccurately promoted the use of sunscreens. (not my words, before you sue. See Berwick below) They might not prevent cancer, but sunscreens block the formation of vitamin D. According to the World Health Organization, malignant melanoma from sun exposure is relatively rare, compared to the number of diseases caused by lack of exposure. That’s quite a statement, when you think about it. I’ve not even got on to the chemicals in sunscreen – I’ll save that for a sunny day.

Mead, M.N. (2008) Benefits of sunlight: A bright spot for human health. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116(4):A160-167.

Lucas, R., McMichael, T., Smith, W. and Armstrong, B. (2006) Solar ultraviolet radiation: global burden of disease due to ultraviolet radiation. Environmental Burden of Disease Series, No. 13. World Health Organization (2006)

Berwick, M. (2011) The good, the bad, and the ugly of sunscreens. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 89(1):31-33.